I'm always disturbed by the fact that the question is always about how you're justified in not following the law, instead of how a law is justified in prescribing punishment for someone's actions. Honestly, just flipping that line of questioning could go a long way to ending the victimless crime prison system we find ourselves in.
The first question is important, though. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, she knowingly broke the law, and in the eyes of society, the person she refused to give her seat to was the "victim." The question of when we can break the law gives an answer that can also answer why is this law in particular justified in causing punishment. We are justified in breaking the law when the law isn't just. When the law is just, it allows for its breaking to justify punitive action. And you're right that laws criminalizing mental illness are unjust.
@@km1dash6 Ik I'm late, but I wanted to say some things. First, the simple answer is generally: break unjust laws, don't break just laws. If we treat that as axiomatic like in your comment, it would be more useful to first ask what makes a law just. If we ask that, we naturally prescribe when to break the law. Even if not, defining when to violate existing legal structures is setting down law itself and is based on theories of just law, so analysing just law will naturally help us structure critiques to the law. Second, just law does not justify punishment. If punishment is justified, it is justified. Just because one has wronged, it does not mean there is some universal law that makes punishment acceptable. Look at legal restitution for an alternative (although some restorative measures are punitive.)
Felipe Campos when it uses force to stop you from doing something that has no effect on anyone or anything but yourself. Such as taking a drug in America or saying there are only two genders in Canada. That is generally one clear basis to go off of.
That's a way of looking at it. But i believe there are many heroin addicts that wished they've never used heroin in the first place. I think they would be in favor of a force stoping people from harming themselves, considering you cant always know the consequences of your actions.
James Pablo - A problem with that definition is that an individual may not be in a position to consider whether or not others are effected by what they consider to be justified breaking of an unjust law. For example, the drug user may not consider those that may be harmed by the user while they are drug effected, or society's obligation to care for them when prolonged use of a drug ruins their mental or physical health. The government insisting on binary gender has all their social systems set up for that particular world view and may need time to adapt before recognising gender spectrum.
@@felipearmwrestler4852 It depends on your moral theory. John Locke argued the people have the right to rebel against the law if their particular state of nature would be better than what the law permits. St. Thomas believed there's the eternal law, that natural/moral law, the divine law, and human law. A human law is unjust if it contradicts its superseding laws. Hobbs believed you have to have the ability to give consent to being in the social contract, so laws that take away consent from certain groups (like laws around slavery) are unjust. You can pick or make a moral theory, and it usually will tell you when it's okay to break the law. Which moral theory you pick is arguably a matter of taste.
Not only that, but if you're under 18, you have to follow the law even though you have no say in the laws being made, nor can you even try to leave the country.
I think it is a moral obligation to never obey any law. Compliance might be (and in many cases is) morally obligatory, but obedience is nothing more than vice masquerading as virtue. Obeying the law because it is the law will never result in a better result than merely complying with the law, but it will, at least sometimes, result in a worse result. Name any unjust law you want as an example of this. Such laws ought never be obeyed for the very reason that they are unjust, but one might find themselves in a situation where compliance with an unjust law is the best course of action for one reason or another. Once you start obeying the law because it is the law, you forfeit your ability to question or challenge unjust laws, because the law itself makes no distinction between just and unjust. If the fact that some prescription is a law warrants obedience you are not free to pick and choose between which laws you consider to be just and unjust. Let's say that you would only comply with the laws you disagree with, but obey the laws you agree with. What is the difference between that and merely complying with every law? Say one of the laws you agreed with were to change to something you disagreed with, but you still complied with it. In what way could you be described as obeying the law? Do you only obey the law when it suits you? That sounds like compliance to me. There's nothing about compliance that prevents, let's say, devotion to certain laws. Let's say the speed limit just happened to always be the maximum speed you considered to be reasonable for any given stretch of road. You would approve of the speed limit in every single case, and would think the law just in enforcing that speed limit. Or, perhaps you're not so narcissistic as to think that the speed limit ought to comply with your whims, but instead ought to be based on what can be scientifically shown to be the best speed limit, given data about road conditions, the physics of motor vehicles, etc. If you know that this is how speed limits are determined, you would maintain a speed at or below the speed limit because you trusted the process by which the speed limit was determined. In both cases, you would merely be complying with the speed limit, but not obeying it. You would be maintaining the speed limit because that really is the speed at which you want to travel - not because it is what the law says, but because it is the speed which you consider to be best.
