Toulmin

The reading on Toulmin mainly dealt with how Toulmin thinks analytic arguments, at one extreme, and arguments based in relativism, being the other extreme, should be brought together with the practical argument. He applies this type of argument to the area of ethics. He comes up with a “good reasons approach” to replace the objective, subjective, and imperative approaches that have dominated ethical questions. Ethical concerns are not black and white, therefore, they cannot be objectively considered. Subjective and imperative approaches are too biased and cannot logically explain the reasons for something being right or wrong. Ethics should be considered by using the practical argument, analyzing each situation based on its own context. Toulmin stresses that arguments in different areas differ from one another and cannot logically be resolved using absolutist thinking.

Toulmin does describe one way that arguments are all similar though. This is that they can all be analyzed according to his layout of argument (131). An argument, he says, has six parts. The claim, grounds, and warrant all make up the basic elements of an argument. These parts make up an analytic argument. What sets a practical argument apart from the analytic argument are the remaining three parts, the backing, modal qualifier, and rebuttal. These elements take the absolutism out of the argument and consider the circumstances of the specific argument.

Toulmin also talks about bringing back casuistry. Casuistry involves comparing certain type cases to the situation at present and determining what the situations have in common and seeing what differences or problems exist between the two. Toulmin proposes a model to explain casuistry that is similar to the previous model, but backing is taken out and modality is incorporated into the claim. This type of argument applies better to modern times of considering ethical dilemmas than an analytic argument would.

Toulmin’s overall argument seems obvious to me. I think arguments should be resolved, depending on their specific situations and rebuttals need to be considered. I was questioning whether or not to include set limitations in my speech on taser guns, wondering if presenting a rebuttal would weaken the argument. According to Toulmin, these special circumstances need to be considered in the presentation of an argument, therefore, I do not think my argument will be weakened by mentioning limitations.