Fun fact: Jaywalking laws were implemented at the behest of automobile manufacturers. Prior to their introduction roads were public spaces anyone could use. Pedestrians, horses, carts and carriages would share the road. When the much faster cars came about the owners and sellers of those cars wanted exclusive use of roads so they could drive faster and not be obstructed. So the vast majority of people who were pedestrians were banned from using roads in order to benefit the, at the time small, wealthy group of car owners.
I am completely unsurprised by this… It’s the same with land ownership laws in my country - the wealthy landlords wanted to leverage the land they had for specific (more profitable) endeavours and were given the rights over the peasants, who were not well-educated enough to make a decent argument for why the common use of the land should continue. Classism is at the heart of so much of modern day laws. It’s wild.
And it’s the law that you follow the pedestrian lane so that you don’t impose the cost of a car running over you and your inability to pay for it by using taxpayer money to help pay the hospital orders to take care of you because you did not follow the law. So you have a moral obligation to follow crosswalks so that you don’t impose that cost on your fellow man so there’s morality to that law too.
@@lenwelch2195 “So you don’t impose the cost of someone running you over” is wild lol😂 this law seems less like a moral one and more like one that’s also based in the concept of money.
@@MioMayhem you don’t pass off the cost of being irresponsible off on to someone else when you don’t follow the rules. Rules are there for a reason . You don’t get to do what you want. You must take responsibility for not following them that’s a lesson you learn when your 5. Grow up. There’s a cost in not following rules. You break the law then you must pay the price .
I've watched this man's entire playlist on Ethics, Introduction to philosophy, and philosophy of law. I'm not even a philosophy major I'm a Biology major. Please upload more
Could be time to change majors, or double major. A double major in bio and philosophy would be great for law (IP, environmental) or medicine (bioethics).
Im currently in my last year of studiying law at university of Chile, also im assitant professor of the class "introduction to law", and I have to say that this video summarizes incredible well in 20 minutes what i have to teach to new students in one year. amazing video !!!
But the video largely misrepresents Natural law theory - most legal naturalists would agree that MLKJ was breaking the positive law, however, they would argue that the positive law should not be applied by the courts because it breaks his natural rights.
This discussion about what law is and is supposed to be also had a really hard impact in the aftermath of World War 2. After the Nazis lost the war and the Allies started to prosecute all the German functionaries in Nürnberg, the defendants of the Nazi regime claimed that the surviving elites of Nazi-Germany couldn't be punished for their actions under the Hitler-regime because they were acting in accordance to the then German law. They rested their case an legal positivism.
Maybe you can describe “making excuse for not resisting against social fact” as “excuse for following law” But Natural law theory could have an opposite problem, which is “excuse for not following law” What ought to be law can differ depends on person. Some people might think they are trying to help the society, and not following the law , then end up being a fascist. Not every one is as just as M.L.King
And they were probably entirely correct about their actions being completely legal. What they missed what that the conquerors could make up new laws out of whole cloth and apply them _ex post facto,_ as they did.
I mean....from that point of view I find it hard to reconcile the verdicts with legal normatives. They WERE doing what they are supposed to do. Compare that to the treatment of Snowden for example.
The source of our disgust towards the actions of the Nazis can be traced back to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Dostoevsky, in his book "The Inquisitor", suggests that the Christian history of the Inquisition only troubles us because of our adherence to Christian beliefs. In other words, it is highly probable that the revulsion we feel towards the Inquisition is a result of the same Christian convictions that underpin our condemnation of the Nazi regime.
For what it's worth, I really liked your older videos that are just you and your board, no overlays, no cutting to videos, just you talking to the screen. I find them very... comforting? It's your unique style, and I think it's just great. I'd recommend going back to that. Will watch either way, though. :)
I feel like this is relatively similar to what he had before, though. Either way, I myself like the new version! Perhaps you have nostalgia for the old version and that is the “comforting feeling” you describe.
Great video. You did a great job at explaining this very complex topic. What I would like to add is the jurisprudence of neo-natural law theory (unsure about this translation) as a response to the risk of amoral laws of legal positivism. Basically, the problem occured in nazi-germany where you would have people that lived in an amoral legal system and complied with those laws and therefore acts amoral but legal. Now, when the allied forces wanted to get these people convicted they would claim that they did nothing illegal - ignore international conventions for now - so they had to come up with a response to that. I recommend judge Jacksons texts from the Nuremberg tribunals if you are interested in this problem.
I concur. with one observation. Our fear and disgust towards the Nazi regime stem from Christian beliefs, as the question of what exactly is wrong with the Nazi ideology cannot be satisfactorily answered through logical positivism. If one adheres to a society-based ethical system where trampling on the weak is acceptable, then there is no inherent moral problem with such a stance. However, if we acknowledge the presence of objective morality, a very Christian view of right and wrong then the creation of such a society would be deemed immoral.
@@ad4id Morality doesn't have to be objective or Judaeo-christian to consider Nazi ideology bad. It's perfectly reasonable and consistent to think that all people deserve freedom, basic rights, etc. and to think that is so primarily for the overall good of society in a technological, information rich world. In different circumstances, maybe slavery, genocide, cast systems, etc. would be a reasonable and consistent morality for the good of (the dominant) society. There are some strong arguments for utilitarianism being the engine behind morality, which can be highly dependent on the social scale at which such morality is applied in the form of law. What is moral for a band of hunter gatherers, a city-state, a large nation, or a global trade culture may be vastly different.
@@ad4id Why does everyone think the world is centered around the west? Do you think that morality cannot exist in other culture and societies or something? It always baffles me, as a Chinese person to see westerners constantly think that there is only christianity and western culture without religion.
@@Michelle_Wellbeck are we talking about the country or individual people? I'm not very familiar with the law because I'm not a lawyer and I grew up in Canada. But in terms of individual people, I don't think anyone believes things because of someone else's text, whether that's the bible or the confucius analects. Rather, we are born with a conscience, and we gravitate towards systems that we are aware of, and match our conscience well. But certainly a lot of Chinese society was built on Confucianism and the concept of responsibility rather than freedom. At least until Mao took over and destroyed everything calling it "feudalist master-slave thinking".
I think there's a somewhat analogous situation in discussions about art. There are people who say such-and-such is "not art" when what they're ultimately trying to say is they don't like it, and others who will say "of course it's art, it's just not good art".
Andy Warhol has once made a handmade box that looks exactly like a box for soap, which is of a rather common soap brand. That soap box “thing” ended up completely breaking the boundary between art and non art object. Maybe legal positivism can have similar problem as well.
@@cavalrycome The removal of the artist's hand from a piece of artwork does renders it null and void from being called Art. Your perfect example is Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain', which was merely an upside-down urinal that Duchamp signed and deemed art.Pop Art, including pieces like Warhol's 'Velvet Elvis' or his 'Campbell Soup Cans', could be viewed as an attempt at creative expression, but it's very low brow Art. The modern Art movement is littered with such low-brow resolutions of Artwork
@@ad4id Art is supposed to make you think or feel. The fact that you have many thoughts and feelings about an upside down urinal, or painting of canned soup was the artists intention, and as such is very effective art, although I would agree it is not necessarily good art.
Well, maybe because the video was edited whereas in real life there could be other external factors like pauses, questions, drinking water, etc. This video may be 18 minutes long but it's making wash sure much longer accounting for the cuts that were removed.
On this account, if you consider the two theories from a functional perspective, it is conceivable that the differences between them are entirely semantic. Consider: if you view the law as morally indifferent, but believe that you should follow good laws and not follow bad ones, that is not functionally different from believing that you should always follow the law, but that bad laws aren't actually 'laws' at all (lex mala, lex nulla). Given the same inputs (laws or purported laws), you would come to the same conclusion as to whether they should or should not be followed (based upon either the conviction that they are bad laws, or that they aren't laws at all).
Thank God, I was literally about to type and explain this entire thing. While the video is a good analysis, he continuously brushes over this fundamental truth. He also clearly misrepresents the natural law theory by not clarifying that it practically means you don’t follow the bad law, because God’s greater law contradicts it. I don’t think legal positivists would want to say that if law is not what it ought to be, then it should still be followed before it is changed. If you take that principle to the extreme it’s pretty clear that it’s better to not follow bad laws.
Ya functionally they’re no different. I think the only real difference is positivism basically says true laws are simply what’s in the law book (or maybe just what’s enforced at least?) where as natural law says laws aren’t what’s in the law book, they’re the rules for what’s good and the law book is just a goal to write down laws but isn’t necessarily always right. Which I agree is basically semantics and they both conclude “get rid of bad laws” and “follow good ones” and to be honest natural law theory seems to be a more philosophical theory about the nature of societal rules where as positivism is more of just a description of how legal systems actually work.
And if I understand all of that and am indeed way ahead of the game it's because you gave me a push ahead. Thanks Jeffery, you are an amazing help in so many ways.
2:49: No, the reason we turn around to face out when we get in a lift is because the buttons are next to the door! We turn around so that we can see the buttons & our hand is adjacent to them. The reason why the buttons are next to the door is because if they were on the back wall of the lift, someone entering a crowded lift would have to fight their way through the crowd to push their button. US building codes do not allow buttons on the side of the lift, but European countries often do, & in these lifts, people face whichever side has the indicator that displays the current floor, be this the side of the cabin or the front.
You don't need to stand facing a button to use it. You only need to be proximate to the button and flexible enough to hit it from whatever position you are standing (or sitting or crouching or whatever). This is manifestly the case for hitting pedestrian crosswalk buttons. Most people do not continue facing the button once they have pushed it, and many do not even necessarily face the button _in order to_ push it.
In civil law systems (as opposed to the common law systems of the UK and US), most emphasis is put on written law and much less on case law. It is also held to a high significance that courts judge only by the law. In these systems, as well as in the Nuremberg trials as some have pointed out, the Natural Law Theory creates an obligation for justices to evaluate the eticality of legal rules. In civil law systems the Legal Positivism Theory does not grant courts the option to not punish people for breaking immoral law, unless it is specifically stated in said law. I found your description of the Natural Law Theory just a tad bit biased against it. This comes from a man who loves H.L.A. Hart's work too, but who also views it as limited to his theoretical background within the common law systems.
Doesn't some of modern EU law also include 'intent' on the basis that the negotiations and discussions of the law creation was public enough that intent can be known beyond the clinical written word. I've also heard it said that UK's case law is still 'written law', and such cases convert intangible concepts into tangible examples to better cut the fog with.
@@philipoakley5498 Yes, but that intent can be extrapolated from the materials concerning the drafting of said legislation. For example EU Regulations and Directives contain a preamble, which is usually quite lengthy and goes into some detail covering the issues which are being legislated and what the aim of the legislation is in that aspect. Often reading the preambles helps while trying to figure out what a specific article means to say. Further, if you deep dive, there can also be public discussions or other materials prior to the draft or there can be secondary acts by EU bodies or regulatory institutions, which provide further instructions and clarifications on the points made within the main acts. There's also legal analogy, logical and legal principles, etc, but this is more or less also "written" law,. For example in an analogy case you'd refer to a legal act covering a separate, but similar issue a certain way and apply its logic to the current issue, thus clarifying the intent. Or if you were to cite some legal principle - those would usually either be found in a legislative act of a higher rank or be some of the logical bedrock of the Continental legal system since Roman times (like "ignorance of the law excuses no one"). And then of course, there is court precedent, but its status is also sometimes fixed within written law and is generally not able to be used to contradict legislation. The legislator legislates, the judiciary judges based upon the laws enacted, that;s the balance of power. I apologize if I rambled a bit, hope this was of use to you.