@shoe laces You're right that most people are not philosophers or scientists, but obedience is still never necessary. At most, trust that the law is likely to bring about a functional society should be sufficient, and in those cases where personal interests would potentially outweigh that trust, deterrents are generally enough to produce compliance with the law. However, obeying the law (as opposed to merely complying with it) is, in my mind, a dangerous mindset that should never be promoted because of the potential for harm.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I entirely reject your conflation of law with morality. Laws (in this context) are the rules established by a governmental authority. They are also entirely unrelated to natural laws, which are merely descriptions of how reality works. Laws are a subset of rules. Rules are themselves prescriptions, and may either be dictated and enforced by an authority, or may simply be a principle to which one holds themselves, or even a set of general guidelines which constitute good advice. I'll admit I didn't read most of the rest of your comment, because it appears you have attempted to copy the entire content of a book chapter, and it also appears to be only tangentially related to my comment and the content of the video. I see plenty of material to disagree with, however.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas In this context, an authority is a person or body within a hierarchical power structure with the ability to impose their will on those below them in that power structure by means of rewards and punishments. For example, a (non-figurehead) king is an authority by virtue of his wealth and the loyal subjects who obey his commands. Anyone who disobeys the king can expect some kind of bad thing to happen to them, whether it be his guards or soldiers coming to arrest them, or simply by economic sanctions of some kind. This same general principle applies to other authorities. Parents have authority over their children because they're bigger and stronger, and can withhold things the child needs or wants if the child does not comply with their orders. Police have authority over regular citizens because they carry weapons and have the backing of authorities higher up the hierarchy. If God exists, He has authority by virtue of His ability to send people to heaven or hell, or even to smite or otherwise harm or inconvenience them during their earthly lives. Authority always comes down to the rule of the strong. If someone claims to have authority, but nobody obeys them, and they have no means by which to retaliate against those who disobey them or reward those who comply with their orders, then their claim to authority is quite obviously false. Strangely, however, one can gain authority by simply convincing enough people that you have it. Collect enough loyal followers who are willing to do your bidding uncoerced, and you can exert authority over those who are less willing to do your bidding by ganging up on them with your loyal followers. This is essentially how democracy works - the voters give their endorsement to the politicians via mob consensus.
You are always obligated to follow all laws. By definition a law is a thing you are obligated to follow. Having an obligation is not the same a being morally justified. Having a moral imperative to shirk an obligation does not magically make the obligation disappear. Just as using an obligation to justify an immoral act does no absolve one of that immorality.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas No, law is not synonymous with morality. The vast majority of laws are procedural laws. Laws that are not associated with any moral question, that simply exist for organizational expedience. It is a matter of law that most moral issues are strictly off limits to legislators.
The way I see it, compliance vs. obedience is not a dichotomy. There are three principal (mutually non-exclusive) reasons why one might want to obey the law: 1) to avoid punishment or earn reward prescribed by that law. (I respect speed limit to avoid fine) 2) to contribute towards the benefits that given law is meant to bring about. (I respect speed limit to make roads safer) 3) to preserve the precedent of law-obedience for the sake of preserving reason no.2 for other laws. (I respect speed limit, because breaking it may convince other drivers to arbitrarily break other more important rules) Each of these has one additional degree of sacrificing immediate benefit for long-term benefit. And each one has progressively greater resemblance to obedience. Also notice that reason no.2 is the preferred state. Everyone has a natural right to break the law, if they deem benefits of following it insufficient and detriments of breaking it acceptable. Any law-giver and law-enforcer must take that into account, regardless of where the obligation to obey the law comes from, or whether it even exists.
