Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 4:3 (2015) ► pp.243285
Albert, Hans
1968Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. English Edition 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arras, John D
1991, “Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 161: 29–51 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M
1929Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo. Leningrad: Priboĭ. Second Edition 1963. Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. Moskva: Sovetskiĭ pisatel. English Edition 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L
2003 “The Nature of Applied Ethics”. In A Companion to Applied Ethics, ed. by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman, 1–16. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bohman, James, and William Rehg
2007 “Jürgen Habermas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = [URL].Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond
1995Le Juste et le Vrai. Études sur l’Objectivité des Valeurs et de la Connaissance. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Chambers, Ted
1999The Fiction of Bioethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clouser, K. Danner
1993 “Bioethics and Philosophy”. Hasting Center Report 23 (6): S10–S11.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003aA Systematic Theory Of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b “A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion.” Argumentation 171: 365–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, James B
1991Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments; A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin/New York: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Jacob Friedrich
1807Neue Oder Anthropologische Kritik der Vernunft (2nd edition). 1828–1831. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Michael A
1997 Coalescent Argumentation, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guevara, Daniel
2008 “Rebutting Formally Valid Counterexamples to the Humean “Is-Ought” Dictum”. Synthese 1641: 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen
1981Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. I, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
1983Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990Die nachholende Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar
1991aErläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar
1991b “Einen unbedingten Sinn zu retten ohne Gott, ist eitel: Reflexionen über einen Satz von Max Horkheimer.” In Kritischer Materialismus, ed. by M. Lutz-Bachmann and G. Schmid Noerr. München: Karl Hanser. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar
1992Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechtes und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1993Justification and Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hare, H.R
1952The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G
1962 “Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science III, ed. by Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim
1948 “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 151: 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Scott
2009 “Good News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.” Argumentation 231: 277–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horgan, Terence, and Mark Timmons
1991 “New Wave Moral Realism Meets Moral Twin Earth.” Journal of Philosophical Research 161: 447–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992a “Troubles on Moral Twin Earth: Moral Queerness Revived.” Synthese 921: 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992b “Troubles for New Wave Moral Semantics: The Open Question Argument Revived.” Philosophical Papers 211: 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin
1988The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard
2009 “Moral Anti-Realism”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = [URL].Google Scholar
Karmo, Toomas
1988 “Some Valid (but not Sound) Arguments Trivially Span the “Is”-“Ought” Gap”. Mind 971: 252–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J.L
1977Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marks, Joel
1988 “When Is a Fallacy not a Fallacy?Metaphilosophy 191: 307–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, G.E
1903Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Mark T
1995 “Is It Always Fallacious to Derive Values from Facts?Argumentation 91: 553–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments?Argumentation 171: 35–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “More Bad News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 371: 203–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm
1961 “Jugements de Valeur, Justification et Argumentation”. Revue International de Philosophie 58 (4): 325–335.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1958Traité de L’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English Edition 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Peters, R.S
1966Ethics and Education. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Pidgen, Charles R
1989 “Logic and the Autonomy of Ethics”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 671: 127–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 “Naturalism”. In A Companion to Ethics, ed. by Peter Singer, 421–431. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R
1934Logik der Forschung. Wien: Julius Springler Verlag. English edition 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J
2007The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman, and J.S. Ullian
1970The Web of Belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
1962 “The Stochastic Revolution and the Nature of Scientific Explanation.” Synthese 141: 200–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C
1989Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard
1997The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation In Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis
1971 “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen
1950An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1982 “How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 251: 736–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2003Ethical Argumentation. Lanham (Maryland): Lexington Books.Google Scholar
2007Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bacchini, Fabio
2016. Epistemology and Responsibility. Corela :HS-19 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.