Hart - Concept of Law - Ch 4 (Attack on Austin's Theory #2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- This is a lecture video on the chapter titled "Sovereign and Subject" of HLA Hart's seminal 1961 book, The Concept of Law. Back in chapters 2, Hart summarized John Austin's habit-based theory of law. In chapter 3 , Hart argued that Austin's theory could not explain power-conferring laws and some other features of sophisticated legal systems. In this chapter, Hart attacks the Austinian notion of legal authority. Basically, the notion of a habit or pattern of behavior is simply not explanatorily powerful enough to explain the continuity of legal authroity and the persistence of individual laws. For that, you need the notion not merely of a pattern of behavior, but of a standard of evaluation, or as it is otherwise called, a rule. This is part of a course entitled "Philosophy of Law".
To understand this you will need to understand what Hart says in
chapter 2: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
and chapter 3: • Hart - Concept of Law ...
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[2/2] เมาท์มอยกับ 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้ ที่พร้อมขยี้พ่อหมีได้ทุกเมื่อ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wwn7WnylNtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You are such a gifted communicator, Jeffrey. Thank you for sharing your knowledge! you'd be welcomed with open arms here in New Zealand, I'm sure most of my cohort at law school in Auckland would give their left arm to be taught by you (and/or Arie Rosen)
Thank you for the kind words!
You are exactly what I needed in my life right now!!! I'm assigned Jurisprudence Theory and Context 8th Ed. by Brian H. Bix. It's great, but my brain is just slow to understand it. After looking at some of these videos of yours and going back to a specific part of that book, my brain just absorbs the information like a sponge!!! All I'm saying is these videos just are so perfect for what I'm doing--I can pass my midterm confidently!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glad I could help!
I'm not a fan of behaviorism, but it just seems like a strawman argument to say that habits can only relate to specific individuals. It seems perfectly reasonable for people to have a habit of obeying the guy with the fancy hat, regardless of who it is specifically.
You’re saving my life. I have a test about the concept of law and you explain it so well . Thank you so much
Glad I can help!
I would like to thank you with all my heart from Canada, you saved my life!
The part you were describing about the 'right' and 'authority' where Hart talked about the Persistence of law is so makes sense.
Your explanation is amazing. Thanks for making such informative videos.
You are amazing. Thank you! Very helpful to understand my readings, even with my poor english. From Argentina!
I wish your videos existed 5 years ago when I had just started my post-graduate studies in Legal Theory. Anyway Hart was wrong on every single point :D Kudos to you to explaining this so objectively and enthusiastically.
2023 - studying in Brazil and using this awesome class - thanks!
If someone has an arbitrary ontological commitment, saying that "rule" is not allowed in their list of entities but "habit" is, well first of all, that's weird. If "rule" as an entity is an intolerable spooky ghost, unwelcome in a physicalist ontology, then "habit" as an entity ought to also be one. It makes no sense that I can see. But I also don't see why a "habit" of obeying the commands of an institution is impossible, in any scenario where a "habit" of obeying the commands of an individual is possible. Switching from "habit" to "rule" doesn't seem to accomplish anything. If you can say that people usually do whatever is specified by an individual's commands (even though "command" is normally thought of as an abstraction that continues to exist and remain the same despite having the vibrations that carried it through the air fade away -- spooky!), then you ought to be equally able to say that people usually do whatever is specified by an institution's commands (despite an institution being almost as unphysical as a command).
Regrading Rex, Rex II and the continuity of obedience: The continuity lies in obedience to the office of monarch (known in the UK as "The Crown"), not to a specific person who happens, at any given moment, to occupy the office. It's exactly the same as when power transfers, in a democracy, from one person or group elected to an office to the next to be elected. The objection that there's no pre-existent habit of obedience to Rex II or any other incomer to office is basically a strawman argument.
Is it? I think that the objection is that in order for people to habitually obey Rex II there must exist rules defining the office and succession etc. Since the Austinian theory cannot account for this type of abstract rule (there is no order being given, it is a power conferring law) I think it still very much is a valid objection.
Thank you so much! I am reading Filosofia del diritto in Milan, exam in 2 days, and this was super helpful.
Glad I could help!
All the way from Ghana, thank you so much. This is very very helpful.
You're welcome! Glad that I have some global reach.
21:21 "local philosopher tries to be funny, becomes even more incomprehensible"
this is SO helpful thank you!
Such a nice teacher
Can I ask. What happens when no one remembers the rule, acts upon them? Even though that rule persists , it doesn't effectively persist? You could say a rule has its own lifecycle. Isn't that the detectable problem? Paired with enforcement's problem? So then the game becomes disobedience in niche spaces. Or a habit of ignoring consciously or unconsciously.
Thank you!
11:55 I think Hart was correct in using “right” - Rex2 has the right to make law and his subjects have the corresponding duty to obey.
I was thinking the same thing at first, but if Rex2's right is to MAKE laws, then the corresponding duty would be to respect his MAKING of laws. The laws themselves are not the content of Rex2's supposed right - he does not have a right to "Don't chew gum," for example - his supposed right is specifically the MAKING of those laws, so a corresponding duty strictly speaking needn't involve respecting/obeying the laws themselves merely respecting their creation.
Make vids on Kelsen and Austin too
Now we are talking Calvinball. :D
Subtitles in spanish please ? Like the last video
We can be buddies...
But don't try to find me on the internet or something..
lol..
26:00
u have way too much knowledge, but u keep repeating a point again and again which makes the video wayy longer than it should be. this lecture could easily have been a 6 mins video. appreciate the effort tho
that's not "repeating the same point".
It's elaborating the same point in simpler terms. That's what makes his explanation better than others'.
You're right. There are way too many words about nothing. Austin's concept of law is so manifestly wrong and primitive that when Hart takes it upon himself to argue with it, he becomes wrong and primitive just as well. You simply can't be taken seriously if you begin arguing with something totally devoid of scientific value and even common sense.