One of my favorite quotes is from the character of Thurgood Marshall from the play Thurgood (the play is very accurate historically, but I have never been able to find whether this quote is from the historical figure or if it was original to the play). In the play, this was Marshall's response to his friend Martin Luther King's arguments about civl disobedience: "You have 2 rights, the right to break the law and the right to go to jail for it."
What if we had a system where every law had to have a justification for why it exists, how it benefits society? And if it can be shown that the law does not benefit society, either by changing circumstances or new information, then it can be ruled enforceable. I don't believe this could be introduced into an already existing legal system. It would have to be baked in at the founding of a new nation, when the legal code is still a blank slate.
3:05 So any type of consent you can imagine that doesn't actually involve people consenting lol. The argument of tyrants. You consent Becuase they said so essentially. You consent Becuase you can't afford to resist. Fact is. Government isn't reason it's subjugation. Consent can never be attained, Becuase no one would willingly consent to someone else stealing their wealth and being able to control their every action.
If to obey the law is to follow it not just because you want to avoid being punished or for your own benefit, but also even if you disagree with it, then I can't imagine anything worse, either morally or for ones integrity and self respect. I think I can honestly say I've never obeyed anyone or anything, and I'll take that as a true source of pride.
Seeing this and being a Philosophy degree holder, the question alone bothers me. We have no obligation whatsoever to obey the law. Ideally, laws are something that everyone agrees to, so then it makes sense to punish someone who goes against the contract made between those subject to the law. In reality, that is not how laws work in most cases. Disobeying the law can often be the morally correct action. Laws of man are implemented to protect certain groups of people. Protected groups are typically those with power and the means to implement and reinforce laws. Their protection is not always the moral action. Also, those who implement laws have an incentive to not follow said laws.
Before a child is 7, their parents must give consent for them to participate in a study. After a child is 7, their parent still consent, and the child must give their assent. My question is, is this right? Can someone else give consent for you to do something, or speak on your behalf from a moral perspective?
Legal rules are to be judged by the structure of incentives they establish and the consequences of people altering their behavior in response to those incentives (p.11) ~ David D. Friedman, Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do With Law and Why It Matters, 2001
@@gotrektom you mean consequentialist. also i think virtue vs consequence is a false dochotomy. virtue is what makes decision trees navigable, otherwhise you would only be concerned with events at the heat death of the universe, which is completely unpractical. meanwhile, considering the consequences is the only thing that lets you meaningfully reevaluate your virtues, so that they can be more evidence-based and less dogmatic. moral philosophy solved. :P
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus yeah, consequential ism most certainly. But utilitarianism is a particular consequentialist stance. As far as I am concerned, I am pretty distant with virtue theory. It somehow reifies individuals (supposedly virtuous) at the expense of a critical evaluation of their actions: the duties that they try to respect and/or their consequences. But that's just my take on it. No need to agree with me 😅✌️
@@gotrektom perhaps i'm using "virtue" a bit liberally. what i mean is just a sort of behavioural bias that is cultivated by evaluating actions and their consequences critically. i guess it's just empiricism/pragmatism. i haven't really read many virtue ethicists, but then again i haven't read very much philosphy in general. 😰
I don't recall agreeing to live under any, and there's nowhere to go instead where there are none, so no, absolutely not. I comply with the law if it meets my own moral or social standards, but as long as I'm prepared to take the consequences if caught, I break if it doesn't. End of.
My reason for driving the speed limit is neither. It's because it's what engineers have decided is the safest speed limit for that area. For example, it's 40 in my local area because there's a school but so many people speed. The other day, I had a little kid on a bike pop out of NO WHERE since there was a huge van in the way and I stopped just in time. I saw his two siblings behind him and I imagined the horror they would have gone through, not even what would happen to me. It's moment like these that reinforces the fact that I should go the speed limit. It's neither a ticket nor simply obedience. It's simply not being a douchebag.
I can’t agree, there will always be some form of government as long as people are working together. Whether it is large scale (national gov, world gov) or small scale (households, schools)
He starts out with a strawman by refuting the supposed alternative to manmade laws, which he claims would be just people going around committing crimes everywhere. I don't know if he really believes that, or is just stating what the common concern is for not following the law. However, I wish that he would have just come out with a conclusion after presenting the three reasons why people come up with to obey the law.
La ley es tela de araña, y en mi ignorancia lo explico, no la tema el hombre rico, no la tema el que mande, pues la rompe el bicho grande y sólo enrieda a los chicos. Es la ley como la lluvia, nunca puede ser pareja, el que la aguanta se queja, más el asunto es sencillo, la ley es como el cuchillo, no ofiende a quien lo maneja. Le suelen llamar espada y el nombre le sienta bien, los que la manejan ven en dónde han de dar el tajo, le cae a quién se halle abajo, y corta sin ver a quién. Hay muchos que son doctores, y de su ciencia no dudo, mas yo que soy hombre rudo, y aunque de esto poco entiendo diariamente estoy viendo que aplican la del embudo. Martin Fierro
Laws are only opinions of egotistical men and women,backed by the threat of a government gun that the people paid for. These people think they can save the world. For instance whatever is in my pocket is my business and as long as i hurt NO one, then I should be able to have in my pocket whatever i want!
I am not going to say especially when it comes to the United States government and their laws that they are perfect and work for everybody however at the same time they are there for a reason there are people out there who are dangerous and inhumane even to other human beings as it gets they only care about themselves and gaining what they want it is necessary to have laws to protect people and to authorize punishment to those out there in society who make it their business to prey on others especially the helpless and innocent if you disagree with one of the laws or a bunch of them or even all of them you should do the right thing and get as many people as you can that agree with you to work together to address it to the government and other agencies that is a lot better not a guarantee what is a lot better than just going out and breaking the law and doing whatever you please remember we are supposed to be a civilization not a group of animals in the wild
Even we cant trust atoms? We all are different but why are we different....different in our minds....we dont know whats coming in future, so based on past exp. and knowledge we formulate laws...but everything and everyone do not agree upon. Its like a compulsion, or else Marx would have been the nerd here! So, its the mind, afterall laws groot up from conventions and conventions are from the society, or perhaps a common social institution which infact, is not common (we all are different). The universe doesnt allow perfection. So its a partial deal - we obey laws for us and for others
I'm always disturbed by the fact that the question is always about how you're justified in not following the law, instead of how a law is justified in prescribing punishment for someone's actions. Honestly, just flipping that line of questioning could go a long way to ending the victimless crime prison system we find ourselves in.
The first question is important, though. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, she knowingly broke the law, and in the eyes of society, the person she refused to give her seat to was the "victim."
The question of when we can break the law gives an answer that can also answer why is this law in particular justified in causing punishment. We are justified in breaking the law when the law isn't just. When the law is just, it allows for its breaking to justify punitive action.
And you're right that laws criminalizing mental illness are unjust.
@@km1dash6 Ik I'm late, but I wanted to say some things. First, the simple answer is generally: break unjust laws, don't break just laws. If we treat that as axiomatic like in your comment, it would be more useful to first ask what makes a law just. If we ask that, we naturally prescribe when to break the law. Even if not, defining when to violate existing legal structures is setting down law itself and is based on theories of just law, so analysing just law will naturally help us structure critiques to the law. Second, just law does not justify punishment. If punishment is justified, it is justified. Just because one has wronged, it does not mean there is some universal law that makes punishment acceptable. Look at legal restitution for an alternative (although some restorative measures are punitive.)
