Academic skills aantekeningen
Lecture 4: argumentation and rationality
Instrumental rationality:
- Refers to efficiency, cost saving or effectiveness.
- Cause based or means-end argumentation. You set your goal and then look at the resources
you will use.
- Tells us little about the real goals or what is important for you.
Social rationality:
- Refers to fairness, rightfulness, social tradition, law, etc.
- Value and norm-based argumentation, classification:
- We try to apply these norms to things we would like to do; we show that we would like to do
is rightful, fair and this helps us to legitimize, motivate that we are doing this.
Expressive rationality:
- Refers to subjective likings, personal interests, motives
- Motivational arguments
- It refers most to what you like, to your motives, interests.
3 debates from chapter 3-5, on the rationality of:
- City of Rotterdam deciding for a public artwork
- UK government deciding to extend Gurkha pension rights
- Private organizations deciding for flexible work environments.
Argumentation analysis can help to explore these reasons, and our rationality.
Chapter 3: city of Rotterdam deciding for a public artwork
Mayor, Aldermen, Advisors
(expressive reasons):
- Wanted a public artwork
for Rotterdam Cultural
Capital 2001.
- That would attract
attention
- That was state of the art
- McCarthy’s proposal was
best fit.
- Initially in color, but that
seemed too provocative.
McCarthy warned (social
rationality objection):
Can your city handle this? Yes this is Holland.
, Irrationalities addressed by:
Local and Christian parties (social and expressive objections):
- This work is obscene
- Is not suitable for public space
- Cannot be shown to our children
- Is not worth the money, it is awful
- If that is a Christmas tree, it needs to be green. Why make it abstract so you can interpret
it in different ways.
Art critics (expressive):
- This work is too elitist. It was not fitting for a public space.
Due tot the normative resistance the work was exposed in museum Boijmans van Beuningen (SR
rebuttal on ER). Now it is one of the most loved sculptures in Rotterdam, attracting many tourists (ER
rebuttal on SR objections).
Irrationalities:
- Con: intolerable desire to expose, unfeasible and distasteful desires (extreme resistance):
SR +IR + ER rebuttals or ER.
- Pro: upsetting norms: soft porno on billboards for breast augmentation is acceptable but
a sex toy is not. ER rebuttal of SR critique.
Chapter 4: Gurkha pension rights
Government/ MoD (social and instrumental arguments pro):
- Pension and settlement rights extension follows up on high court ruling 2008.
- New policy is more generous than agreed on in employment contracts.
- New policy now also applies to pre-1997 veterans with a 20 years contract:
no cost explosion, sufficient feasibility.
No legal issues with Nepal (taking citizens away).
Gurkha’s, Lumley, public opinion (mainly SR rebuttals):
- All veterans deserve equal rights
- Unfair for soldiers with 15 years contract, they had to have 20 years contract to be
allowed to stay in the UK.
- Gurkha’s have been loyal, deserve fair treatment.
- Gurkhas are no average immigrants.
- Costs are still manageable, much less than for bail out banks.
Conclusions:
In general investment rationality was flawed. Rights extension was half-hearted.
Irrationalities Government/MoD:
- Immoral new rights (SR evaluation of SR): soldier veterans were excluded. They only
served 15 years, so hardly any soldier can settle in the UK.
Lecture 4: argumentation and rationality
Instrumental rationality:
- Refers to efficiency, cost saving or effectiveness.
- Cause based or means-end argumentation. You set your goal and then look at the resources
you will use.
- Tells us little about the real goals or what is important for you.
Social rationality:
- Refers to fairness, rightfulness, social tradition, law, etc.
- Value and norm-based argumentation, classification:
- We try to apply these norms to things we would like to do; we show that we would like to do
is rightful, fair and this helps us to legitimize, motivate that we are doing this.
Expressive rationality:
- Refers to subjective likings, personal interests, motives
- Motivational arguments
- It refers most to what you like, to your motives, interests.
3 debates from chapter 3-5, on the rationality of:
- City of Rotterdam deciding for a public artwork
- UK government deciding to extend Gurkha pension rights
- Private organizations deciding for flexible work environments.
Argumentation analysis can help to explore these reasons, and our rationality.
Chapter 3: city of Rotterdam deciding for a public artwork
Mayor, Aldermen, Advisors
(expressive reasons):
- Wanted a public artwork
for Rotterdam Cultural
Capital 2001.
- That would attract
attention
- That was state of the art
- McCarthy’s proposal was
best fit.
- Initially in color, but that
seemed too provocative.
McCarthy warned (social
rationality objection):
Can your city handle this? Yes this is Holland.
, Irrationalities addressed by:
Local and Christian parties (social and expressive objections):
- This work is obscene
- Is not suitable for public space
- Cannot be shown to our children
- Is not worth the money, it is awful
- If that is a Christmas tree, it needs to be green. Why make it abstract so you can interpret
it in different ways.
Art critics (expressive):
- This work is too elitist. It was not fitting for a public space.
Due tot the normative resistance the work was exposed in museum Boijmans van Beuningen (SR
rebuttal on ER). Now it is one of the most loved sculptures in Rotterdam, attracting many tourists (ER
rebuttal on SR objections).
Irrationalities:
- Con: intolerable desire to expose, unfeasible and distasteful desires (extreme resistance):
SR +IR + ER rebuttals or ER.
- Pro: upsetting norms: soft porno on billboards for breast augmentation is acceptable but
a sex toy is not. ER rebuttal of SR critique.
Chapter 4: Gurkha pension rights
Government/ MoD (social and instrumental arguments pro):
- Pension and settlement rights extension follows up on high court ruling 2008.
- New policy is more generous than agreed on in employment contracts.
- New policy now also applies to pre-1997 veterans with a 20 years contract:
no cost explosion, sufficient feasibility.
No legal issues with Nepal (taking citizens away).
Gurkha’s, Lumley, public opinion (mainly SR rebuttals):
- All veterans deserve equal rights
- Unfair for soldiers with 15 years contract, they had to have 20 years contract to be
allowed to stay in the UK.
- Gurkha’s have been loyal, deserve fair treatment.
- Gurkhas are no average immigrants.
- Costs are still manageable, much less than for bail out banks.
Conclusions:
In general investment rationality was flawed. Rights extension was half-hearted.
Irrationalities Government/MoD:
- Immoral new rights (SR evaluation of SR): soldier veterans were excluded. They only
served 15 years, so hardly any soldier can settle in the UK.
