THanks for this - very good - have been trying to understand this stuff and most of what is written is impenetrable - you've made it understandable - can't understand the criticism - you're just explaining the concepts, without advocating anything in particular and you do this very well - congratulations and keep up the good work-
+Bruce Clark Cheers Bruce. I try to present legal theory in a way that makes it accessible (and law more broadly hopefully). Good luck with your studies.
It may be that there are two forms of mortality: specific and transcendental. The former would align with customs or norms and would tend to exert a kind of steadying effect. The latter would imply universal principles which exist but which may not be thoroughly understood or not yet acknowledged. The beauty of law is that it permits one a kind of option of either preferring to reinforce or fine-tune existing moral precepts or to discard them in appealing to a higher mode which perhaps may transform society for the better. Genghis Khan, for instance, had no issue with throwing aside a time-worn custom if it became clear to him that a better option existed. In so doing, he was acknowledging that a higher truth existed over and above what was customary.
It should be noted that Hart and Dworkin have slightly different projects, Harts work is more descriptive, Dworkin tends toward the more aspirational. Many would argue and I would agree that some differences between their views can be explained in that way.
Hi just wanted to find out where the quote of "The nature of legal arguments lies in the best moral interpretation of existing legal practices". is from?
Further explication of the artistic/scientific distinction might have been useful, especially since the holding the door example seemed a bit tangential. More than one artistic analysis is possible, since a door-holder will often say it doesn't involve presumptions of weakness, but is merely a show of respect. With the driving-on-the-right-side example, the distinction between the psychological/behavioral interpretation (artistic) and the moral/analytic (scientific) interpretation would point out that the arbitrary choice of the right side entails a moral duty to follow the convention which has created a universal expectation, the violation of which will put people in danger.
I really dont understand Dworkin model of rules. Whats the use of this theory? If a there's a law prohibiting a certain act, then it is illegal for whatever reason that is.
+Abel Wee I guess its just an effort on Hart's part to address the skewed view of the sovereign in Austin's Command Theory, suggesting that the law is not merely a command and punish system, but sometimes offer to empower those such as making wills or tort compensations etc...
To be honest, let's talk about power conferring. To be able to enter into contracts you still need to talk about command that laid down by that state, and that if you fail to comply there is an 'evil visitation' as laid out by Austin, and that Austin, in the province of jurisprudence also suggest that there part of nullity, which pointed out by hart in his concept of law
Umm....was free speech your example or Hart's example? Either way, that is not an example of a law without coercion. It is not a law for the people, it is a law for the government. It is a prohibition on what the government can do. If the government violates our right to free speech they face punishment. Clearly not an example of the point Hart was making.
I hope you can take criticism. I think that this is all nonsense. Normative, interpretive, etc? That's making a simple subject far more difficult to understand, in my opinion. The law was made by rulers to impose on the ruled, that's all. While rulers are out getting wealthy as all hell, they could care less if some law benefits most people, unless the law will entice people to come for their head(s). For example, how is it that a citizen will be punished for murder, but, a State (which doesn't really exist) can 'murder' thousands of people of both domestic and foreign origin and not be 'punished'? It's because those people were killed by rulers. The rulers never have to worry about law. The law is for the 'popular masses', so they can be controlled. Let's just call it what it is.
The thing is that according to Hart, lawmakers and officials have authority because both citizens and "rulers" socially accept the system itself (the rule of recognition) With that in mind, the state can murder because the rule of recognition (which is used and ACCEPTED by citizens and officials) gives them the competence/authorization to so. Your way isn't the only one to look at things. If that were so, then jurisprudence would be pointless (and it isn't)
This is ridiculous. You're really ignorant. He's not making a simple subject more difficult to understand. All law degrees that require you to studying jurisprudence have a whole topic on authority and obligation to obey the law. By being detailed the video helps law students come to grips with information and be able to write essays.
@@rosejane629 You mean propaganda and indoctrination. Authority is just a myth. If there were no mercenary enforcers (police) using violence and threats of violence there would be no immoral laws and no need for police or prisons.
Chess and door opening do not have anything to do with the law. I would like to see more practical, real life examples when the different points of view on the law and the concept of law are being explained.
Great explanation, thanks for taking the time to make these topics understandable for us non-philosophers .
THanks for this - very good - have been trying to understand this stuff and most of what is written is impenetrable - you've made it understandable - can't understand the criticism - you're just explaining the concepts, without advocating anything in particular and you do this very well - congratulations and keep up the good work-
+Bruce Clark Cheers Bruce. I try to present legal theory in a way that makes it accessible (and law more broadly hopefully). Good luck with your studies.
This is an incredible video and description. Thank you for your diligence and explanation of these legal philosophers.
Thanks mate, i've dozens of pages from both Dworkin and Hart but couldn't really understand until i found this.
You're a deadset legend, Mohsen. May God reward you!
Now that's some positive praise! Cheers Mikel!
This was my last two lectures condensed!! Lovely :)
Very interesting way of explaining through figures!
You are an archangel from the heavens. Many thanks
It may be that there are two forms of mortality: specific and transcendental. The former would align with customs or norms and would tend to exert a kind of steadying effect. The latter would imply universal principles which exist but which may not be thoroughly understood or not yet acknowledged. The beauty of law is that it permits one a kind of option of either preferring to reinforce or fine-tune existing moral precepts or to discard them in appealing to a higher mode which perhaps may transform society for the better. Genghis Khan, for instance, had no issue with throwing aside a time-worn custom if it became clear to him that a better option existed. In so doing, he was acknowledging that a higher truth existed over and above what was customary.
The best video ever. which helped in the exam. Tnanks
You could argue Parliament members are both commanders in their duties, and commanded when off-duty
This video was very helpful. But for future reference, you might want to try and equalize your audio levels before you upload these things.
It should be noted that Hart and Dworkin have slightly different projects, Harts work is more descriptive, Dworkin tends toward the more aspirational. Many would argue and I would agree that some differences between their views can be explained in that way.
Finally undestood it! thank you!
what a clear explanation. Who’s giving us that lecture?
Thank you! Very clear explanation
Hi just wanted to find out where the quote of "The nature of legal arguments lies in the best moral interpretation of existing legal practices". is from?
Dworkin if I'm not wrong.
+Jose Francisco Rodriguez Vallenilla You're right.
I fucking love dworkin dude. He’s probably my favorite philosopher.
Dear Prof, I find your lecture very insightful. where can I find the fourth part? Or is this the fourth part?
Power is absolute ❤
Thank you, Sir
Further explication of the artistic/scientific distinction might have been useful, especially since the holding the door example seemed a bit tangential. More than one artistic analysis is possible, since a door-holder will often say it doesn't involve presumptions of weakness, but is merely a show of respect. With the driving-on-the-right-side example, the distinction between the psychological/behavioral interpretation (artistic) and the moral/analytic (scientific) interpretation would point out that the arbitrary choice of the right side entails a moral duty to follow the convention which has created a universal expectation, the violation of which will put people in danger.
This is genious. Thanks for the upload. :)
Kudos on this vid.... it helped a lot with my revision.
Thank You so much for this.
My pleasure Muhammad. Best of luck with course.
Thank you for the video.
My pleasure Elisabete. I'm glad you found it useful.
Great explanation, well done
Cheers!
I really dont understand Dworkin model of rules. Whats the use of this theory? If a there's a law prohibiting a certain act, then it is illegal for whatever reason that is.
Thanks for the video, i mostly came along french and spanish videos😂
quality job on the edit
This is great!
Thanks! Glad you like it.
This sounds just as simple & easy to understand as traffic laws or highway patrol cops
True. It was a pretty convoluted lecture. I'll work on the next iteration
Suggestive laws? 3:43
Can you explain dworkin simply.Please brother in dire need.
I think hart of power conferring rule is not a strong argument. however, limitless sovereign still arguable
+Abel Wee I guess its just an effort on Hart's part to address the skewed view of the sovereign in Austin's Command Theory, suggesting that the law is not merely a command and punish system, but sometimes offer to empower those such as making wills or tort compensations etc...
To be honest, let's talk about power conferring. To be able to enter into contracts you still need to talk about command that laid down by that state, and that if you fail to comply there is an 'evil visitation' as laid out by Austin, and that Austin, in the province of jurisprudence also suggest that there part of nullity, which pointed out by hart in his concept of law
Isn't that Junior Soprano?
Hmmm...you might be on to something (unless you're suggesting that all old white dudes look alike ;)
it's very useful，thanks from China
My pleasure! I'm glad you find it useful.
Umm....was free speech your example or Hart's example? Either way, that is not an example of a law without coercion. It is not a law for the people, it is a law for the government. It is a prohibition on what the government can do. If the government violates our right to free speech they face punishment. Clearly not an example of the point Hart was making.
cheers very helpful
🤔
Perez Michelle Wilson Michael Davis David
I hope you can take criticism. I think that this is all nonsense.
Normative, interpretive, etc? That's making a simple subject far more difficult to understand, in my opinion.
The law was made by rulers to impose on the ruled, that's all. While rulers are out getting wealthy as all hell, they could care less if some law benefits most people, unless the law will entice people to come for their head(s). For example, how is it that a citizen will be punished for murder, but, a State (which doesn't really exist) can 'murder' thousands of people of both domestic and foreign origin and not be 'punished'? It's because those people were killed by rulers. The rulers never have to worry about law. The law is for the 'popular masses', so they can be controlled. Let's just call it what it is.
The thing is that according to Hart, lawmakers and officials have authority because both citizens and "rulers" socially accept the system itself (the rule of recognition)
With that in mind, the state can murder because the rule of recognition (which is used and ACCEPTED by citizens and officials) gives them the competence/authorization to so.
Your way isn't the only one to look at things. If that were so, then jurisprudence would be pointless (and it isn't)
This is ridiculous. You're really ignorant. He's not making a simple subject more difficult to understand. All law degrees that require you to studying jurisprudence have a whole topic on authority and obligation to obey the law. By being detailed the video helps law students come to grips with information and be able to write essays.
Argument: Trang is an unintelligent idiot
@@rosejane629 You mean propaganda and indoctrination. Authority is just a myth. If there were no mercenary enforcers (police) using violence and threats of violence there would be no immoral laws and no need for police or prisons.
Chess and door opening do not have anything to do with the law. I would like to see more practical, real life examples when the different points of view on the law and the concept of law are being explained.