Clase 19 Filosofía Parte 2 Grupo 1

The discussion begins with the introduction of antinomies between prescriptive norms. To identify an antinomy, one must focus on the deontic qualifier and the fact pattern. The lecturer revisits the deontic oppositions, including contrariety and sub-contrariety, and their implications for antinomies. Contrariety represents incompatibility and can lead to antinomies, while sub-contrariety, involving facultative norms, remains compatible and non-antinomic. Subalterns involve obligations and permissions that do not generate incompatibility. An example of contradictory norms leading to antinomies is provided, illustrating the complexity of compliance between mutually exclusive norms.

The lecturer continues to explain different types of antinomies, focusing on those that arise from fact patterns, such as total and partial antinomies. Total antinomies involve complete overlap in the fact pattern between two conflicting norms, like a complete contradiction in rules when an activity is both prohibited and obligatory. The discussion emphasizes understanding the fact patterns to identify these conflicts accurately. Examples are utilized to illustrate how total and partial overlaps determine the presence of antinomies, underscoring the significance of analyzing application scopes of norms to detect regulatory conflicts.

The complexity of certain norms continues with a hypothetical involving antinomies related to broader concepts—obligation to engage in sports versus prohibition to run, drawing attention to overlaps in permitted actions based on broader or narrower scopes of application. Instances where physical activity and running intersect are discussed, explaining how these scenarios generate nuanced antinomic situations. The importance of context and specific fact patterns are highlighted to understand incompatible norms and the complexities it adds to normative analysis. Additional examples reinforce the understanding of intersecting fact patterns in regulations.

Transitioning into another key area, the lecturer discusses the construction and deconstruction of arguments, emphasizing its critical role not only in understanding legal principles but in practical applications such as litigation or personal reasoning. Utilizing Toulmin's model of argumentation, learners are introduced to a framework that involves identifying claims, reasons, warrants, and backing. The method highlights the process of testing the strength of one's arguments by subjecting them to critical analysis, which reinforces one's understanding and ability to construct robust arguments that withstand scrutiny.

The Toulmin model is further elaborated, introducing qualifiers and rebuttals to address the inherent uncertainty in probabilistic arguments. This model is initially designed for factual arguments but is adaptable to normative contexts. Examples illustrate how one can structure arguments by defining a claim and using reasons and warrants to support it, while qualifiers adjust the degree of certainty and rebuttals consider potential weaknesses. The process of crafting and scrutinizing arguments prepares individuals to anticipate counterarguments and reinforce their claims effectively.

Through practical applications of the Toulmin model, the importance of argument construction in legal contexts is demonstrated, whereby learners are encouraged to apply it in potential debates, such as the constitutionality of private health insurance. Various strategies for defending or attacking arguments are discussed, highlighting the dynamic nature of legal reasoning and the necessity of being prepared for various counterpoints. The session involves interactive questioning, promoting active engagement and critical thinking in identifying logical fallacies and strengthening argumentative positions.

As the lesson progresses, further examples demonstrate how Toulmin's framework applies to real-life scenarios, such as proving plagiarism in exams, where the construction of arguments involves identifying similarities in responses and supporting claims with general statements and statistical backing. Learners are encouraged to identify weaknesses and devise strategies for effectively challenging opposing arguments. The emphasis lies in understanding argument structure and the ability to dissect and challenge claims, enhancing analytical capabilities useful in legal and broader intellectual contexts.

The session continues to stress the significance of argument evaluation by illustrating practical approaches in hypotheticals, such as the legality of health insurance practices. Learners engage in critical examination of claims and backing principles, fostering an environment that challenges them to think deeply about legal interpretations and real-world applications. Through these exercises, students refine their ability to critically assess various claims, prepare for counterarguments, and enhance their overall legal analytical skills, ensuring they can apply these methods in diverse situations.