Published Article / Modern philosophy left us with an unbridgeable divide between factual reality and the domain of values (normativity). This article first of all analyze modal norms, such as the principle of avoiding what is legally excessive. There are distinct but mutually cohering kinds of laws. The distinction between modal laws / norms and type laws / norms required an example from the domain of human society - John Locke and Adam Smith, whose ideas in practice gave birth to trade unionism and labour parties. The idea of an "invisible hand" (manifest in the "free market") operates with exact (natural) laws, such as supply and demand. When modal norms are distinguished from type norms it becomes clear that states and a business enterprises can act uneconomically by wasting their money although they ought to function in a way that is guided by economic considerations of frugality. As an example the well-known natural law of energy-conservation is explained as the embodiment of an analogical link between the physical aspect and the kinematic aspect which should rather be designated as the law of energy-constancy. Finally the problem of normativity is related to the coherence between the logical-analytical aspect and its coherence with the aspects of number and space - focused on the principle of the excluded middle and its implications for diverging schools of thought within twentieth century mathematics. The last subsection concludes with reference to the norms guiding technological developments and with an assessment of the meaning of technology.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-12-14T12:10:01Z No. of bitstreams: 1 William Galle Dietrich_.pdf: 1504567 bytes, checksum: 2093d2c1d67ede79c81a88b145c0644c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-14T12:10:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 William Galle Dietrich_.pdf: 1504567 bytes, checksum: 2093d2c1d67ede79c81a88b145c0644c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-10-02 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / O trabalho aborda o problema da neutralidade/externalidade do método descritivo das teorias juspositivistas analíticas. O primeiro capítulo faz um recorte no empirismo filosófico, buscando as origens e fundamentos filosóficos, que amparam a estrutura básica do juspositivismo analítico, no filósofo escocês David Hume. Procura-se, portanto, estabelecer as premissas básicas de tal corrente filosófica e as respectivas incorporações dentro das teorias jurídicas que são positivistas. O segundo capítulo procura focar na questão do método descritivo. Com uma abordagem explanatória, procura detalhar como o método descritivo foi incorporado ao Direito por Jeremy Bentham, passando por John Austin e Herbert L. A. Hart, até chegar, nesta década, em Scott J. Shapiro. Trata-se, portanto, de uma reconstrução histórica do método descritivo dentro da teoria do Direito. O terceiro capítulo, por sua vez, apresenta as principais críticas ao método descritivo, sobretudo as críticas direcionadas contra a neutralidade do método, e a consequente separação rígida entre fato e valor. O trabalho tem como finalidade básica, portanto, uma exposição geral da origem do método descritivo; da sua manutenção e evolução na teoria do Direito; e das principais críticas sofridas. Trabalhou-se com o “método” hermenêutico, fio condutor da Crítica Hermenêutica do Direito e com revisão bibliográfica. Como resultados parciais, pode-se dizer, a partir do referencial filosófico adotado pelas teorias juspositivistas analíticas, ainda que inconscientemente, que as características de neutralidade valorativa e externalidade do cientista não conseguem ser mais do que meros constructos artificiais, na medida em que a rígida separação entre fato e valor já foi superada no âmbito teórico e prático da filosofia e do Direito. A introdução do método experimental de raciocínio na teoria do Direito, portanto, não consegue atingir a propugnada neutralidade/externalidade. / This work deals with the neutrality/externality problem of the descriptive method of analytical legal positivist theories. The first chapter investigates the roots of philosophical empiricism in the Scottish philosopher David Hume, seeking its philosophical origins and foundations, which support the basic structure of analytical legal positivism. It seeks, therefore, to establish the basic premises of such philosophical current and the respective incorporations within the positivistic legal theories. The second chapter seeks to focus more specifically on the central question regarding the descriptive method. With an explanatory approach, it seeks to detail how the descriptive method was incorporated into jurisprudence by Jeremy Bentham — which was maintained by John Austin, Herbert L. Hart, and, in this decade, by Scott J. Shapiro. It is, therefore, a historical reconstruction of the descriptive method within jurisprudence and legal theory. The third chapter, in its turn, presents the main criticisms of the descriptive method, especially the criticisms directed against the (supposed) neutrality of it, and the consequent rigid distinction between fact and value. The main purpose of the work is, therefore, a general exposition of the origins of the descriptive method; its maintenance and evolution in jurisprudence; and the main criticisms. The work’s approach is the hermeneutical "method", the basis of the Hermeneutical Critique of Law, and also a bibliographical revision. As partial results, it can be said, from the philosophical referential adopted by analytical legal positivist theories, albeit unconsciously, that the characteristics of the scientist's neutrality and externality cannot be more than mere artificial constructs, insofar as the rigid distinction between fact and value has already been overcome in both theoretical and practical scopes of philosophy and law. The introduction of the experimental method of reasoning in legal theory, therefore, fails to achieve the advocated neutrality/externality.