👀my reply above???
When a law is fundamentally unjust disobedience is necessary.
But in what basis can you say a law is unjust? That's where lies the problem.
Felipe Campos when it uses force to stop you from doing something that has no effect on anyone or anything but yourself. Such as taking a drug in America or saying there are only two genders in Canada. That is generally one clear basis to go off of.
That's a way of looking at it. But i believe there are many heroin addicts that wished they've never used heroin in the first place. I think they would be in favor of a force stoping people from harming themselves, considering you cant always know the consequences of your actions.
James Pablo - A problem with that definition is that an individual may not be in a position to consider whether or not others are effected by what they consider to be justified breaking of an unjust law. For example, the drug user may not consider those that may be harmed by the user while they are drug effected, or society's obligation to care for them when prolonged use of a drug ruins their mental or physical health. The government insisting on binary gender has all their social systems set up for that particular world view and may need time to adapt before recognising gender spectrum.
@@felipearmwrestler4852 It depends on your moral theory. John Locke argued the people have the right to rebel against the law if their particular state of nature would be better than what the law permits.
St. Thomas believed there's the eternal law, that natural/moral law, the divine law, and human law. A human law is unjust if it contradicts its superseding laws.
Hobbs believed you have to have the ability to give consent to being in the social contract, so laws that take away consent from certain groups (like laws around slavery) are unjust.
You can pick or make a moral theory, and it usually will tell you when it's okay to break the law. Which moral theory you pick is arguably a matter of taste.
Where did he go? Come back dude we need you
Maybe he got arrested and he's in jail for not obeying the law
@@sharonlee7111 lol
I just found your channel and its so good. Come back man
Same
Waiting for your new video...
Whether we obey every law or none. Those in power are picking up laws for them to follow or dismiss.
All laws are coercive because people don't choose where they're born and often don't have an alternative.
>implying that coercion is bad
Not only that, but if you're under 18, you have to follow the law even though you have no say in the laws being made, nor can you even try to leave the country.
I think it is a moral obligation to never obey any law. Compliance might be (and in many cases is) morally obligatory, but obedience is nothing more than vice masquerading as virtue. Obeying the law because it is the law will never result in a better result than merely complying with the law, but it will, at least sometimes, result in a worse result. Name any unjust law you want as an example of this. Such laws ought never be obeyed for the very reason that they are unjust, but one might find themselves in a situation where compliance with an unjust law is the best course of action for one reason or another. Once you start obeying the law because it is the law, you forfeit your ability to question or challenge unjust laws, because the law itself makes no distinction between just and unjust. If the fact that some prescription is a law warrants obedience you are not free to pick and choose between which laws you consider to be just and unjust.
Let's say that you would only comply with the laws you disagree with, but obey the laws you agree with. What is the difference between that and merely complying with every law? Say one of the laws you agreed with were to change to something you disagreed with, but you still complied with it. In what way could you be described as obeying the law? Do you only obey the law when it suits you? That sounds like compliance to me.
There's nothing about compliance that prevents, let's say, devotion to certain laws. Let's say the speed limit just happened to always be the maximum speed you considered to be reasonable for any given stretch of road. You would approve of the speed limit in every single case, and would think the law just in enforcing that speed limit. Or, perhaps you're not so narcissistic as to think that the speed limit ought to comply with your whims, but instead ought to be based on what can be scientifically shown to be the best speed limit, given data about road conditions, the physics of motor vehicles, etc. If you know that this is how speed limits are determined, you would maintain a speed at or below the speed limit because you trusted the process by which the speed limit was determined. In both cases, you would merely be complying with the speed limit, but not obeying it. You would be maintaining the speed limit because that really is the speed at which you want to travel - not because it is what the law says, but because it is the speed which you consider to be best.