The idea of natural law is based on a ludicrous and wrong premise that in the nature there were some rights. In reality the life before civilizations was extremely violent. The violent death rate was hundreds of times greater than it is now in Europe. Human rights as we know are some 300 year old idea.
His explanation of natural law was very incomplete. It's not just positivism plus moral consideration. It's the belief that the universe has in it, by its very organisation, things that are objectively good and bad for reasoning beings.
Dear Jeffrey, This morning, I stumbled across your video on Russell's Paradox. While at some point in my Mathematical education, way back in the '70s, I think we covered this, I couldn't recall what it was. So, I watched your video to "brush up." Of course, there was no Internet or TH-cam then. Just books and, perhaps more importantly, Coles Notes. I was so impressed by your succinct and impressively clear presentation of Russell's Paradox that I have decided to "Label" you as the premier 21st-century version of Coles Notes! I have happily subscribed to your channel and have spent much of today immersed in your videos. Your videos are like a visual version of Wikipedia because of casual comments like, "If you want to know more, I did a video solely on..." It's like those awful "down the rabbit hole" links on every Wikipedia page. You know, the ones you can't resist clicking on to find out what the term used actually means. Whew! Thank you for investing your time and talent in providing such educational content. Oh, and by the way, I don't want to use the little brain space I have left trying to figure out how you appear to be writing backwards. Or what hand you are writing with, or whether you wear rings and which hand they are on. Or why you choose one colour of marker over another. Geez, Louise! Again, many thanks!
Yeah, super impressive how well he can write backward. Lol. I thought the same thing for a heartbeat : ) He's just flipping the video post-production. (or is really obsessed with DaVinci)
Dear Professor Kaplan - thanks a gazillion for these expositions; the best I've ever encountered, and believe me I've "encountered" a few. Much obliged.
It’s not so much of an arbitrary rule about facing the front in an elevator. It’s simply the most logical direction to face since you have to turn around to push the button of your floor, and it makes sense to be able to see when the doors open. As an aside, the original version of candid camera did a segment where they hired actors to face left or right, or the back wall in an elevator and the unsuspecting marks would, after a brief period of discomfort, typically conform, and face the same way as the actors. Psychology is fascinating.
You can simply turn your head to look and/or listen for audio indications of when your floor is reached and the door is opened from whatever position you wish to stand. There is nothing logical about it, unless you have also made assumptions about what people naturally want to do that have nothing to do with social expectations (like wanting to minimize their own inconvenience, to minimize their physical effort, to minimize their mental effort, to have a good vantage of goings on, and so on). It is the social fact that people implicitly recognize when they find discomfort in seeing that someone is conspicuously failing to abide by the rule.
I am so happy that I found your videos. I just watched the one on set theory and I the best way I can describe my reaction is "grateful." Again, Thank you.
This is very helpful to a European law student. I have a strong feeling that some of our law professors dont understand the positivist legal theory properly, or atleast cannot explain it properly. This explanation makes much better sense. However, natural legal theory is understood here quite well it seems, or maybe in contrast, we put more emphasis on it. I think it might be due to European legal system when it comes to protection of human rights, in which it seems to be the farthest developed.
This is a fantastic breakdown, and I thank you for it. I will refer people to this in the future. There's a tension in Americans' ideas about the law (not to exclude others from this, just speaking about what I know) that arises from the Declaration of Independence -- which is steeped in "Younger Jefferson's" natural law ideas, and the Constitution (Madison and "Older Jefferson"), which is rigidly positivist. Because of this, I think, natural law theory in the US has become the tool of sovereign citizens, tax cranks and others of that sort. But taken broadly, natural law is "autobiographical" -- you learn a lot about who someone is by what they will *claim* natural law theory demands. Seven people will give you eight different and inconsistent opinions about what natural law means. I jokingly tell people that the best summary of legal positivism is "the law is the law because that's what the law says the law is". There is no analytical solution or reductivist underpinning supporting the rule of law. Law is necessary to civilized society, so there must be a source of law and enforcement of law. "Government" is just the term we use to describe the system that fills those functions. Ideally, it ought to be just and moral, but it can't be perfect (because it's run by human beings). So we need a system that gets as close as possible to objectively moral law. Churchill (allegedly) said that democracy is the worst system "except for all the others that have been tried". My personal opinion is that legal positivism does offer a "cleaner" picture of "what the law is". But sometimes disobedience of the law is the morally correct thing to do.
A system of Natural Law could never be agreed upon by all of society as people have different ideas about what are "moral facts". It would also be difficult to change once a particular dominant group forced their moral system on everyone else. You wouldn't be able to tinker with it, or take account of changes in attitudes, because the "moral facts" underpinning it are considered objective and unchanging.
Justice Gambino Congrats to your Big Red law school acceptance. I attended Cornell undergrad years ago. I found Cornell to be...challenging...but not for reasons you might expect. If you are like me, you may find the left leaning atmosphere at Big Red unsettling, as I did, especially with your philosophy background. An old friend who attended Cornell law school while I was an undergrad there told me he had a professor who greeted his students on their first day in a way that haunted him for years. The professor entered the lecture hall a few minutes after the very first class was to begin. He proceeded to approach the chalk board (35 years ago there were chalk boards) and wrote, in 3' tall letters, the following; J U S T I C E After a few moments of amusing himself watching the students' confused expressions, he then suggested the class take a good, long look at the chalkboard. He then erased the word, "JUSTICE," while commenting that his students remember what they had read as it would be the last time they saw justice in their legal careers. Food for thought.
In the end it still applies: the one with the most and fittest followers wins. The law is only in place to give a sense of certainty because some mentally and physically fit people realised they might loose their fitness and a law helps them to remain in relative peace.
I love this lecture. It illustrates beautifully why MLK Jr. was such a great man. I call MLK Jr. a mystic. that is the highest praise I can offer a man. He saw the higher law. He stood for the right though the heavens fell on him. He was murdered. Terrible end, but he died believing in his cause. I believe in men like him. We need many more like him. But they need to have a dream like he did. MLK Jr. had a dream. It was a dream worth dying for. And it illustrates beautifully the nature of natural law. And why natural law is above all other laws. Sadly, the transitions are frequently rough going. Most Mystics are dead by age 40. That is rough going.
Never realized I was a Law Posetivist because I always say a Law can't be a law if there are no repercussions for breaking it. It is a strong suggestion at best.
A law can be a law even if there are no reprocussions for breaking it. So long as a norm has a hypothesis and a disposition it is Law; the presence or absence of repercussions for breaking a law is not a determining factor in the positivist understanding of what constitutes law.. This video also largely misrepresents natural law theory - most legal naturalists would agree that MLKJ was breaking the positive law, however, they would argue that the positive law should not be applied by the courts because it breaks his natural rights.
Statutes deliberately incorporate the bias and prejudices of those in authority, while natural law explicitly attempts to eliminate the bias and prejudice. Legal and lawful are NOT synonyms. The "elevator rule" is that we face in the direction threats are most likely to come from.
In Europe the definition of jurisprudence is far more broad than just a philosophy of law. It is understood as a science about the law in all of its theoretical and practical aspects. Majors in law in many European countries are called majors in jurisprudence.
I would say that legal positivism CAN incorporate morality (indirectly). It doesn't have to talk about morality at all. Natural law, on the other hand, is inescapably about morality.
@@BiznizTrademark *Wait!* If legal positivism is strictly descriptive, then not only is it the case that "what the law _is"_ may be different than "what the law _ought to be,"_ but it's also the case that the law has *no bearing* on how we ought to behave (aside from practical considerations that some people may be inclined to punish us for certain behaviours). If the law isn't normative, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with breaking it. This looks like a serious problem for anyone who practices and enforces law. The law is ultimately a social delusion and there's no justification for broadly enforcing it. It's not unreasonable to think that "what the law ought to be" is _"abolished,"_ and that coercion (by the state or otherwise) is fundamentally and universally immoral. Legal positivism provides no grounds for disagreement.
@@andrewj22The positivist believes the law has no *inherent* morality that you should obey it. But it certainly does carry all of those social aspects (the cops and judges and prisons) that provide very strong reasons to obey (very Austinian). But it is certainly possible for the law to align with the morality of the man, and in most cases it does. I would say you are right that there is no inherent reason to obey laws, but that laws are typically obeyed because they are aligned with moral values/principles/laws of the society **and** because they carry the force of the legal system.
Legal positivism is objective in a clear way. The law says what it says, it's applied how it's applied. Natural law is not objective in any clear way. It's all definitions and arguments.
I feel like I'm missing something or there's some component I don't quite grasp - it seems to me like Natural Law Theorists and Legal Positivists are just operating under a different definition of what the word "Law" means; where Legal positivists argue that Law is simply what is, and Natural Law Theorists essentially argue that "Law" is synonymous with "Justice". Presumably a white nationalist who's a Natural Law Theorist can also argue that segregation "laws" where in fact in accordance with Natural Law so they really where Law.
I feel like people on the spectrum or with adhd have a much easier time seeing and understanding this stuff. Likely because most of the social “norms” that most people take for granted, we had to question why humans do the things we do in the first place.
The stretch with positivism is that some laws were posited by generations long gone, with the forethought that those laws may be unpopular, but are moral and may protect a minority. Now people are forced to follow that law because it is integral to the legal system even though if we took a vote, a majority might say, we don't want that law anymore.
If a behaviour is present in the absence of socialisation, is it still a 'social behaviour'? An example being the 'elevator rule' where a participant will naturally face the entrance of any enclosed space to ensure their own safety.
It depends on the motivation of the behavior. If you face the elevator door because of a survival instinct or because logic dictates you, then it is not. If you face it because you saw from others to do it or you heard that it is the normal, then it is. A newborn child who grow up without knowing anything about elevators, will probably not face the elevator door, unless it's a surprise that the door is closed automatically.
I’m not sure if curriculums differ a lot, but in my jurisprudence last year, the dominant theories are the critical theories (CLS, CRT,CQT) which is loosely like what positivism is to natural law.
Jaywalking is an interesting challenge to the idea of legal positivism, in my opinion. In many countries, people rarely get punished for it and police rarely punish people, despite the fact it is enshrined in law. In my hometown (a suburb of Washington DC), sleeping on the floor was technically illegal but we did it all the time at sleepovers or when family came and we wanted to give grandma the bed, etc. And yet, it is a social fact that people wrote some things down in a piece of paper. So what is the actual law? Some social critics refer to the law as "walking while black", some people in the comments have already begun talking about how the law is actually about giving automobile manufacturers and owners ownership of the road. Whatever the law of jaywalking is, it is not altogether what is written in the legal code. I think this is one of the problems with "social facts" in general. Their consequences are of course real, but I would argue that they aren't themselves entirely real the way, say, matter is.
I TA'ed philosophy of law about a year ago at FSU. That there's an active debate on the nature and status of law (not what it should be but what it is) itself is a bit silly.
