This work deals with argumentation in philosophy. In the “affirmative” view of argumentation, each party thinks it is right while all other positions are wrong; argumentation is seen as guided by a set of rules that should lead to the resolution of the dispute in favor of one party. This book advances a critique of such an approach, proposing instead a negative one, the central idea of which is that each party organizes the elements of the problem concerning the definition of terms, the assumptions to be accepted, and the types of logical resources being used. The negative approach attempts to modify the ethics of philosophical discussions, moving towards pluralism, a diversity of perspectives, and the capacity to adopt a panoramic view where one’s own posture appears only as one among others. Argumentation is a ubiquitous matter; professionals of all areas will have to argue to support their positions, in diplomacy, medicine or religion and in everyday life. In any of these contexts, the distinction between an affirmative and a negative approach to argumentation matters. The book will particularly appeal to graduate and postgraduate students in philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and communication, as well as the general reader interested in philosophy.

Advocacy and Opposition offers a comprehensive and practical approach to argumentation and critical thinking. This book provides a theoretical view of the nature of argument in our society, a discussion of arguing as a form of communication, and a focus on how arguments are created using the Toulmin model of argument.

This book explores the connections between the current situation of human beings in the world and ethics, connecting suffering with morality. The human condition can be described as marked by sensible suffering and moral difficulty. As such, this text discusses the rapports between this sensible and moral discomfort and the two moral requirements of not manipulating and not harming. The issue of procreation also arises within this context, specifically with regards to the conditions for responsible procreation and the moral quality of abstention.

Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well offers an engaging and accessible introduction to argumentation and critical thinking. With a pro-social focus, the volume encourages readers to value civility when engaged in arguing and reasoning. Authors Gass and Seiter, renowned for their friendly writing style, include real-world examples, hypothetical dialogues, and editorial cartoons to invite readers in. The text includes a full chapter devoted to the ethics of argument, as well as content on refutation and formal logic. It is designed for students in argumentation and critical thinking courses in communication, philosophy, and psychology departments, and is suitable for students and general education courses across the curriculum.

Negative actions, like intentional omissions or refrainments, seem to be genuine actions. The standard metaphysical theories of action are event-based: they treat actions as events of a special kind. However, it seems that many (and perhaps all) negative actions are not events, but absences thereof. This is the first book-length treatment of the problem of negative action. It surveys the recent literature, and shows how the problem is rooted in interconnected issues in metaphysics, the philosophy of action, and the philosophy of language. In particular, it connects competing views of the ontology of negative actions to competing views of the semantics of 'negative action sentences', and develops unique ontological and semantic theories to solve the problem. It provides a comprehensive picture of the nature of negative actions, our thought and talk about them, and their place in a theory of action.

This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion.