The phrase "argument of rationality" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions related to logic, philosophy, or debates where reasoning and rational thought are being analyzed or defended.
Example: "In his essay, he presented a compelling argument of rationality, emphasizing the importance of logical reasoning in ethical decision-making."
Alternatives: "case for rationality" or "rationale of reason".
One may question whether the appropriate or intended sense of 'rational' is invoked in these cases in which it seems right to say that rational beliefs can come apart from betting quotients, but such objections just highlight the lack of clarity in most presentations of the argument over what sort of rationality is supposed to be at stake.
Moreover, much of what we see Kant doing in the first two sections of the Groundwork is leading us from compelling assumptions about value and moral obligation, through arguments about the nature of rationality and the commitments inextricably linked to our rational nature, and to formulations of the categorical imperative.
It comes from collecting together a series of accuracy arguments for other principles of rationality that we take to govern our credences.
The standard ground of contention is that common knowledge of rationality used in this argument seems self-defeating, at least intuitively.
Sign up now Theirt the best of VICE Cargumentsivered straight to your inbox.
(For further discussion of rationality and the argument for Anomalous Monism see Yalowitz 1997 and Latham 1999).
To advance this argument, the paper suggests that the forms of rationality associated with cosmetic surgery constitute a contemporary regimen of 'care of the self' which enable ethical agency and creative self-stylisation.
However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical uses of arguments by resource-bounded agents.
Let us grant Pascal's conclusion for the sake of the argument: rationality requires you to wager for God.
The paradigm example of such a view is found in Johnson 2000, who argues that a comprehensive account of argument must be built upon a philosophical account of rationality.