Wow, that was the clearest explanation of Legal Positivism I have found yet. Thank you. Could you please explain in a video, how bad law is replaced by good law, and also, how do we prevent bad law from becoming law in the first place. What is the philosophy around safeguards, guardrails, and corrective measures in 'quality assurance?' As a software engineer, I am very familiar with quality assurance, process improvement, etc. in product design, but as legal neophyte, I cannot clearly see similar analogs in legal theory and practice.
This just sounds like an argument of what the definition of "law" is. It's likely that a naturalist would say an "immoral law" is called something else besides law, like a "decision" or something. When a positivist says something is a "just law", it's the same thing as just a "law" for a naturalist. It sounds like they just have different words for the same thing.
Positivists don't talk about the "justice" of a law at all. They consider it a separate issue to the law itself and its application. The "justness" of a law is for the lawmakers to decide, and change if they want.
The general sentiment is that law makers are always trying to make laws, as is, pushing the boundaries at what they ought to be. constantly.This push changes popular sentiment of what law ought to be.
I feel like a lot of confusion might come from the assertions of what’s “real”. But you don’t do much to untangle that stuff. Maybe words like objective, subjective, transjective might be helpful tools here. And discussing why some people agree or disagree with your assertions that something is “real”, might help provide a clearer picture too I also think, because this is both helping students pass their classes, *and* framing a way to think about the world, that it might be useful to discuss how the framing is insufficient, or how it makes assertions about the world that are different from everyday experience. But also that’s a lot to put into a video, while keeping it short, and keeping the viewers interest, and it doesn’t consider how these videos you’ve made are already an impressive impressive achievement
There are laws that remained obscure for the sake of maintaining its truth. You think of it, because it is capable to be perceived. You remove redundancy, its really simple.
I don't know if this is relevant, but when the "separate but equal" principle was overturned by Brown v Board, segregation was no longer law; therefore, MLK Jr. wasn't breaking the law when he protested the continued practice of segregation. It's true that when he defied a legal injunction against "parading" in Birmingham, he was in violation, but when defying segregationist statutes pertaining to lunch counters, public conveyances, etc. he and others were not breaking the law from a positivist perspective.
This is a comment regarding your video: Peter Singer - "Ordinary People are Evil." You turned off comments there (which, I would argue, is evil), so I'll leave my thoughts here. I agree with Singer's thesis. In fact, I started out as a person of modest means, so I understand the hardships life can throw at you. Subconsciously, I have always known that spending money on unnecessary things is morally wrong. Even now, when I am in a better financial position, I only spend a portion of my income. I haven't "upgraded my life" or indulged in luxury items. I haven't traveled abroad or taken vacations outside my local area. It's been 12 years, and I still can't morally justify these actions to myself. I purchase new or used items only when the old ones are beyond repair. The extra money I have just accumulates dust (and interest) unless I use it for supererogatory acts. That's how I choose to utilize it. I believe people are often blind to the harsh realities of the world beyond their immediate social circles. They acknowledge that the world can be unforgiving, but they also view taking action as either too difficult or impossible. Soothing oneself with luxury and material possessions is easier, and that's what most people opt for. Overall, I appreciate Singer's perspective and resonate with the idea that ordinary individuals tend to overlook their moral responsibilities in favor of personal comfort and convenience. Yours sincerely, Alex from Berlin.
I loath the liminal presence of other people on the elevator. So I will always look towards one of the corners as the doors open. This scares most people, but for those who enter regardless of social conventions, they are worthy to enter the vertically moving box with me
Dude it’s so weird I just came across this video. About a month and a half ago I had this exact conversation about how money is just a social concept with my 7th grade students.
Eagerly waiting more on Legal Positivism - recent SCOTUS news made the area quite negative. Lame joke apart, I really would like to learn more - thanks!
“The conflict between justice and legal certainty may well be resolved in this way: The positive law, secured by pronouncement and power, takes precedence even when its content is unjust (ungerecht) and fails in its purpose of benefitting the people, unless the conflict between positive statute and justice reaches such an intolerable degree that the statute, as 'flawed law (unrichtiges Recht)’ must yield to justice. It is impossible to draw a sharper line between cases of statutory lawlessness (gesetzliches Unrecht) and statutes (Gesetze) that are valid in spite of their flawed content. Another line of distinction, however, can be traced with utmost clarity: Where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality, which forms the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in the laying down of positive law, then the statute is not even merely 'flawed law'-rather, it lacks completely the very nature of law. For law, including positive law, cannot be otherwise defined than as a system and an institution whose very meaning is to serve justice. Measured by this standard, whole portions of National Socialist law never attained the dignity of valid law (zur Würde geltendes Recht).” The Radbruch formula (1946)
Positivism does not come only from 'positing', but also from 'positive' and the ideology of positivism which is metaphysical in the sense of being anti-idealist. Rejecting the ideal dimension where the ideas of the Good, of the Justice, or of the Truth used to come from (according to the Natural Law paradigm), the positivist paradigm confined itself to purely procedural understanding. Yet, in fact, it just misses the dimension of people's striving for justice, for good - every time they enter into the process of making a law. The process of law-making is not something mechanical or automatic but is always concerned with some ideas and values, and it is impossible to neglect them. The very attempt to treat the law cut off these values, tells only a half-story, and denies the very background for law being a law since it becomes only power based, inexistent without coercion. As if, when there is no power to impose it, the law loses its reality. But the law is not only power and coercion. And that is the dimension positivism cannot supply and the moral dimension of Natural law theory appears to be inevitable if we want the law to be something autonomous and valid. Not only behavior under the direct supervision of the stronger master. As if the law is there when you have a pistol put to your head, and disappears, when it is taken away; or somebody else even stronger kicks off that pistol holder. Here we have only a sequence of violence where the term law as such has nothing to do.
I always have a bad feeling entering an elevator and facing the door, ever since the first time. I've always thought, and to this day still think to myself, "Why am I doing this? Why are we all so compelled?"
cuz you're gonna leave through the door and it's convenient to face it, knowing you will do so what sucks is when it's not clear if it's a double-door or one-door.
Hey I've been watching your videos for a little while now and I've always wondered... are you writing everything backwards on the glass in front of you?
@@maryanngorman3533 He's writing on glass and then mirrors the footage at the end. If you notice, the buttons on his shirt are on the opposite side from normal.
Excellent. I have a big question: would you say the constitution is grounded in natural law theory or positivism? I'm sure there is evidence for both but what are philosophers saying about it these days?
A fuller version of the MLK quote: “One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ “Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” Doesn't MLK have the right to be poetic, when talking about civil disobedience? People speak like this all the time: a cowardly man is called "no man at all", an absentee or cruel father is called "no father at all", a law that you don't need to follow is "no law at all". I feel like people intuitively know what the phrase means if you don't use that literal, out-of-context interpretation. Legal positivists say that there are laws you don't need to follow, but it is the essence of law that it has to be followed. When you start making proper distinctions, I don't think legal positivism holds up.
At my work in a 10 story hospital building, everyone who works there gets on the elevator and leans against the side facing the middle. Visitors typically face the door though.
The elevator rule is really a function of the form( Neil Peart is a lyrical genius). The floor indicator and exit are in the direction you should be facing.
The table is also limited to a function of the form, while it may still exist without humans, I doubt animals would use a table as a table. Retain its shape, but not its function. Although due to persistent nature, a table would retain vague or ambiguous function, whereas money would have less than that. (what? fuel for fire?) In the elevator example, I view it as a posit to get out of the elevator fwaster, a planning ahead of "by turning now, I will be ready when door opens" which is a similar rule to "sit at the table always facing the door, in case trouble walks that way/has entered the building, you'd be aware". _"when a wandering stranger, friend or foe, might come in at any moment. And sometimes that foe might be known, well armed and accompanied by his band of ne’er-do-wells. It was a matter of survival that the man and his warriors face the door and position themselves along the walls where their weapons were placed."_ This can be further simplified by the locale/pub/elevator having positive known energy (you, friends,drinking) and the exterior or exit having negative or unknown energy (trouble, foe, cold), so even in Law of Physics some of these rules unironically would apply, given that warm currents, or in this case, people, would face towards the negative.
I would say the elevator example could actually be distilled down to the social law of efficiency where people should act in a way that is efficient or they're weird cuz turning away from the elevator door would mean that once the elevator opens you have to turn around to exit the elevator which why would you do that that's weird you had plenty of time to turn around while you were in the elevator
A good test for that hypothesis would be to see how often the "elevator rule" is followed under different social conditions. Do single individuals in an elevator follow the rule to the same extent as in a crowded elevator? Does a group of friends tend to face each other when they have the elevator to themselves, or do they still follow the rule? Judging from my own experience, the rule applies most strongly with strangers and most weakly with friends. So I don't think your hypothesis is clearly confirmed, otherwise there would be no difference. By myself, I definitely face the door when I'm in a hurry, and only slightly less often otherwise, on the premise that the doors might open and let some people in, and I'd find it socially uncomfortable to be found doing something unconventional at that moment. So I can report that your hypothesis is confirmed weakly in my case, but a proper confirmation would require more data.
Even this is overlooking the glaring reason for facing one direction in an elevator. They have panels that you need to interact with. If you don't turn around in the elevator to select your floor on the panel, then you will at least need to turn to see that your floor has already been pressed. You will also need to see which floor you are on to get off the elevator at the right time. Proper use of the elevator is way more than an unspoken social rule. It's intuitive.
The elevator rule boils down to something more simple that has nothing to do with an elevator or peer pressure from others in the elevator. The elevator has 1 door serving as both the entrance and the exit. People generally walk facing the direction in which they walk. So, walking into the elevator, they are facing the back. We do not even have to mention that they then face forward to press a button to determine where the elevator will go, we can simply say that the next thing they will do is walk out of the elevator. So, they orient themselves in the direction in which they will be walking. If the elevator had doors on each wall that were functional, people would tend to orient themselves in the direction facing the door that they were going to walk out of, probably standing close to that door in order to allow room for others that were standing close to their chosen door. So, it is not really about elevator etiquette, it is just about facing the direction in which you are going. Animals do that, too.
Most readers need to get out more if they've never been into an elevator with separate entrance and exit doors (common in airports) where the 'whole corridor' is raised/lowered. Folk can get confused!
5:35 you might mention this later on idk, but there is also the part whare most people just get born into a cirtain law and have no choice but to follow it, reguardless of whether or not they aguree with it. Now, of course, those who were there before will reasonably want to preserve some of those laws, but there are laws which we preserve which have no place beeing preserved, and there are also things which we as a collective humanity want to be laws which are sabotaged in varaous different ways by the already existant laws, so that improvements are more difficult to be made. Tho this is the same process that makes it difficult to put into place bad laws, however, due to the nature of the already existant structures, which prevent faster improvements, there are enevitably already existant laws which cause a kind of race to the bottom, whare they enforce societal decay. For exaple take the fact that lobying is legal, and its basically just bribing, or as some like to put it " voting with your money", but this kind of voting is very antithetical to that the majority of people want, because most people have a lot less voting power than the minority which usually inherited this voting power. Have a good day
I think M.L.King's argument was kinda misunderstood in the context of "what is law". It seem to me what M.L.King was saying is not just "evil law isn't law", there is probably other part of derivation. I think what M.L.King was trying to say is : 1) law is some "thing" that bring just concequence 2) unjust concequence is brought out, thus it is not law Basically M.L.King was giving a factual definition of law, just like legal positivism. But M.L.King's definition is "law is(at the least) something that bring justice", and it should be understood as a matter of fact, not a matter of "should". Just like we define the thing apple as apple, and non-apple as non-apple, law "is" something that bring justice, if something doesn't bring justice then it's not law. Another thing to support M.L.King's point of view is that this judgement of "justice" is a social fact as well. Justice is something because we believe in it. And seems like "how law should be like" is also a law of laws that people do believe in. So actually both M.L.King and legal positivism have to deal with the question of "what law ought to be".
