Rhetoric of the lawyer and philosophical conversation

• Author: Guy Haarscher
• Pages: 446-452

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 11 SEPTEMBER 2016 NO. 3

DOI 10.3868/s050-005-016-0026-7

FOCUS TWO

ROLE OF RHETORIC IN RULE OF LAW

RHETORIC OF THE LAWYER AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION

Guy Haarscher*

Abstract The article focuses on the difference between strategic rhetoric and

philosophical conversation. It first tries to distinguish between sophistical manipulation

and valid strategic argumentation. In order to do that, the author tries to give a new

meaning to the old Aristotelian tripartition between logos, ethos, and pathos. Then, he

uses Chaim Perelman’s theory of argumentation to show that the standard of rationality

in practical reasoning is a specific one. After having clarified the very concept of

strategic argumentation, the author distinguishes it from the notion of philosophical

conversation. He tries to show that if the latter is completely replaced by the former, the

danger exists that victimization and morals “a la carte” will generate a defeat of critical

thought.

Keywords rhetoric, strategic rationality, reasonableness, philosophical dialogue, ethics

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 446

I. MAKING THE WEAKER CAUSE APPEAR STRONGER: PERSUADING OR CONVINCING AN

AUDIENCE?.............................................................................................................. 447

II. LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHO S: STATEMENT AND ENUNCIATION ..................................... 447

III. STRATEGIC RHETORIC AND THE NOTION OF THE “REASONABLE”........................ 449

IV. PHILOSOPHICA L CONVERSATION........................................................................... 450

V. THE RHETORIC OF VICTIMIZATION ......................................................................... 451

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 452

INTRODUCTION

What would a lawyer do, whose duty is to present his client’s case in the best light

possible, if he had in mind an argument that would strengthen the position of his

opponent? Normally he would keep quiet: It is not for him to use that argument because

* Guy Haarscher, Ph.D in Law and Philosophy, Free University of Brussels; Emeritus Professor, Free

University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium; Professor, College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium; former Adjunct

Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law, Durham, US; former Recurrent Visiting Professor, Central

European University, Budapest, Hungary. Contact: guy.haarscher@ulb.ac.be