@shoe laces You're right that most people are not philosophers or scientists, but obedience is still never necessary. At most, trust that the law is likely to bring about a functional society should be sufficient, and in those cases where personal interests would potentially outweigh that trust, deterrents are generally enough to produce compliance with the law. However, obeying the law (as opposed to merely complying with it) is, in my mind, a dangerous mindset that should never be promoted because of the potential for harm.
@shoe laces I'm merely replying to the video. I'm doing philosophy.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I entirely reject your conflation of law with morality. Laws (in this context) are the rules established by a governmental authority. They are also entirely unrelated to natural laws, which are merely descriptions of how reality works. Laws are a subset of rules. Rules are themselves prescriptions, and may either be dictated and enforced by an authority, or may simply be a principle to which one holds themselves, or even a set of general guidelines which constitute good advice.
I'll admit I didn't read most of the rest of your comment, because it appears you have attempted to copy the entire content of a book chapter, and it also appears to be only tangentially related to my comment and the content of the video. I see plenty of material to disagree with, however.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas In this context, an authority is a person or body within a hierarchical power structure with the ability to impose their will on those below them in that power structure by means of rewards and punishments.
For example, a (non-figurehead) king is an authority by virtue of his wealth and the loyal subjects who obey his commands. Anyone who disobeys the king can expect some kind of bad thing to happen to them, whether it be his guards or soldiers coming to arrest them, or simply by economic sanctions of some kind.
This same general principle applies to other authorities. Parents have authority over their children because they're bigger and stronger, and can withhold things the child needs or wants if the child does not comply with their orders. Police have authority over regular citizens because they carry weapons and have the backing of authorities higher up the hierarchy. If God exists, He has authority by virtue of His ability to send people to heaven or hell, or even to smite or otherwise harm or inconvenience them during their earthly lives.
Authority always comes down to the rule of the strong. If someone claims to have authority, but nobody obeys them, and they have no means by which to retaliate against those who disobey them or reward those who comply with their orders, then their claim to authority is quite obviously false. Strangely, however, one can gain authority by simply convincing enough people that you have it. Collect enough loyal followers who are willing to do your bidding uncoerced, and you can exert authority over those who are less willing to do your bidding by ganging up on them with your loyal followers. This is essentially how democracy works - the voters give their endorsement to the politicians via mob consensus.
You are always obligated to follow all laws. By definition a law is a thing you are obligated to follow.
Having an obligation is not the same a being morally justified. Having a moral imperative to shirk an obligation does not magically make the obligation disappear. Just as using an obligation to justify an immoral act does no absolve one of that immorality.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas No, law is not synonymous with morality. The vast majority of laws are procedural laws. Laws that are not associated with any moral question, that simply exist for organizational expedience. It is a matter of law that most moral issues are strictly off limits to legislators.
The way I see it, compliance vs. obedience is not a dichotomy. There are three principal (mutually non-exclusive) reasons why one might want to obey the law:
1) to avoid punishment or earn reward prescribed by that law. (I respect speed limit to avoid fine)
2) to contribute towards the benefits that given law is meant to bring about. (I respect speed limit to make roads safer)
3) to preserve the precedent of law-obedience for the sake of preserving reason no.2 for other laws. (I respect speed limit, because breaking it may convince other drivers to arbitrarily break other more important rules)
Each of these has one additional degree of sacrificing immediate benefit for long-term benefit. And each one has progressively greater resemblance to obedience. Also notice that reason no.2 is the preferred state.
Everyone has a natural right to break the law, if they deem benefits of following it insufficient and detriments of breaking it acceptable. Any law-giver and law-enforcer must take that into account, regardless of where the obligation to obey the law comes from, or whether it even exists.
One of my favorite quotes is from the character of Thurgood Marshall from the play Thurgood (the play is very accurate historically, but I have never been able to find whether this quote is from the historical figure or if it was original to the play). In the play, this was Marshall's response to his friend Martin Luther King's arguments about civl disobedience:
"You have 2 rights, the right to break the law and the right to go to jail for it."
"who does not fight for their rights, will never be worthy of them" ~ Rui Barbosa
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~ David D. Friedman
i was like "huh, lots of ancaps here this time". then i noticed the comments were all from the same guy.
nice quote, tho. ^^
Why do you still have no more videos?
We miss you :(
I am new here. What happened to this channel
What if we had a system where every law had to have a justification for why it exists, how it benefits society? And if it can be shown that the law does not benefit society, either by changing circumstances or new information, then it can be ruled enforceable.
I don't believe this could be introduced into an already existing legal system. It would have to be baked in at the founding of a new nation, when the legal code is still a blank slate.
how dare you be reasonable and intelligent! this will get you black listed
3:05 So any type of consent you can imagine that doesn't actually involve people consenting lol. The argument of tyrants. You consent Becuase they said so essentially. You consent Becuase you can't afford to resist. Fact is. Government isn't reason it's subjugation. Consent can never be attained, Becuase no one would willingly consent to someone else stealing their wealth and being able to control their every action.
I miss this channel
If to obey the law is to follow it not just because you want to avoid being punished or for your own benefit, but also even if you disagree with it, then I can't imagine anything worse, either morally or for ones integrity and self respect. I think I can honestly say I've never obeyed anyone or anything, and I'll take that as a true source of pride.
No more videos?
what happened?
why wiphi stop making wiphi vids tho
Seeing this and being a Philosophy degree holder, the question alone bothers me. We have no obligation whatsoever to obey the law. Ideally, laws are something that everyone agrees to, so then it makes sense to punish someone who goes against the contract made between those subject to the law. In reality, that is not how laws work in most cases. Disobeying the law can often be the morally correct action. Laws of man are implemented to protect certain groups of people. Protected groups are typically those with power and the means to implement and reinforce laws. Their protection is not always the moral action. Also, those who implement laws have an incentive to not follow said laws.
the video image is too poor, you need to fix it more
Türkçe altyazı desteği sağlayabilir misiniz?
sooo good
Before a child is 7, their parents must give consent for them to participate in a study. After a child is 7, their parent still consent, and the child must give their assent. My question is, is this right? Can someone else give consent for you to do something, or speak on your behalf from a moral perspective?
Legal rules are to be judged by the structure of incentives they establish and the consequences of people altering their behavior in response to those incentives (p.11) ~ David D. Friedman, Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do With Law and Why It Matters, 2001
That's a utilitarianistic stance. Not the only ethical theory 😇
@@gotrektom you mean consequentialist.
also i think virtue vs consequence is a false dochotomy. virtue is what makes decision trees navigable, otherwhise you would only be concerned with events at the heat death of the universe, which is completely unpractical. meanwhile, considering the consequences is the only thing that lets you meaningfully reevaluate your virtues, so that they can be more evidence-based and less dogmatic.
moral philosophy solved. :P
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus yeah, consequential ism most certainly. But utilitarianism is a particular consequentialist stance. As far as I am concerned, I am pretty distant with virtue theory. It somehow reifies individuals (supposedly virtuous) at the expense of a critical evaluation of their actions: the duties that they try to respect and/or their consequences. But that's just my take on it. No need to agree with me 😅✌️
@@gotrektom perhaps i'm using "virtue" a bit liberally. what i mean is just a sort of behavioural bias that is cultivated by evaluating actions and their consequences critically. i guess it's just empiricism/pragmatism.
i haven't really read many virtue ethicists, but then again i haven't read very much philosphy in general. 😰
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus hehe, cool man 😉 sounds a lot like some kind form of consequentialist reflexivity but cool cool ✌️😋
spanish subtitles please in more videos,, useful chanel
I don't recall agreeing to live under any, and there's nowhere to go instead where there are none, so no, absolutely not. I comply with the law if it meets my own moral or social standards, but as long as I'm prepared to take the consequences if caught, I break if it doesn't. End of.