I've never studied philosophy but feel like something is missing from the separation thesis explanation that statute alone is a good enough starting point for discussing something like segregation. Would you agree that a rule owing its initial existence to some statute probably has morality and politics baked into? If so then we're talking as much about what the law 'is' as the ought-statements and beliefs held by some members of society.
In a positivist system, natural law theory is just a social construct. Just like any other moral system claiming there are nomological truths which aren't provable but obvious to the erudite.... 😂
I wonder, if in some country dictator makes the law that all people who said something bad about him will be executed, is it still a law? Is it a "social phenomena"? And what if this dictator has no power to enforce this rule? Is it a law then? And what if part of the country is occupied by hostile army and this army declare their own laws? Is it still law and social phenomena? And which law is real law - of the original country or the invading country? If some people start a revolution and overthrow dictator - does they break a law? Does dictator's law has any meaning? When it disappear - at the moment when dictator was overthrown? But if law against revolution was not enforced (since dictator lost) was it a real law?
American political philosophy is founded on the notion of natural law and natural rights - that individuals possess inalienable rights which come not from government or human constructions but is prior to anything humans create, from nature, Jefferson used the word Creator. This legal positivism comes from the British utilitarian tradition of the 19th-century. Traditional American political thought is also inspired by British political thought but that of John Locke rather than utilitarianism.
At 4:20, confused how the table is different from money. If people go away, the paper money is still around just like the table, but the meaning of that paper goes away. So does the meaning of the table. Without people, it is just random wood. People imbue it with meaning. Shouldn't a table be a social thing?
Wait, what about the law of gravity? It's something we placed words on it as a way to describe something that will be there with or without is like the table explanation, but is considered under the use of the word law? Because it would still be there and presumably work the way we discovered it to work so regardless of us creating the necessary words to describe it, it would work the same way nonetheless. Or am I nitpicking? Sorry if so, just a little big question i had
Hey, I face the door in an Elevator because THAT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO EXIT. It's more WORK to face away from the door, spin around and THEN exit the elevator. I suppose I could face away and then back out, but then I could bump into somebody else trying to enter because I can't see them. It's not social, it's purely PRACTICAL! I don't do it simply because society wants me to do it that way.
Here is why natural law is necessary. Because natural law exists outside mental states. Law isnt just that thing lawyers say it is anymore than science is just that thing scientists say science is. If you wish to build a system of governance that takes into account objective reality then dont base it solely on social phenomena. Our understanding of natural law may be entirely a social phenomena, but that isnt what we are trying to get at. Laws are not merely social phenomena that change like fashion trends. Following the law and executing a prisoner is not at all like deciding whether or not to wear bell bottoms. Yes, you can call something a law, even if its internally incoherent, unintelligible, and logically contradicts itself. But it's not really a law. Forget pomp and circumstance or telling a story about precedent, ratification, or publication of how the law came into being. These are all just social phenomena that can change after all. You can scribble a law down on your underwear and I guess it becomes just one of many "laws" that abound in the positivist landscape, each to be evaluated as good laws or bad laws - but each very much still a law. I'd argue that the concept of law contains a strong shared conception of the law that is tethered to the objective world or it isnt a law at all. Ie it has to be in accord with natural law.
@@thec130side I'd argue that natural law are laws about the natural world, that work much like "laws" in science, or mathematical proofs. Where they come from isn't as important as discovering what they are. Game theory, behavioral studies in an evolutionary framework, these things at least give us a hint of how to craft laws but our laws are only as good as our understanding.
A lot of people in the comments think the “positivism vs. non-positivism” dispute is semantic. This is a reasonable suspicion, and I think it should be addressed head on. Not sure why it hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this series? For instance, suppose we have an evil law on the books which should not be obeyed. According to positivists, it is a law, but since it is evil it should not be obeyed. According to non-positivists, it is not really a law, due to how it is evil. But both parties agree it should not be obeyed. They have different views on the ontology of law-- but is this really a question of what exists, or a question of what words to use for things despite agreeing on how the world is? Different meta-level theories, I think, may support different views here. It may be worth making a video to discuss specifically the question of whether these questions in ontology of law are a mere verbal dispute. A potential counterexample to the “verbal dispute” interpretation may be the Grudge Informer case, which veers into this, and also overlaps with Hart vs. Fuller and suchlike. On the other and, the Grudge Informer case may be too complex in its details (See "The Grudge Informer Case Revisited"). However, more generic cases may be proposed which may also motivate the "it's not a verbal dispute" interpretation. Suppose someone commits a murder (an evil killing)-- but the law (on the books, that is) allowed him to do it. In this case, arguably he should be prosecuted, since (morally speaking) he committed murder-one which the law failed to criminalize. But arguably, he shouldn’t be prosecuted, since it may be wrong to prosecute someone who did not break the law. So this could be a case where the positivist and the non-positivist may tend to have reason to reach different conclusions about what should be done, on the grounds of different views in the ontology of law (in conjunction with a plausible argument that the law's ontology, morally speaking, matters here). Perhaps the non-positivist can argue he *did* break the law, while the positivist cannot, so the non-positivist could make a stronger case for prosecution. The positivist seems to be committed to either non-prosecution or prosecution for doing an act which was not at the time illegal. There might be problems with my interpretation of such a case, but still, this seems onto something.
Legal positivism is difficult for third-year law students? It's literally one of the first things we were taught in Law School (Athens) at the age of 18. Most people get it pretty quickly.
Based off what you stated, and going off of H.L.A. Hart’s Separation Thesis, isn’t it possible for Legal Positivism (LP) to not only recognize, but also contain Natural Law Theory (NLT)? What I mean is that LP is the the analysis of what a law is, where as NLT is the what a law is supposed to be. LP being objective analysis of status quo, where as NLT is the subjective speculation of ideal (natural) justice. I feel like I’m missing something, because LP doesn’t really seem to *contradict NLT at all, so LP v. NLT shouldn’t be a discussion in the first place,… they seem to be arguing different subjects altogether.😵💫 *Edit: changed “interact with” to “contradict”
to sum up am I right that according the Natural Law Theory I can violate immoral law without public condemnation, but according Legal Positivism I can't?
So what kind of Law Theory provides the basis for Guantanamo court procedures? Particularly wrt how precedent influences future cases or how defendants can utilize precedent?
The table example at 4:15 looks weird. If everyone cease to exist then the table ceases to exist, there will be just an object like a tree, rock, a dead fish or a dollar bill but definitely not a table.
Can somebody clear something out for me? As a non-native English speaker, I was surprised to learn that word "positivism" in context of philosophy comes from latin "positivum", which means "positive" in a sense of "good" in English. Now, here is different point of view, that contradicts what I know. Where is the truth? And if it really is true that "positivism" comes from "posit", what is a relation between words "positive" and "posit" in English (if there is any)?
I think that's not specifically addressed by positivism/NLT directly... It's a question of *which* social facts are necessary to constitute a law. That one citation of 3 parts - issuing commands, threatening punishments, and habitual obedience - clearly only 1 part is fully achieved in this scenario (issuing commands). Nobody is obeying it so obviously the third one is out. And presumably if nobody is obeying it, then the threat of punishment either isn't credible (it's not enforced) or it's not sufficiently persuasive (the punishment is too small to stop people). It's a particularly hairy question if people are being punished, but some large percentage of the population continue to violate it.
In my opinion, this is the difference between a statute and law. North Carolina has a statute that forbids atheists from taking public office. But it's unenforceable because the Constitution explicitly forbids it and SCOTUS has ruled that it cannot be enforced. It would be inaccurate to say that "by law, an atheist can't hold office in NC" because they can, in fact. So the way I put it is that "the law" is effectively what the courts say about it -- how it is actually enforced in the real world. Statute is what the legislature says about it. But it's not a straightforward solution to your question, admittedly.
If nobody follows it and it is not enforced. Then while on the books it still is not a law according to law positivism. The social mind has forgotten it, as a result there is no l9nger the social upholding of the rule. This also can be seen when jurisdictions "scrub" their books. The idea posited earlier is an example of a law being overruled by another superior law. Superior in the sense of comming from a higher source not the sense of better. This can also be seen in several other structures of governance from monarchy to democracy. Where a lower rulling body would make a law and the superior ruling body would go nah that ain't it son.
Fun fact: Jaywalking laws were implemented at the behest of automobile manufacturers. Prior to their introduction roads were public spaces anyone could use. Pedestrians, horses, carts and carriages would share the road. When the much faster cars came about the owners and sellers of those cars wanted exclusive use of roads so they could drive faster and not be obstructed. So the vast majority of people who were pedestrians were banned from using roads in order to benefit the, at the time small, wealthy group of car owners.
I am completely unsurprised by this… It’s the same with land ownership laws in my country - the wealthy landlords wanted to leverage the land they had for specific (more profitable) endeavours and were given the rights over the peasants, who were not well-educated enough to make a decent argument for why the common use of the land should continue.
Classism is at the heart of so much of modern day laws. It’s wild.
And it’s the law that you follow the pedestrian lane so that you don’t impose the cost of a car running over you and your inability to pay for it by using taxpayer money to help pay the hospital orders to take care of you because you did not follow the law. So you have a moral obligation to follow crosswalks so that you don’t impose that cost on your fellow man so there’s morality to that law too.
@@lenwelch2195 And yet people rarely obey jaywalking laws and also rarely get punished for it, so...
@@lenwelch2195 “So you don’t impose the cost of someone running you over” is wild lol😂 this law seems less like a moral one and more like one that’s also based in the concept of money.
@@MioMayhem you don’t pass off the cost of being irresponsible off on to someone else when you don’t follow the rules. Rules are there for a reason . You don’t get to do what you want. You must take responsibility for not following them that’s a lesson you learn when your 5. Grow up. There’s a cost in not following rules. You break the law then you must pay the price .
I've watched this man's entire playlist on Ethics, Introduction to philosophy, and philosophy of law. I'm not even a philosophy major I'm a Biology major. Please upload more
Could be time to change majors, or double major. A double major in bio and philosophy would be great for law (IP, environmental) or medicine (bioethics).
Im currently in my last year of studiying law at university of Chile, also im assitant professor of the class "introduction to law", and I have to say that this video summarizes incredible well in 20 minutes what i have to teach to new students in one year.
amazing video !!!
But the video largely misrepresents Natural law theory - most legal naturalists would agree that MLKJ was breaking the positive law, however, they would argue that the positive law should not be applied by the courts because it breaks his natural rights.
This discussion about what law is and is supposed to be also had a really hard impact in the aftermath of World War 2.
After the Nazis lost the war and the Allies started to prosecute all the German functionaries in Nürnberg, the defendants of the Nazi regime claimed that the surviving elites of Nazi-Germany couldn't be punished for their actions under the Hitler-regime because they were acting in accordance to the then German law. They rested their case an legal positivism.
