Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

4
 questions about 
Economics
88
 questions about 
Physics
284
 questions about 
Mind
51
 questions about 
War
36
 questions about 
Literature
70
 questions about 
Truth
23
 questions about 
History
39
 questions about 
Race
374
 questions about 
Logic
80
 questions about 
Death
105
 questions about 
Art
124
 questions about 
Profession
75
 questions about 
Perception
96
 questions about 
Time
67
 questions about 
Feminism
58
 questions about 
Abortion
110
 questions about 
Biology
2
 questions about 
Action
574
 questions about 
Philosophy
170
 questions about 
Freedom
117
 questions about 
Children
392
 questions about 
Religion
134
 questions about 
Love
208
 questions about 
Science
43
 questions about 
Color
54
 questions about 
Medicine
69
 questions about 
Business
244
 questions about 
Justice
287
 questions about 
Language
110
 questions about 
Animals
151
 questions about 
Existence
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
77
 questions about 
Emotion
221
 questions about 
Value
89
 questions about 
Law
58
 questions about 
Punishment
218
 questions about 
Education
68
 questions about 
Happiness
154
 questions about 
Sex
2
 questions about 
Culture
34
 questions about 
Music
31
 questions about 
Space
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
32
 questions about 
Sport
81
 questions about 
Identity
75
 questions about 
Beauty
27
 questions about 
Gender
1280
 questions about 
Ethics
24
 questions about 
Suicide

Question of the Day

Interesting question! I think you're right that there's something peculiar about this disjunctive syllogism:

(1) B v ~ B
(2) ~ B
(3) ~ B

You say that (2) must be the negation of (1)'s left disjunct rather than the assertion of (1)'s right disjunct, even though both of those are syntactically the same. You may find allies in those who distinguish between (i) denying or rejecting a proposition and (ii) asserting the proposition's negation. See Section 2.5 of this SEP entry.

But here's a different diagnosis. Although (1)-(3) is a valid argument, and even a valid instance of disjunctive syllogism, the argument is informally defective because premise (1) is superfluous: (1) isn't needed for the argument's validity. Furthermore, anyone justified in asserting (2) is thereby justified in asserting (3) without need of (1). This argument is similar:

(4) ~ B v B
(5) ~ ~ B
(6) B

The claim that (5) is the negation of (4)'s left disjunct is at least as plausible as the claim that (2) is the negation of (1)'s left disjunct. But maybe the better diagnosis is that (4)-(6) is informally defective because (4) is unnecessary for the argument's validity and unnecessary for rationally proceeding from (5) to (6).