Title

No Place for Compromise: Resisting the Shift to Negotiation

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

12-1-2020

Abstract

In a series of recent papers beginning with their “Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation” (Argumentation 32:329–350, 2018a) Jan Albert van Laar and Erik Krabbe claim that it is sometimes reasonable (i.e., rationally permissible) to shift from a critical discussion to a negotiation in order to settle a difference of opinion. They argue that their proposal avoids the fallacies of bargaining (substituting offers for arguments) and middle ground (mistaking a compromise for a resolution). Against this permissive policy for shifting to negotiation, we argue that the motivating reasons for such shifts typically fail, and that the permissive policy avoids neither fallacy while structurally incentivizing two types of strategic maneuvering that constitute rational and argumentative hazards: argumentative overcharge and abandonment of discussion.

DOI

10.1007/s10503-020-09517-z

Publication Title

Argumentation

Volume Number

34

Issue Number

4

First Page

499

Last Page

535

ISSN

0920427X

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS