clt flashcards

• Rights


  1. Person to whom duty is owed, B- Content of the duty. Can be positive or negative action- ie to pay or to not assault someone.
• Claim right


  A right concerning an action or omission by someone else
• Liberty/privilege


  Right not to do something- negation of a duty to do something- liberty not to do it
• Rights


  Always someone else's action- duty holder's action or omissions
• Liberties


  Liberty-holders own actions or omissions
• Contradictory positions exclude each other with respect to (a) same action and (b) same person in relation
• Positions in family of powers will always come coupled with family of rights- content of position in family of power will always ultimately refer to position of family of rights
• Statement will specify


  1. Person holding position, B- Actual position, C- Action that content of position, D- Other person relative to whom position held
• Cannot have a claim right for your own action- no rights to do or not do anything- liberty to commit suicide in this case
• An argument that is true
• If p, then q, then p, then q


  1. Prefixing words, "it is not the case that…"

  2. Linking sentences with 'and'
• If q, then p

  1. If not p, then not q

  2. If not q, then not p
• Either or- linking sentences


  Can be exclusive or inclusive, exhaustive or non-exhaustive
• Formal fallacy


  Flaws in the structure of the argument, do not instantiate any valid pattern
• Informal fallacy


  Flaws that do not affect the validity of the argument, arguments that are formally valid but flawed in some aspect
• Non Sequitur


  Translates to- it does not follow. Conclusion does not follow from the premises, argument presented as valid but is not due to conclusion
• If p, then q, if not p, then not q


  Formal fallacy of denying antecedent, valid is sufficient, not necessary for the will to be signed
• If p, then q, then p is true

  Fallacy of combining (a) conditional premise with (b) 2nd premise affirming consequent of conditional and purports to derive (c) conclusion
• Disjunction as a premise (b) denies one


  Conclusion is rest of disjunction. Exclusive= p or q, not both. Inclusive= p or q, or both- inclusive reading, sometimes written as "and/or"- no normative conclusion can be derived from any number of purely non-normative premises
• Has both true premises and conclusion
• Bad because of external reasons


  Pointlessness of argument, Irrelevance of the conclusion, Falsehood of the premise
• To succeed- need to present other claims that (a) we can defend on independent grounds and which (b) is true, show conclusion to be true as well
• Statement of fact- support by evidence, Statement of law- supporting by appealing to authority common ground between or conceded by other party grounds
• Engaging with and arguing against an argument not endorsed by other party in debate, purporting to have refuted in order party's actual argument


  Principle of charity- fairness in debate and what it takes to win an argumentative exchange. No argument= refutes until it is refuted in strongest possible version
• Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion


  Any argument for a conclusion that is irrelevant for what is being debated commits fallacy or relevance
• Exhaustive


  No room for another possibility
• Non-exhaustive


  Does not leave room for other possibilities. Arguer who offers a disjunctive syllogism will be asserting relevant disjunction as exhaustive
• Claim right


  D must go through separate trial to argue whether it has been violated
• Liberty


  Lies up to discretion of whether a right must be applied or not
• Fallacy to infer from the fact that a certain argument is fallacious, conclusion must be false
• 1. if x= r, then x= f
• Lawyers and judges tasked with applying legal rules to particular cases and standard form of a statement of a legal rule= commonly taken to be that of universal conditional
• Legal syllogism


  One legal and one factual premise, major premise is a general statement of law, the conclusion is a particular statement of law
• Structure of valid syllogism shows conclusion to follow from premises, logically prior order of justification. Necessarily or usually order by which judges actually come to form view about how to decide case. Order of discovery does not necessarily match order of justification, Deduction= not a method for discovering correct conclusion- allows us to show a decision= justified according to law
• Meant to be a valid argument, conclusion of law follows from combination of a- statement of general law and b- statement of fact, shows conclusion= justified according to laws and courts decision applies existing law to instant case
• Important feature of judicial decisions, rule of law and separation of powers
• Judge not delegated to pronounce new law but to maintain and expound the old one, commentaries on law of England (1766)
• Major premise consisting of material facts under immediate consideration- lord simon of glaisdale's opinion in FA&AB Ltd v Lupton (1971)
• To say something- some fact is a reason for something else to say it counts in favour of it. Existence of a reason for something= compatible with there also being reasons against it- in favour of opposite conclusion. When there are reasons both in favour and against certain conclusion, need to
• The order of discovery does not necessarily match the order of justification