Journal article
Moral Argument in the Public Sphere: The Case of Bosnia
The review of communication, v 14(3-4), pp 229-244
02 Oct 2014
Abstract
This paper uses a formal content analysis to decide what moral argument looks like in political debate. Does it involve more the abstract arguments and general principles of the philosophers or the devices of the rhetoricians, like ideographs, casuistry, and moral vocabulary? To test this question, we examine the U.S. debate over intervention in Bosnia between 1991 and 1995 as it showed up in the opinion pages of The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and The Washington Post.
A major, unexpected finding of the research is support for Appiah's (2010) argument against the New Intuitionists in psychology that outside the laboratory, the major moral work to be done is framing.
Metrics
10 Record Views
1 citations in Scopus
Details
- Title
- Moral Argument in the Public Sphere: The Case of Bosnia
- Creators
- James MalazitaAlexander NikolaevDouglas Porpora
- Publication Details
- The review of communication, v 14(3-4), pp 229-244
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Communication
- Scopus ID
- 2-s2.0-84938491629
- Other Identifier
- 991019173987804721