Maybe you can describe “making excuse for not resisting against social fact” as “excuse for following law”
But Natural law theory could have an opposite problem, which is “excuse for not following law”
What ought to be law can differ depends on person. Some people might think they are trying to help the society, and not following the law , then end up being a fascist.
Not every one is as just as M.L.King
And they were probably entirely correct about their actions being completely legal. What they missed what that the conquerors could make up new laws out of whole cloth and apply them _ex post facto,_ as they did.
I mean....from that point of view I find it hard to reconcile the verdicts with legal normatives. They WERE doing what they are supposed to do. Compare that to the treatment of Snowden for example.
And the vast majority of them were either shot or hung.
The source of our disgust towards the actions of the Nazis can be traced back to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Dostoevsky, in his book "The Inquisitor", suggests that the Christian history of the Inquisition only troubles us because of our adherence to Christian beliefs. In other words, it is highly probable that the revulsion we feel towards the Inquisition is a result of the same Christian convictions that underpin our condemnation of the Nazi regime.
For what it's worth, I really liked your older videos that are just you and your board, no overlays, no cutting to videos, just you talking to the screen. I find them very... comforting? It's your unique style, and I think it's just great. I'd recommend going back to that. Will watch either way, though. :)
I feel like this is relatively similar to what he had before, though. Either way, I myself like the new version! Perhaps you have nostalgia for the old version and that is the “comforting feeling” you describe.
Great video. You did a great job at explaining this very complex topic. What I would like to add is the jurisprudence of neo-natural law theory (unsure about this translation) as a response to the risk of amoral laws of legal positivism. Basically, the problem occured in nazi-germany where you would have people that lived in an amoral legal system and complied with those laws and therefore acts amoral but legal. Now, when the allied forces wanted to get these people convicted they would claim that they did nothing illegal - ignore international conventions for now - so they had to come up with a response to that. I recommend judge Jacksons texts from the Nuremberg tribunals if you are interested in this problem.
I concur. with one observation.
Our fear and disgust towards the Nazi regime stem from Christian beliefs, as the question of what exactly is wrong with the Nazi ideology cannot be satisfactorily answered through logical positivism. If one adheres to a society-based ethical system where trampling on the weak is acceptable, then there is no inherent moral problem with such a stance. However, if we acknowledge the presence of objective morality, a very Christian view of right and wrong then the creation of such a society would be deemed immoral.
@@ad4id Morality doesn't have to be objective or Judaeo-christian to consider Nazi ideology bad. It's perfectly reasonable and consistent to think that all people deserve freedom, basic rights, etc. and to think that is so primarily for the overall good of society in a technological, information rich world. In different circumstances, maybe slavery, genocide, cast systems, etc. would be a reasonable and consistent morality for the good of (the dominant) society. There are some strong arguments for utilitarianism being the engine behind morality, which can be highly dependent on the social scale at which such morality is applied in the form of law. What is moral for a band of hunter gatherers, a city-state, a large nation, or a global trade culture may be vastly different.
@@ad4id Why does everyone think the world is centered around the west? Do you think that morality cannot exist in other culture and societies or something? It always baffles me, as a Chinese person to see westerners constantly think that there is only christianity and western culture without religion.
@@YSFmemoriesWhat's the basis of Natural Law in China? Confucianism?
@@Michelle_Wellbeck are we talking about the country or individual people?
I'm not very familiar with the law because I'm not a lawyer and I grew up in Canada.
But in terms of individual people, I don't think anyone believes things because of someone else's text, whether that's the bible or the confucius analects.
Rather, we are born with a conscience, and we gravitate towards systems that we are aware of, and match our conscience well.
But certainly a lot of Chinese society was built on Confucianism and the concept of responsibility rather than freedom.
At least until Mao took over and destroyed everything calling it "feudalist master-slave thinking".
I think there's a somewhat analogous situation in discussions about art. There are people who say such-and-such is "not art" when what they're ultimately trying to say is they don't like it, and others who will say "of course it's art, it's just not good art".
Andy Warhol has once made a handmade box that looks exactly like a box for soap, which is of a rather common soap brand.
That soap box “thing” ended up completely breaking the boundary between art and non art object.
Maybe legal positivism can have similar problem as well.
@@孫佑定 Yes, I agree. Duchamp's 'Fountain' (1917) is another key example that comes up in these kinds of discussions.
Art is an extremely subjective science much more so than say, the sweet science of pugilism.
@@cavalrycome The removal of the artist's hand from a piece of artwork does renders it null and void from being called Art.
Your perfect example is Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain', which was merely an upside-down urinal that Duchamp signed and deemed art.Pop Art, including pieces like Warhol's 'Velvet Elvis' or his 'Campbell Soup Cans', could be viewed as an attempt at creative expression, but it's very low brow Art. The modern Art movement is littered with such low-brow resolutions of Artwork
@@ad4id Art is supposed to make you think or feel. The fact that you have many thoughts and feelings about an upside down urinal, or painting of canned soup was the artists intention, and as such is very effective art, although I would agree it is not necessarily good art.
Im on first year of law in Poland and jurisprudence is obligatory and your video really helped me understand it, thank you:)
One of the most amazing things is that my teacher explained this in (almost) the exact same way, but it took him almost 45 minutes
Well, maybe because the video was edited whereas in real life there could be other external factors like pauses, questions, drinking water, etc. This video may be 18 minutes long but it's making wash sure much longer accounting for the cuts that were removed.
On this account, if you consider the two theories from a functional perspective, it is conceivable that the differences between them are entirely semantic. Consider: if you view the law as morally indifferent, but believe that you should follow good laws and not follow bad ones, that is not functionally different from believing that you should always follow the law, but that bad laws aren't actually 'laws' at all (lex mala, lex nulla). Given the same inputs (laws or purported laws), you would come to the same conclusion as to whether they should or should not be followed (based upon either the conviction that they are bad laws, or that they aren't laws at all).
Thank God, I was literally about to type and explain this entire thing. While the video is a good analysis, he continuously brushes over this fundamental truth. He also clearly misrepresents the natural law theory by not clarifying that it practically means you don’t follow the bad law, because God’s greater law contradicts it. I don’t think legal positivists would want to say that if law is not what it ought to be, then it should still be followed before it is changed. If you take that principle to the extreme it’s pretty clear that it’s better to not follow bad laws.
Ya functionally they’re no different. I think the only real difference is positivism basically says true laws are simply what’s in the law book (or maybe just what’s enforced at least?) where as natural law says laws aren’t what’s in the law book, they’re the rules for what’s good and the law book is just a goal to write down laws but isn’t necessarily always right. Which I agree is basically semantics and they both conclude “get rid of bad laws” and “follow good ones” and to be honest natural law theory seems to be a more philosophical theory about the nature of societal rules where as positivism is more of just a description of how legal systems actually work.
Functionally the same, ontologically very different. Ontology is what differentiates the theories, not function.
@@andrewj22 Given the close relationship between ontology and semantics, I think I would agree.
@@gianwagner1367 Gods greater law ? Whose God are you talking about ?
And if I understand all of that and am indeed way ahead of the game it's because you gave me a push ahead. Thanks Jeffery, you are an amazing help in so many ways.
2:49: No, the reason we turn around to face out when we get in a lift is because the buttons are next to the door! We turn around so that we can see the buttons & our hand is adjacent to them. The reason why the buttons are next to the door is because if they were on the back wall of the lift, someone entering a crowded lift would have to fight their way through the crowd to push their button. US building codes do not allow buttons on the side of the lift, but European countries often do, & in these lifts, people face whichever side has the indicator that displays the current floor, be this the side of the cabin or the front.
You don't need to stand facing a button to use it. You only need to be proximate to the button and flexible enough to hit it from whatever position you are standing (or sitting or crouching or whatever). This is manifestly the case for hitting pedestrian crosswalk buttons. Most people do not continue facing the button once they have pushed it, and many do not even necessarily face the button _in order to_ push it.
In civil law systems (as opposed to the common law systems of the UK and US), most emphasis is put on written law and much less on case law. It is also held to a high significance that courts judge only by the law. In these systems, as well as in the Nuremberg trials as some have pointed out, the Natural Law Theory creates an obligation for justices to evaluate the eticality of legal rules. In civil law systems the Legal Positivism Theory does not grant courts the option to not punish people for breaking immoral law, unless it is specifically stated in said law. I found your description of the Natural Law Theory just a tad bit biased against it. This comes from a man who loves H.L.A. Hart's work too, but who also views it as limited to his theoretical background within the common law systems.
Doesn't some of modern EU law also include 'intent' on the basis that the negotiations and discussions of the law creation was public enough that intent can be known beyond the clinical written word.
I've also heard it said that UK's case law is still 'written law', and such cases convert intangible concepts into tangible examples to better cut the fog with.
@@philipoakley5498 Yes, but that intent can be extrapolated from the materials concerning the drafting of said legislation. For example EU Regulations and Directives contain a preamble, which is usually quite lengthy and goes into some detail covering the issues which are being legislated and what the aim of the legislation is in that aspect. Often reading the preambles helps while trying to figure out what a specific article means to say. Further, if you deep dive, there can also be public discussions or other materials prior to the draft or there can be secondary acts by EU bodies or regulatory institutions, which provide further instructions and clarifications on the points made within the main acts.
There's also legal analogy, logical and legal principles, etc, but this is more or less also "written" law,. For example in an analogy case you'd refer to a legal act covering a separate, but similar issue a certain way and apply its logic to the current issue, thus clarifying the intent. Or if you were to cite some legal principle - those would usually either be found in a legislative act of a higher rank or be some of the logical bedrock of the Continental legal system since Roman times (like "ignorance of the law excuses no one").
And then of course, there is court precedent, but its status is also sometimes fixed within written law and is generally not able to be used to contradict legislation. The legislator legislates, the judiciary judges based upon the laws enacted, that;s the balance of power.
I apologize if I rambled a bit, hope this was of use to you.
The idea of natural law is based on a ludicrous and wrong premise that in the nature there were some rights. In reality the life before civilizations was extremely violent. The violent death rate was hundreds of times greater than it is now in Europe. Human rights as we know are some 300 year old idea.
His explanation of natural law was very incomplete. It's not just positivism plus moral consideration. It's the belief that the universe has in it, by its very organisation, things that are objectively good and bad for reasoning beings.
A law system who claims it is the real moral order is very dangerous.
Dear Jeffrey,
This morning, I stumbled across your video on Russell's Paradox. While at some point in my Mathematical education, way back in the '70s, I think we covered this, I couldn't recall what it was. So, I watched your video to "brush up." Of course, there was no Internet or TH-cam then. Just books and, perhaps more importantly, Coles Notes.
I was so impressed by your succinct and impressively clear presentation of Russell's Paradox that I have decided to "Label" you as the premier 21st-century version of Coles Notes! I have happily subscribed to your channel and have spent much of today immersed in your videos. Your videos are like a visual version of Wikipedia because of casual comments like, "If you want to know more, I did a video solely on..." It's like those awful "down the rabbit hole" links on every Wikipedia page. You know, the ones you can't resist clicking on to find out what the term used actually means. Whew!
Thank you for investing your time and talent in providing such educational content. Oh, and by the way, I don't want to use the little brain space I have left trying to figure out how you appear to be writing backwards. Or what hand you are writing with, or whether you wear rings and which hand they are on. Or why you choose one colour of marker over another. Geez, Louise!
Again, many thanks!
