Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In axiological argumentation that refers to issues concerning matters of ethics, politics, or aesthetics, a warrant is derived from a general axiological base, which consists of propositions that are accepted by a particular social group. Such a warrant is supported by ideology, understood as a relatively well organised set of evaluative propositions (justified within frames of the given system). In axiological argumentation beliefs are represented by cultural objects that serve as the arguments. Cultural objects are universals, which have a culturally developed interpretation. Without proper recognition of the interpretant, the correct reading of the sign and its appraisal is impossible. The main purpose of this article is to show how ideological objects constitute the base of the discourse. In analysis of chosen texts I will demonstrate, how at every stage of argumentation arguers exploit the topic and interactive potential of argumentation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aquinas St., Thomas
    1947Summa Theologica. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province . Available online at: sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Awdiejew, Aleksy
    2008 “Argumentacja aksjologiczna w komunikacji publicznej [Axiological argumentation in public communication]”. InRozmowy o komunikacji 2. Motywacjapsychologiczna i kulturowa w komunikacji, ed. by G. Habrajska , pp.129–139. Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza Leksem.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedict, Ruth
    1934 “Antropology and the Abnormal.”, The Journal of General Psychology10: 59–82. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1934.9917714
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1934.9917714 [Google Scholar]
  4. Catechism of the Catholic Church
    2003 “Libreria Editrice Vaticana.” Available online at: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
  5. Diamond, James J
    1975 “Abortion, Animation, and Biological Hominization.” Theological Studies36: 305–342. doi: 10.1177/004056397503600205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/004056397503600205 [Google Scholar]
  6. Diduszko-Zyglewska, Agata
    2014 “Diduszko: Deklaracja fanatyzmu [Diduszko: Declaration of fanaticism]”. Krytyka polityczna. Available online at: www.krytykapolityczna.pl/artykuly/opinie/20140528/diduszko-deklaracja-fanatyzmu
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dueholm, Natalia
    2013 “Kara śmierci za zespół Downa [Death penalty for Down’s syndrome]”, Fronda, Available online at: www.fronda.pl/a/kara-smierci-za-zespol-downa,30851.html
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eemeren, van Frans H. , and Peter Houtlosser
    1999 “ Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse .” Discourse Studies1.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2002 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.” InAdvances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , et al. , 13–28. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Encyclopedia of Bioethics 2004, 3rd ed., ed. by Stephen G. Post . New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fleischer, Michael
    2002Konstrukcja rzeczywistości [Construction of reality]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2007Ogólna teoria komunikacji [General theory of communication]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Freeman, James B
    2005 “Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: an epistemic approach”, Argumentation19: 331–346. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑005‑4420‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4420-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaudium et Spes Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI 1965 Available online at: www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Genovesi, Vincent J
    1996In Pursuit of Love. Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Available online at: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lazari-Pawłowska, Ija
    1984 “Relatywizm etyczny [Ethical relativism]”. Etyka21: 7–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz
    2008 Do Embryos Have Souls? Philadelphia: The National Catholic Bioethics Center. Available online at: www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=305
  19. Pinker, Steven
    2008 “The Stupidity of Dignity.” The New Republic. Published: May 28. Available online at: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/The%20Stupidity%20of%20Dignity.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sadowska, Ludwika
    2008 “Piękno życia człowieka przed urodzeniem [Beauty of human life before birth].” paper from conference: Modlitwa za rodziny i w intencji obrony życia człowieka . Kalisz. Dec. 6, 2007. Available online at: www.dsz.archidiecezja.wroc.pl/pdf/modlitwa_zycia_czlowieka_przed_urodzeniem.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Toulmin, Stephen E
    2003The Uses of Argument, Updated ed., University of Southern California, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Walton, Douglas N
    1999One-sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zarefsky, David
    2009 “What Does an Argument Culture Look Like?” Informal Logic29 (3): 296–308.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): axiological argumentation; collective symbols; cultural objects; ideology; IVF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error