Editing Practical reason (section)

== In argumentation ==

Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action. The agent can be a person or a technical device, such as a robot or  a software device for multi-agent communications. It is a type of reasoning used all the time in everyday life and all kinds of technology where autonomous reasoning is required. [[Argumentation theory|Argumentation theorist]]s have identified two kinds of practical reasoning: ''[[Instrumental and value rationality|instrumental practical reasoning]]'' that does not explicitly take values into account,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas |authorlink1=Douglas N. Walton |last2=Reed|first2=Chris|last3=Macagno|first3=Fabrizio|title=Argumentation Schemes|date=2008|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|location=New York|pages=94–95}}</ref> and ''[[Instrumental and value rationality|value-based practical reasoning]]''.<ref name="Atkinson2005">{{cite journal|last1=Atkinson|first1=Katie|last2=Bench-Capon|first2=Trevor|last3=McBurney|first3=Peter|title=A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action|journal=[[Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems]]|date=2005|volume=11|issue=2|pages=153–71|doi=10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x|citeseerx=10.1.1.130.8439|s2cid=1824624}}</ref> The following [[argumentation scheme]] for instrumental practical reasoning is given in {{harvtxt|Walton|Reed|Macagno|2008}}. The pronoun ''I'' represents an autonomous agent.

===Argumentation scheme for instrumental practical reasoning===
{|
|-
| MAJOR PREMISE:|| I have a goal G.
|-
| MINOR PREMISE:|| Carrying out this action A is a means to realize G.
|-
| CONCLUSION:|| Therefore, I ought (practically speaking) to carry out this action A.
|}

'''Critical questions'''

:CQ1: What other goals do I have that should be considered that might conflict with G?
:CQ2: What alternative actions to my bringing about A that would also bring about G should be considered?
:CQ3: Among bringing about A and these alternative actions, which is arguably the most efficient?
:CQ4: What grounds are there for arguing that it is practically possible for me to bring about A?
:CQ5: What consequences of my bringing about A should also be taken into account?

It can be seen from CQ5  that argumentation from consequences is closely related to the scheme for practical reasoning.
It has often been disputed in philosophy whether practical reasoning is purely instrumental or whether it needs to be based on values. Argument from values is combined with practical reasoning in the type of argumentation called value-based practical reasoning.<ref name="Atkinson2005"/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Atkinson|first1=Katie|last2=Bench-Capon|first2=Trevor|last3=McBurney|first3=Peter|title=Computational Representation of Practical Argument|journal=[[Synthese]]|date=2006|volume=152|issue=2|pages=157–206|doi=10.1007/s11229-005-3488-2|citeseerx=10.1.1.127.8521|s2cid=5710585}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Macagno|first1=Fabrizio|last2=Walton|first2=Douglas |authorlink2=Douglas N. Walton |title=Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements|journal=Informal Logic|date=2008|volume=28|issue=3|pages=203–28|url=http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewArticle/594|doi=10.22329/il.v28i3.594|doi-access=free}}</ref> The following [[argumentation scheme]] for value-based practical reasoning is given in {{harvtxt|Atkinson|Bench-Capon|McBurney|2005|pp=2–3}}.

===Argumentation scheme for value-based practical reasoning===

:In the current circumstances R
:we should perform action A
:to achieve New Circumstances S
:which will realize some goal G
:which will promote some value V.

Practical reasoning is used in arguments, but also in explanations used to draw conclusions about an agent's goals, motives or intentions, based on reports of what the agent said or did.

Practical reasoning is centrally important in artificial intelligence, and also vitally important in many other fields such as law, medicine and engineering. It has been known as a distinctive type of argumentation as far back as Aristotle.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}}