Yeah, super impressive how well he can write backward. Lol. I thought the same thing for a heartbeat : ) He's just flipping the video post-production. (or is really obsessed with DaVinci)
Attained a better understanding in the whole 18 minutes of this mans video than in the first 3 weeks of my jurisprudence course, great stuff!
Dear Professor Kaplan - thanks a gazillion for these expositions; the best I've ever encountered, and believe me I've "encountered" a few. Much obliged.
It’s not so much of an arbitrary rule about facing the front in an elevator. It’s simply the most logical direction to face since you have to turn around to push the button of your floor, and it makes sense to be able to see when the doors open.
As an aside, the original version of candid camera did a segment where they hired actors to face left or right, or the back wall in an elevator and the unsuspecting marks would, after a brief period of discomfort, typically conform, and face the same way as the actors. Psychology is fascinating.
All social psychology returns in the end to Asch.
You can simply turn your head to look and/or listen for audio indications of when your floor is reached and the door is opened from whatever position you wish to stand. There is nothing logical about it, unless you have also made assumptions about what people naturally want to do that have nothing to do with social expectations (like wanting to minimize their own inconvenience, to minimize their physical effort, to minimize their mental effort, to have a good vantage of goings on, and so on). It is the social fact that people implicitly recognize when they find discomfort in seeing that someone is conspicuously failing to abide by the rule.
I am so happy that I found your videos. I just watched the one on set theory and I the best way I can describe my reaction is "grateful." Again, Thank you.
This is very helpful to a European law student. I have a strong feeling that some of our law professors dont understand the positivist legal theory properly, or atleast cannot explain it properly. This explanation makes much better sense. However, natural legal theory is understood here quite well it seems, or maybe in contrast, we put more emphasis on it. I think it might be due to European legal system when it comes to protection of human rights, in which it seems to be the farthest developed.
This is a fantastic breakdown, and I thank you for it. I will refer people to this in the future.
There's a tension in Americans' ideas about the law (not to exclude others from this, just speaking about what I know) that arises from the Declaration of Independence -- which is steeped in "Younger Jefferson's" natural law ideas, and the Constitution (Madison and "Older Jefferson"), which is rigidly positivist.
Because of this, I think, natural law theory in the US has become the tool of sovereign citizens, tax cranks and others of that sort. But taken broadly, natural law is "autobiographical" -- you learn a lot about who someone is by what they will *claim* natural law theory demands. Seven people will give you eight different and inconsistent opinions about what natural law means.
I jokingly tell people that the best summary of legal positivism is "the law is the law because that's what the law says the law is". There is no analytical solution or reductivist underpinning supporting the rule of law. Law is necessary to civilized society, so there must be a source of law and enforcement of law. "Government" is just the term we use to describe the system that fills those functions. Ideally, it ought to be just and moral, but it can't be perfect (because it's run by human beings).
So we need a system that gets as close as possible to objectively moral law. Churchill (allegedly) said that democracy is the worst system "except for all the others that have been tried".
My personal opinion is that legal positivism does offer a "cleaner" picture of "what the law is". But sometimes disobedience of the law is the morally correct thing to do.
Don't forget "What the law is " is also a social phenomenon that depends on the thoughts and judgments of people just like morals.
Ty, well written and sound logic.
@@sibusisomagagula3633 Definitely the case when there is a longer history, so old laws fall into disuse. I'll not be practising my longbow today ;-)
A system of Natural Law could never be agreed upon by all of society as people have different ideas about what are "moral facts". It would also be difficult to change once a particular dominant group forced their moral system on everyone else. You wouldn't be able to tinker with it, or take account of changes in attitudes, because the "moral facts" underpinning it are considered objective and unchanging.
Isn't the objective moral law you want to get closer to just natural law?
Kaplan, the great explainer! Love your videos! Please make more on jurisprudence.
I studied philosophy as an undergrad, and then this video comes out on the day I get accepted to Cornell law school. That’s crazy haha
congrats brody. entering my final year of law school. it will wear you down but you will love it
WIMBLEDONJN 🎉
Congratulations from a philosophy undergrad who loved law school.
Congrats! That’s wonderful. Good school, you can end up being a solid attorney!
Justice Gambino Congrats to your Big Red law school acceptance. I attended Cornell undergrad years ago. I found Cornell to be...challenging...but not for reasons you might expect. If you are like me, you may find the left leaning atmosphere at Big Red unsettling, as I did, especially with your philosophy background. An old friend who attended Cornell law school while I was an undergrad there told me he had a professor who greeted his students on their first day in a way that haunted him for years.
The professor entered the lecture hall a few minutes after the very first class was to begin. He proceeded to approach the chalk board (35 years ago there were chalk boards) and wrote, in 3' tall letters, the following;
J U S T I C E
After a few moments of amusing himself watching the students' confused expressions, he then suggested the class take a good, long look at the chalkboard. He then erased the word, "JUSTICE," while commenting that his students remember what they had read as it would be the last time they saw justice in their legal careers.
Food for thought.
In the end it still applies: the one with the most and fittest followers wins. The law is only in place to give a sense of certainty because some mentally and physically fit people realised they might loose their fitness and a law helps them to remain in relative peace.
I love this lecture. It illustrates beautifully why MLK Jr. was such a great man. I call MLK Jr. a mystic. that is the highest praise I can offer a man. He saw the higher law. He stood for the right though the heavens fell on him. He was murdered. Terrible end, but he died believing in his cause. I believe in men like him. We need many more like him. But they need to have a dream like he did. MLK Jr. had a dream. It was a dream worth dying for.
And it illustrates beautifully the nature of natural law. And why natural law is above all other laws. Sadly, the transitions are frequently rough going. Most Mystics are dead by age 40. That is rough going.
Never realized I was a Law Posetivist because I always say a Law can't be a law if there are no repercussions for breaking it. It is a strong suggestion at best.
You need that Money stuff for fines and the like, otherwise it all become rather uncivilised ...
Reminds me of Jordan Peterson's advice to his son. If you don't like a law break it. But accept the repercussions.
A law can be a law even if there are no reprocussions for breaking it. So long as a norm has a hypothesis and a disposition it is Law; the presence or absence of repercussions for breaking a law is not a determining factor in the positivist understanding of what constitutes law.. This video also largely misrepresents natural law theory - most legal naturalists would agree that MLKJ was breaking the positive law, however, they would argue that the positive law should not be applied by the courts because it breaks his natural rights.
If I ever wanted to go back to get a law degree, you would be one of the profs I’d want.
My inner 14 year old would be ecstatic if somewhere in one video he concluded a sentence with “en sh!t”. Love watching your videos.
Statutes deliberately incorporate the bias and prejudices of those in authority, while natural law explicitly attempts to eliminate the bias and prejudice. Legal and lawful are NOT synonyms.
The "elevator rule" is that we face in the direction threats are most likely to come from.
In Europe the definition of jurisprudence is far more broad than just a philosophy of law. It is understood as a science about the law in all of its theoretical and practical aspects. Majors in law in many European countries are called majors in jurisprudence.
😅
Probably beyond the scope of an 18 minute TH-cam video.
Excellent Video. Legal Positivism incorporates Morality INDIRECTLY. Natural Law DIRECTLY incorporates Morality.
I would say that legal positivism CAN incorporate morality (indirectly). It doesn't have to talk about morality at all. Natural law, on the other hand, is inescapably about morality.
@@BiznizTrademark *Wait!* If legal positivism is strictly descriptive, then not only is it the case that "what the law _is"_ may be different than "what the law _ought to be,"_ but it's also the case that the law has *no bearing* on how we ought to behave (aside from practical considerations that some people may be inclined to punish us for certain behaviours). If the law isn't normative, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with breaking it.
This looks like a serious problem for anyone who practices and enforces law. The law is ultimately a social delusion and there's no justification for broadly enforcing it. It's not unreasonable to think that "what the law ought to be" is _"abolished,"_ and that coercion (by the state or otherwise) is fundamentally and universally immoral.
Legal positivism provides no grounds for disagreement.
@@andrewj22The positivist believes the law has no *inherent* morality that you should obey it. But it certainly does carry all of those social aspects (the cops and judges and prisons) that provide very strong reasons to obey (very Austinian). But it is certainly possible for the law to align with the morality of the man, and in most cases it does.
I would say you are right that there is no inherent reason to obey laws, but that laws are typically obeyed because they are aligned with moral values/principles/laws of the society **and** because they carry the force of the legal system.
Legal positivism is objective in a clear way. The law says what it says, it's applied how it's applied. Natural law is not objective in any clear way. It's all definitions and arguments.
@@someonenotnoone Definitions and Arguments are the law.
ur my fav professor!!
Really fascinated with your simple yet in depth explanation.
Great work, thanks.
Excellent communication as always Mr. Kaplan. Thankyou.
I feel like I'm missing something or there's some component I don't quite grasp - it seems to me like Natural Law Theorists and Legal Positivists are just operating under a different definition of what the word "Law" means; where Legal positivists argue that Law is simply what is, and Natural Law Theorists essentially argue that "Law" is synonymous with "Justice". Presumably a white nationalist who's a Natural Law Theorist can also argue that segregation "laws" where in fact in accordance with Natural Law so they really where Law.
I agree. The video is misguiding. Natural law doesn't say unjust laws are not laws. According to Wikipedia, natural law is a set of laws.
"The severity of the punishment is determined not by the gravity of the act but by the social capital of the group that sues and judges..."
I feel like people on the spectrum or with adhd have a much easier time seeing and understanding this stuff. Likely because most of the social “norms” that most people take for granted, we had to question why humans do the things we do in the first place.
The stretch with positivism is that some laws were posited by generations long gone, with the forethought that those laws may be unpopular, but are moral and may protect a minority. Now people are forced to follow that law because it is integral to the legal system even though if we took a vote, a majority might say, we don't want that law anymore.
I think that your founding fathers set the bar for amending the Constitution too high.
If a behaviour is present in the absence of socialisation, is it still a 'social behaviour'? An example being the 'elevator rule' where a participant will naturally face the entrance of any enclosed space to ensure their own safety.
It depends on the motivation of the behavior. If you face the elevator door because of a survival instinct or because logic dictates you, then it is not. If you face it because you saw from others to do it or you heard that it is the normal, then it is. A newborn child who grow up without knowing anything about elevators, will probably not face the elevator door, unless it's a surprise that the door is closed automatically.
The elevator in my building is mirrored so I can face the wall and keep my eye on the psychos riding with me.
I’m not sure if curriculums differ a lot, but in my jurisprudence last year, the dominant theories are the critical theories (CLS, CRT,CQT) which is loosely like what positivism is to natural law.
Jaywalking is an interesting challenge to the idea of legal positivism, in my opinion. In many countries, people rarely get punished for it and police rarely punish people, despite the fact it is enshrined in law. In my hometown (a suburb of Washington DC), sleeping on the floor was technically illegal but we did it all the time at sleepovers or when family came and we wanted to give grandma the bed, etc. And yet, it is a social fact that people wrote some things down in a piece of paper. So what is the actual law? Some social critics refer to the law as "walking while black", some people in the comments have already begun talking about how the law is actually about giving automobile manufacturers and owners ownership of the road. Whatever the law of jaywalking is, it is not altogether what is written in the legal code. I think this is one of the problems with "social facts" in general. Their consequences are of course real, but I would argue that they aren't themselves entirely real the way, say, matter is.