I came in the world a free man and I'll die a free man
My reason for driving the speed limit is neither. It's because it's what engineers have decided is the safest speed limit for that area. For example, it's 40 in my local area because there's a school but so many people speed. The other day, I had a little kid on a bike pop out of NO WHERE since there was a huge van in the way and I stopped just in time. I saw his two siblings behind him and I imagined the horror they would have gone through, not even what would happen to me. It's moment like these that reinforces the fact that I should go the speed limit. It's neither a ticket nor simply obedience. It's simply not being a douchebag.
I don’t have to obey the laws of humans because I’m not human.
What happened to your channel?
Rise Up.
You don't need to be governed.
That's how we got into this mess
I can’t agree, there will always be some form of government as long as people are working together. Whether it is large scale (national gov, world gov) or small scale (households, schools)
He starts out with a strawman by refuting the supposed alternative to manmade laws, which he claims would be just people going around committing crimes everywhere. I don't know if he really believes that, or is just stating what the common concern is for not following the law. However, I wish that he would have just come out with a conclusion after presenting the three reasons why people come up with to obey the law.
La ley es tela de araña, y en mi ignorancia lo explico,
no la tema el hombre rico, no la tema el que mande,
pues la rompe el bicho grande y sólo enrieda a los chicos.
Es la ley como la lluvia, nunca puede ser pareja,
el que la aguanta se queja, más el asunto es sencillo,
la ley es como el cuchillo, no ofiende a quien lo maneja.
Le suelen llamar espada y el nombre le sienta bien,
los que la manejan ven en dónde han de dar el tajo,
le cae a quién se halle abajo, y corta sin ver a quién.
Hay muchos que son doctores, y de su ciencia no dudo,
mas yo que soy hombre rudo, y aunque de esto poco entiendo
diariamente estoy viendo que aplican la del embudo.
Martin Fierro
0:32 That's a philosopher sentence right there
How to enslave a country:
Step one, convince them that they live in "Land of the Free"
Step two, put them in jail
Please to add indonesian subtittle :(
No.
Yes unless you want to be locked in a cage like an animal. How fucked are we as a specie? The cruelest in the animal kingdom and it’s not even close.
No we are not. Law is by consent only.
Is it though? Can you be coerced into consent?
Laws are only opinions of egotistical men and women,backed by the threat of a government gun that the people paid for. These people think they can save the world. For instance whatever is in my pocket is my business and as long as i hurt NO one, then I should be able to have in my pocket whatever i want!
FREEEDOOOMMM
Law but not mandates.
Not paying for German state television can get you into prison, but that's totally worth it.
I am not going to say especially when it comes to the United States government and their laws that they are perfect and work for everybody however at the same time they are there for a reason there are people out there who are dangerous and inhumane even to other human beings as it gets they only care about themselves and gaining what they want it is necessary to have laws to protect people and to authorize punishment to those out there in society who make it their business to prey on others especially the helpless and innocent if you disagree with one of the laws or a bunch of them or even all of them you should do the right thing and get as many people as you can that agree with you to work together to address it to the government and other agencies that is a lot better not a guarantee what is a lot better than just going out and breaking the law and doing whatever you please remember we are supposed to be a civilization not a group of animals in the wild
No
Matthew needs to learn to ar-tic-u-late. Ratherthanslurringallofhissyllablestogether.
What about segregation?
CovidImages need to be invested more than half19
Even we cant trust atoms? We all are different but why are we different....different in our minds....we dont know whats coming in future, so based on past exp. and knowledge we formulate laws...but everything and everyone do not agree upon. Its like a compulsion, or else Marx would have been the nerd here! So, its the mind, afterall laws groot up from conventions and conventions are from the society, or perhaps a common social institution which infact, is not common (we all are different). The universe doesnt allow perfection. So its a partial deal - we obey laws for us and for others