Abstract

This dissertation has two objectives: First, it examines the writings of John Stuart Mill in an effort to identify the major features of his theory of practical argument and political advocacy; second, it assesses the significance of Mill's theory in the history of rhetoric. ;The keystone in Mill's theory is his distinction between scientific argument and practical argument. The major differences between these types of argument are: Scientific argument is concerned with ascertaining what is. But practical argument is concerned with ascertaining what ought to be. The starting point of scientific argument is with the data of consciousness and with spontaneous inductions. However, the starting point of practical argument is with desires, aversions and habits of behavior. The means of acquiring scientific knowledge is through inductive inference. Practical argument, however, follows the pattern of syllogistic reasoning. Scientific argument is justified if its conclusion is a law of nature or is derived from laws of nature. But the conclusion of a practical argument is a rule of conduct or imperative; rules can be neither laws of nature nor can they be derived from laws of nature because the is can never imply the ought. So, to test the legitimacy of practical arguments, Mill developed what he called "The Art of Life" and the "Principles of Practical Reason." These principles--the Right, the Expedient, and the Beautiful or Noble--identify lines of argument by which to determine whether objects of desire are worthy of desire. ;Implicit in Mill's description of practical argument are procedural rules that ought to guide political advocates. In particular, Mill emphasized such notions as presumption, burden of proof, and rational assurance. ;In addition to tracing the conceptual framework of Mill's theory of argument and advocacy, this study also examines the relevance of Mill's ideas to the history of rhetoric. I advance two theses: First, Mill's ideas about argument and advocacy were framed as a response to what he saw as serious flaws in theories underlying eighteenth-century rhetorics. Second, in attempting to correct the weaknesses of Enlightenment rhetorics, Mill revived several ideas from classical rhetorical theory.