I TA'ed philosophy of law about a year ago at FSU. That there's an active debate on the nature and status of law (not what it should be but what it is) itself is a bit silly.
You're an excellent teacher. I'm happy I found your work here.
Wow, that was the clearest explanation of Legal Positivism I have found yet. Thank you. Could you please explain in a video, how bad law is replaced by good law, and also, how do we prevent bad law from becoming law in the first place. What is the philosophy around safeguards, guardrails, and corrective measures in 'quality assurance?' As a software engineer, I am very familiar with quality assurance, process improvement, etc. in product design, but as legal neophyte, I cannot clearly see similar analogs in legal theory and practice.
This just sounds like an argument of what the definition of "law" is. It's likely that a naturalist would say an "immoral law" is called something else besides law, like a "decision" or something. When a positivist says something is a "just law", it's the same thing as just a "law" for a naturalist. It sounds like they just have different words for the same thing.
Positivists don't talk about the "justice" of a law at all. They consider it a separate issue to the law itself and its application. The "justness" of a law is for the lawmakers to decide, and change if they want.
Great presentation. Thank you so much.
The general sentiment is that law makers are always trying to make laws, as is, pushing the boundaries at what they ought to be. constantly.This push changes popular sentiment of what law ought to be.
Terrific explanation.
I feel like a lot of confusion might come from the assertions of what’s “real”. But you don’t do much to untangle that stuff. Maybe words like objective, subjective, transjective might be helpful tools here. And discussing why some people agree or disagree with your assertions that something is “real”, might help provide a clearer picture too
I also think, because this is both helping students pass their classes, *and* framing a way to think about the world, that it might be useful to discuss how the framing is insufficient, or how it makes assertions about the world that are different from everyday experience.
But also that’s a lot to put into a video, while keeping it short, and keeping the viewers interest, and it doesn’t consider how these videos you’ve made are already an impressive impressive achievement
There are laws that remained obscure for the sake of maintaining its truth. You think of it, because it is capable to be perceived. You remove redundancy, its really simple.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
I don't know if this is relevant, but when the "separate but equal" principle was overturned by Brown v Board, segregation was no longer law; therefore, MLK Jr. wasn't breaking the law when he protested the continued practice of segregation. It's true that when he defied a legal injunction against "parading" in Birmingham, he was in violation, but when defying segregationist statutes pertaining to lunch counters, public conveyances, etc. he and others were not breaking the law from a positivist perspective.
This is a comment regarding your video: Peter Singer - "Ordinary People are Evil." You turned off comments there (which, I would argue, is evil), so I'll leave my thoughts here.
I agree with Singer's thesis. In fact, I started out as a person of modest means, so I understand the hardships life can throw at you. Subconsciously, I have always known that spending money on unnecessary things is morally wrong. Even now, when I am in a better financial position, I only spend a portion of my income. I haven't "upgraded my life" or indulged in luxury items. I haven't traveled abroad or taken vacations outside my local area. It's been 12 years, and I still can't morally justify these actions to myself. I purchase new or used items only when the old ones are beyond repair. The extra money I have just accumulates dust (and interest) unless I use it for supererogatory acts. That's how I choose to utilize it.
I believe people are often blind to the harsh realities of the world beyond their immediate social circles. They acknowledge that the world can be unforgiving, but they also view taking action as either too difficult or impossible. Soothing oneself with luxury and material possessions is easier, and that's what most people opt for.
Overall, I appreciate Singer's perspective and resonate with the idea that ordinary individuals tend to overlook their moral responsibilities in favor of personal comfort and convenience.
Yours sincerely, Alex from Berlin.
I loath the liminal presence of other people on the elevator. So I will always look towards one of the corners as the doors open. This scares most people, but for those who enter regardless of social conventions, they are worthy to enter the vertically moving box with me
Dude it’s so weird I just came across this video. About a month and a half ago I had this exact conversation about how money is just a social concept with my 7th grade students.
Eagerly waiting more on Legal Positivism - recent SCOTUS news made the area quite negative. Lame joke apart, I really would like to learn more - thanks!
“The conflict between justice and legal certainty may well be resolved in this way: The positive law, secured by pronouncement and power, takes precedence even when its content is unjust (ungerecht) and fails in its purpose of benefitting the people, unless the conflict between positive statute and justice reaches such an intolerable degree that the statute, as 'flawed law (unrichtiges Recht)’ must yield to justice. It is impossible to draw a sharper line between cases of statutory lawlessness (gesetzliches Unrecht) and statutes (Gesetze) that are valid in spite of their flawed content. Another line of distinction, however, can be traced with utmost clarity: Where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality, which forms the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in the laying down of positive law, then the statute is not even merely 'flawed law'-rather, it lacks completely the very nature of law. For law, including positive law, cannot be otherwise defined than as a system and an institution whose very meaning is to serve justice. Measured by this standard, whole portions of National Socialist law never attained the dignity of valid law (zur Würde geltendes Recht).”
The Radbruch formula (1946)
Wow I’m really early and i didn’t even realize! Great job man
Positivism does not come only from 'positing', but also from 'positive' and the ideology of positivism which is metaphysical in the sense of being anti-idealist. Rejecting the ideal dimension where the ideas of the Good, of the Justice, or of the Truth used to come from (according to the Natural Law paradigm), the positivist paradigm confined itself to purely procedural understanding. Yet, in fact, it just misses the dimension of people's striving for justice, for good - every time they enter into the process of making a law. The process of law-making is not something mechanical or automatic but is always concerned with some ideas and values, and it is impossible to neglect them. The very attempt to treat the law cut off these values, tells only a half-story, and denies the very background for law being a law since it becomes only power based, inexistent without coercion. As if, when there is no power to impose it, the law loses its reality. But the law is not only power and coercion. And that is the dimension positivism cannot supply and the moral dimension of Natural law theory appears to be inevitable if we want the law to be something autonomous and valid. Not only behavior under the direct supervision of the stronger master. As if the law is there when you have a pistol put to your head, and disappears, when it is taken away; or somebody else even stronger kicks off that pistol holder. Here we have only a sequence of violence where the term law as such has nothing to do.
I always have a bad feeling entering an elevator and facing the door, ever since the first time. I've always thought, and to this day still think to myself, "Why am I doing this? Why are we all so compelled?"
cuz you're gonna leave through the door and it's convenient to face it, knowing you will do so
what sucks is when it's not clear if it's a double-door or one-door.
@@TheAlison1456 . Huh. Why didn'I think of that..
@@James-ll3jb yeah. I'm curious too!
Thanks, it's very easy understand from you, thanks,
Thank you so much Mr. Kaplan, very clear explanation!It is really thought-provoking
In Europe, legal positivism is based on Roman law. In civil law systems law is being taught in the oposite way, positive law first, later cases.
Are you a lawyer in Europe?
Hey I've been watching your videos for a little while now and I've always wondered... are you writing everything backwards on the glass in front of you?
i was about to comment this
@@aut0maton oh I see. Thanks
@@maryanngorman3533 He's writing on glass and then mirrors the footage at the end. If you notice, the buttons on his shirt are on the opposite side from normal.
Excellent. I have a big question: would you say the constitution is grounded in natural law theory or positivism? I'm sure there is evidence for both but what are philosophers saying about it these days?
A fuller version of the MLK quote:
“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’
“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
Doesn't MLK have the right to be poetic, when talking about civil disobedience?
People speak like this all the time: a cowardly man is called "no man at all", an absentee or cruel father is called "no father at all", a law that you don't need to follow is "no law at all". I feel like people intuitively know what the phrase means if you don't use that literal, out-of-context interpretation. Legal positivists say that there are laws you don't need to follow, but it is the essence of law that it has to be followed. When you start making proper distinctions, I don't think legal positivism holds up.
I love this guy! I would pay to take your class, anytime
At my work in a 10 story hospital building, everyone who works there gets on the elevator and leans against the side facing the middle. Visitors typically face the door though.
The elevator rule is really a function of the form( Neil Peart is a lyrical genius). The floor indicator and exit are in the direction you should be facing.
The table is also limited to a function of the form, while it may still exist without humans, I doubt animals would use a table as a table. Retain its shape, but not its function.
Although due to persistent nature, a table would retain vague or ambiguous function, whereas money would have less than that. (what? fuel for fire?)
In the elevator example, I view it as a posit to get out of the elevator fwaster, a planning ahead of "by turning now, I will be ready when door opens" which is a similar rule to "sit at the table always facing the door, in case trouble walks that way/has entered the building, you'd be aware".
_"when a wandering stranger, friend or foe, might come in at any moment. And sometimes that foe might be known, well armed and accompanied by his band of ne’er-do-wells. It was a matter of survival that the man and his warriors face the door and position themselves along the walls where their weapons were placed."_
This can be further simplified by the locale/pub/elevator having positive known energy (you, friends,drinking) and the exterior or exit having negative or unknown energy (trouble, foe, cold), so even in Law of Physics some of these rules unironically would apply, given that warm currents, or in this case, people, would face towards the negative.
I would say the elevator example could actually be distilled down to the social law of efficiency where people should act in a way that is efficient or they're weird cuz turning away from the elevator door would mean that once the elevator opens you have to turn around to exit the elevator which why would you do that that's weird you had plenty of time to turn around while you were in the elevator
A good test for that hypothesis would be to see how often the "elevator rule" is followed under different social conditions. Do single individuals in an elevator follow the rule to the same extent as in a crowded elevator? Does a group of friends tend to face each other when they have the elevator to themselves, or do they still follow the rule?
Judging from my own experience, the rule applies most strongly with strangers and most weakly with friends. So I don't think your hypothesis is clearly confirmed, otherwise there would be no difference.
By myself, I definitely face the door when I'm in a hurry, and only slightly less often otherwise, on the premise that the doors might open and let some people in, and I'd find it socially uncomfortable to be found doing something unconventional at that moment. So I can report that your hypothesis is confirmed weakly in my case, but a proper confirmation would require more data.
I believe there has already been some research on this phenomena.
Even this is overlooking the glaring reason for facing one direction in an elevator. They have panels that you need to interact with.
If you don't turn around in the elevator to select your floor on the panel, then you will at least need to turn to see that your floor has already been pressed. You will also need to see which floor you are on to get off the elevator at the right time.
Proper use of the elevator is way more than an unspoken social rule. It's intuitive.
Reminds me to my favourite Philosophy Tube video about Social Constructs... :)
The elevator rule boils down to something more simple that has nothing to do with an elevator or peer pressure from others in the elevator. The elevator has 1 door serving as both the entrance and the exit. People generally walk facing the direction in which they walk. So, walking into the elevator, they are facing the back. We do not even have to mention that they then face forward to press a button to determine where the elevator will go, we can simply say that the next thing they will do is walk out of the elevator. So, they orient themselves in the direction in which they will be walking. If the elevator had doors on each wall that were functional, people would tend to orient themselves in the direction facing the door that they were going to walk out of, probably standing close to that door in order to allow room for others that were standing close to their chosen door. So, it is not really about elevator etiquette, it is just about facing the direction in which you are going. Animals do that, too.
You've just dismantled the elevator rule.
Most readers need to get out more if they've never been into an elevator with separate entrance and exit doors (common in airports) where the 'whole corridor' is raised/lowered. Folk can get confused!
5:35 you might mention this later on idk, but there is also the part whare most people just get born into a cirtain law and have no choice but to follow it, reguardless of whether or not they aguree with it.
Now, of course, those who were there before will reasonably want to preserve some of those laws, but there are laws which we preserve which have no place beeing preserved, and there are also things which we as a collective humanity want to be laws which are sabotaged in varaous different ways by the already existant laws, so that improvements are more difficult to be made.
Tho this is the same process that makes it difficult to put into place bad laws, however, due to the nature of the already existant structures, which prevent faster improvements, there are enevitably already existant laws which cause a kind of race to the bottom, whare they enforce societal decay.
For exaple take the fact that lobying is legal, and its basically just bribing, or as some like to put it " voting with your money", but this kind of voting is very antithetical to that the majority of people want, because most people have a lot less voting power than the minority which usually inherited this voting power.
Have a good day
I think M.L.King's argument was kinda misunderstood in the context of "what is law".
It seem to me what M.L.King was saying is not just "evil law isn't law", there is probably other part of derivation. I think what M.L.King was trying to say is :
1) law is some "thing" that bring just concequence
2) unjust concequence is brought out, thus it is not law
Basically M.L.King was giving a factual definition of law, just like legal positivism. But M.L.King's definition is "law is(at the least) something that bring justice", and it should be understood as a matter of fact, not a matter of "should".
Just like we define the thing apple as apple, and non-apple as non-apple, law "is" something that bring justice, if something doesn't bring justice then it's not law.
Another thing to support M.L.King's point of view is that this judgement of "justice" is a social fact as well. Justice is something because we believe in it.
And seems like "how law should be like" is also a law of laws that people do believe in. So actually both M.L.King and legal positivism have to deal with the question of "what law ought to be".
I've never studied philosophy but feel like something is missing from the separation thesis explanation that statute alone is a good enough starting point for discussing something like segregation. Would you agree that a rule owing its initial existence to some statute probably has morality and politics baked into? If so then we're talking as much about what the law 'is' as the ought-statements and beliefs held by some members of society.
"Natural Law Theory" itself can't be a "Law" in terms of "Legal Positivism".
Why?
@@sibusisomagagula3633Because Legal Positivism teaches that Law is in no way natural. Hence Natural Law Theory would be a redundancy.
@@kellieb23 that's right.
In a positivist system, natural law theory is just a social construct.
Just like any other moral system claiming there are nomological truths which aren't provable but obvious to the erudite.... 😂
I wonder, if in some country dictator makes the law that all people who said something bad about him will be executed, is it still a law? Is it a "social phenomena"? And what if this dictator has no power to enforce this rule? Is it a law then?
And what if part of the country is occupied by hostile army and this army declare their own laws? Is it still law and social phenomena? And which law is real law - of the original country or the invading country?
If some people start a revolution and overthrow dictator - does they break a law? Does dictator's law has any meaning? When it disappear - at the moment when dictator was overthrown? But if law against revolution was not enforced (since dictator lost) was it a real law?
American political philosophy is founded on the notion of natural law and natural rights - that individuals possess inalienable rights which come not from government or human constructions but is prior to anything humans create, from nature, Jefferson used the word Creator. This legal positivism comes from the British utilitarian tradition of the 19th-century. Traditional American political thought is also inspired by British political thought but that of John Locke rather than utilitarianism.
Just finished law school two days ago (🎉)
I’m not sure we can make generalizations about 3L course offerings.
At 4:20, confused how the table is different from money. If people go away, the paper money is still around just like the table, but the meaning of that paper goes away. So does the meaning of the table. Without people, it is just random wood. People imbue it with meaning. Shouldn't a table be a social thing?
Hmmm, not sure those pants are actually fashionable Jeffrey... ;-)
Great video, as always!
Wait, what about the law of gravity? It's something we placed words on it as a way to describe something that will be there with or without is like the table explanation, but is considered under the use of the word law? Because it would still be there and presumably work the way we discovered it to work so regardless of us creating the necessary words to describe it, it would work the same way nonetheless. Or am I nitpicking? Sorry if so, just a little big question i had
What is it called to believe in both Natural law theory and separation theory(or which ever the opposite was called)?
But why did you change thumbnail 🤔?
Explained perfectly.
Hey, I face the door in an Elevator because THAT'S THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO EXIT. It's more WORK to face away from the door, spin around and THEN exit the elevator. I suppose I could face away and then back out, but then I could bump into somebody else trying to enter because I can't see them. It's not social, it's purely PRACTICAL! I don't do it simply because society wants me to do it that way.
What IS the natural law though? How do we reference it to see which of our laws are potentially prohibited?
Here is why natural law is necessary.
Because natural law exists outside mental states. Law isnt just that thing lawyers say it is anymore than science is just that thing scientists say science is. If you wish to build a system of governance that takes into account objective reality then dont base it solely on social phenomena. Our understanding of natural law may be entirely a social phenomena, but that isnt what we are trying to get at. Laws are not merely social phenomena that change like fashion trends. Following the law and executing a prisoner is not at all like deciding whether or not to wear bell bottoms.
Yes, you can call something a law, even if its internally incoherent, unintelligible, and logically contradicts itself. But it's not really a law. Forget pomp and circumstance or telling a story about precedent, ratification, or publication of how the law came into being. These are all just social phenomena that can change after all. You can scribble a law down on your underwear and I guess it becomes just one of many "laws" that abound in the positivist landscape, each to be evaluated as good laws or bad laws - but each very much still a law.
I'd argue that the concept of law contains a strong shared conception of the law that is tethered to the objective world or it isnt a law at all. Ie it has to be in accord with natural law.
@@troyherschler4052 yes but what is it
@@thec130side I'd argue that natural law are laws about the natural world, that work much like "laws" in science, or mathematical proofs. Where they come from isn't as important as discovering what they are. Game theory, behavioral studies in an evolutionary framework, these things at least give us a hint of how to craft laws but our laws are only as good as our understanding.
can you continue uploading videos covering each chapter of HLA's hart a concept of law?
ngmi
Any lecture on critical legal theories?
A lot of people in the comments think the “positivism vs. non-positivism” dispute is semantic. This is a reasonable suspicion, and I think it should be addressed head on. Not sure why it hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this series? For instance, suppose we have an evil law on the books which should not be obeyed. According to positivists, it is a law, but since it is evil it should not be obeyed. According to non-positivists, it is not really a law, due to how it is evil. But both parties agree it should not be obeyed. They have different views on the ontology of law-- but is this really a question of what exists, or a question of what words to use for things despite agreeing on how the world is? Different meta-level theories, I think, may support different views here.
It may be worth making a video to discuss specifically the question of whether these questions in ontology of law are a mere verbal dispute. A potential counterexample to the “verbal dispute” interpretation may be the Grudge Informer case, which veers into this, and also overlaps with Hart vs. Fuller and suchlike. On the other and, the Grudge Informer case may be too complex in its details (See "The Grudge Informer Case Revisited"). However, more generic cases may be proposed which may also motivate the "it's not a verbal dispute" interpretation.
Suppose someone commits a murder (an evil killing)-- but the law (on the books, that is) allowed him to do it. In this case, arguably he should be prosecuted, since (morally speaking) he committed murder-one which the law failed to criminalize. But arguably, he shouldn’t be prosecuted, since it may be wrong to prosecute someone who did not break the law. So this could be a case where the positivist and the non-positivist may tend to have reason to reach different conclusions about what should be done, on the grounds of different views in the ontology of law (in conjunction with a plausible argument that the law's ontology, morally speaking, matters here). Perhaps the non-positivist can argue he *did* break the law, while the positivist cannot, so the non-positivist could make a stronger case for prosecution. The positivist seems to be committed to either non-prosecution or prosecution for doing an act which was not at the time illegal.
There might be problems with my interpretation of such a case, but still, this seems onto something.
Please do some review on Hans Kelsen's theory, sir... Thank you. 🙏
Legal positivism is difficult for third-year law students? It's literally one of the first things we were taught in Law School (Athens) at the age of 18. Most people get it pretty quickly.
Based off what you stated, and going off of H.L.A. Hart’s Separation Thesis, isn’t it possible for Legal Positivism (LP) to not only recognize, but also contain Natural Law Theory (NLT)? What I mean is that LP is the the analysis of what a law is, where as NLT is the what a law is supposed to be. LP being objective analysis of status quo, where as NLT is the subjective speculation of ideal (natural) justice.
I feel like I’m missing something, because LP doesn’t really seem to *contradict NLT at all, so LP v. NLT shouldn’t be a discussion in the first place,… they seem to be arguing different subjects altogether.😵💫
*Edit: changed “interact with” to “contradict”
to sum up am I right that according the Natural Law Theory I can violate immoral law without public condemnation, but according Legal Positivism I can't?
So what kind of Law Theory provides the basis for Guantanamo court procedures? Particularly wrt how precedent influences future cases or how defendants can utilize precedent?
For GTMO, it is like law that must not be understood/known socially.
Hello! Thanks for the amazing description! But could we in sepration theory call nominative law as legislation? And descriptive as law?
An even more important question : How do you write those things on an invisible board?
Your voice always reminds me of Kieran Culkin’s. You sound like a really nice Roman Roy. Oh, and I also love your videos. 😊
The table example at 4:15 looks weird. If everyone cease to exist then the table ceases to exist, there will be just an object like a tree, rock, a dead fish or a dollar bill but definitely not a table.
Can somebody clear something out for me? As a non-native English speaker, I was surprised to learn that word "positivism" in context of philosophy comes from latin "positivum", which means "positive" in a sense of "good" in English. Now, here is different point of view, that contradicts what I know. Where is the truth?
And if it really is true that "positivism" comes from "posit", what is a relation between words "positive" and "posit" in English (if there is any)?
Is a law -- good or bad -- still a law if it is on the books and has not been revoked, but nobody obeys it?
I think that's not specifically addressed by positivism/NLT directly... It's a question of *which* social facts are necessary to constitute a law. That one citation of 3 parts - issuing commands, threatening punishments, and habitual obedience - clearly only 1 part is fully achieved in this scenario (issuing commands). Nobody is obeying it so obviously the third one is out. And presumably if nobody is obeying it, then the threat of punishment either isn't credible (it's not enforced) or it's not sufficiently persuasive (the punishment is too small to stop people). It's a particularly hairy question if people are being punished, but some large percentage of the population continue to violate it.
In my opinion, this is the difference between a statute and law. North Carolina has a statute that forbids atheists from taking public office. But it's unenforceable because the Constitution explicitly forbids it and SCOTUS has ruled that it cannot be enforced.
It would be inaccurate to say that "by law, an atheist can't hold office in NC" because they can, in fact.
So the way I put it is that "the law" is effectively what the courts say about it -- how it is actually enforced in the real world. Statute is what the legislature says about it.
But it's not a straightforward solution to your question, admittedly.
If nobody follows it and it is not enforced. Then while on the books it still is not a law according to law positivism.
The social mind has forgotten it, as a result there is no l9nger the social upholding of the rule.
This also can be seen when jurisdictions "scrub" their books.
The idea posited earlier is an example of a law being overruled by another superior law. Superior in the sense of comming from a higher source not the sense of better.
This can also be seen in several other structures of governance from monarchy to democracy. Where a lower rulling body would make a law and the superior ruling body would go nah that ain't it son.