Influential rhetoric never rely solely on rationality. Without provoking (shocking, disturbing, annoying, surprising), argumentation will hardly find a resonance on the part of listeners or readers. Debates regarding animal advocacy seem to be particularly open to provocative strategies. Animal activists are often seen as ‘agents provocateurs’, since they try to trigger reactions on the part of opponents or supporters. This applies to public debates (e.g. on meat consumption), as well as academic discourses (e.g. on animal ethics).
M. HUTH: As an emotionally charged field of argumentation, the debates regarding animals seem to be particularly open to provocative strategies. This applies to public debates e.g. on meat consumption; involved persons frequently even regard activism in the field existential issue. But it also applies to the academic discourse on animal ethics, not the least because leading philosophers – from the beginning of the consolidation of the discipline on – consider themselves as activists too, such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer…
This can be illustrated with moral individualists that build the mainstream in animal ethics, represented e.g. by Peter Singer, whose theory has been debated controversially, but also by Tom Regan or Jeff McMahan. We are not going to tackle the question how one should evaluate this issue, however, we seek to understand why they are often seen as ‘agents provocateurs’ and how they try to trigger reactions on the part of his readers, opponents or supporters. But also relationalists such as Cora Diamond or Alice Crary use provocative statements as vehicle of explanation, e.g. when complaining about the self-proclaimed ‘moral radicals’ among the individualists (Crary) and their ‘nagging moralistic tone’ (Diamond).
Through our analysis, we aim to point out the function of provocation and of stirring emotions drawing from resources in philosophical analyses of rhetoric and argumentation theory from Aristotle to current debates. In conclusion, we raise the question if there should be an ethics of ethical debates that is sensitive for the benefits and the offensiveness of provocation…
Philosophers usually insist that their theories consist only of rational argumentation and that they would particularly not use methods that (should) stir up emotions or try to influence listeners on a non-rational level . However, we want to argue that provocation is pervasive in ethical argumentation because this is a sine qua non to uncover pitfalls of the lived morality – and, to put it a bit provocatively, in order to attract attention as a sine qua non for being invited to give talks and to publish papers.
In academic discourses, Berkeley’s assertion that ‘esse est percipi’, that existence means being perceived or recognized, is particularly significant. Basically, our analysis draws from Aristotle’s influential theory of rhetoric, in which he suggests that statements never rely solely on rationality (the logos), but also on the character (and the appearance) of the speaker (the ethos) and not the least on affecting the audience (the pathos). Without provoking (which also means shocking, disturbing, annoying, surprising), argumentation will hardly find a resonance on the part of readers or listeners…
there is a provocative strategy in ethics, particularly in animal ethics, which can be made visible in referring to some of the most received texts in the discourse… We want to contend that provocation is an inevitable part of theories that are meant to be more than a mere reproduction of already established position and opinions. Rollin rightly stresses the significance of the violation of common sense.
Moreover, academic and public discourses might be reliant on more than cascades of syllogisms and deductions, but also on ‘putting the audience into a certain frame of mind’, not the least through provocation. But this begs the question whether there are ethical limits of this strategy, for instance, if the defence of animals shifts into ableism or if philosophers, or opinions, are being ridiculed or assessed in a manner that does not justice to their arguments. While we want to highlight that provocation might be indispensable for discourse, we want to contend that an ethics of ethical argumentation would be definitely worth considering. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: