Perelman's Universal Audience as Critical Tool

Abstract

One of Chaim Perelman's controversial suggestions was that only philosophical argumentation and rhetoric addressing ethical questions can meet “universal” standards. Arguing that all rhetoric has an ethical dimension, this essay analyzes legal arguments using criteria for “universal” argumentation distilled from Perelman's writing. The analysis suggests that practical success can result from universal argumentation and that specificity of the law, precedent, and the legal status of conflicting values affect arguers' preferences for universal or particular audiences. It also suggests that as a critical tool the universal audience may be most useful in illuminating speakers' apparent perceptions of humanity, the time dimension of rhetoric, and the implications of language use.