big thank you to my patreons! (who i so stupidly forgot to acknowledge in the actual video): (ง︡'-'︠)ง Aidan Bozeman Alan Cisneros beanu Benjamin Walsh bleech Calob Humble CDubb Davis Tran Deepto Chatterjee Dhruv Singhal Diego embarajas Fckle Foreign Man in a Foreign Land GeW Guilherme Goncalves Haakon hairy socks Henry Adams Jacob McMillan JakeForHire Jeanie Lee Jesse Jonathan von Schroeder Josh Hunt Jun Justin Raper Kian Nahad L E E Lawra Clark Lorenzo Villegas maggie Mason Motley Michelle Jia murkymorals Name O.H.B. OkaySureWhyNot Pbat1099 Robert Castro Sabrina Fiore Samantha Mandel Sarah Karen Simon Soladoccitannia Solomon Khan Sreenivas Vasamsetti Tim Tim Butler Viljami Valldén WB
Would love to see you talk about the AI generated art that won the art competition and see how you think about AI and the meaning of art and stuff like that.
The entirety of Death Note serves as a pretty good examination of the idea that the pursuit of Justice excuses any means and justifies any action. Great video!
@@oliSUNvia it's got an amazing first half. sadly it veers off the anime wack path in the last 10ish episodes, but it's great fuel for philosophy discussions
@@gastonzumbo9860 Respectfully, I would disagree. I think it holds its own all the way to the very end with the Final Confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist. It does a great job of closing most plot holes and there's a satisfying end imo.
@@elucified I think he's talking about when the anime veers off and changes main characters after episode 26. I never heard of anyone hating on the ending of the first part. I hated everything after episode 26 because it's just a different show.
If you want to use "dystopian" - it is dystopian that you would rather use a code than accept that advertises do not want to interrupt important topic with ads. At the same time it seems easy to understand, she wants to profit from her work.
@@Enclave_Engineer Yup that's the issue. Well what truly runs society? Money. If people paying you refuse pay. For speaking about such an IMPORTANT topic. Gives a pretty good example of what the elites are really trying to do. Y'know. The ones with the most money/power thus, Dystopia. Think about it what's the real reason we are forbidden to talk about it. So that children don't search it up? For protecting what from whom? Hmm? And if you say that we are allowed to talk about. We actually aren't. That's precisely WHY non money. De monetization .
Honestly, I enjoy watching these videos because it makes me feel like some sort of philosopher sitting in a grass field and listening podcasts as I feed the geese.
A big takeaway from this video seems to be that "might makes right" in terms of the legitimacy of a law: whosoever holds the greater power, militarily or politically, holds the moral high ground. In the precolonial american continent when the spanish conquistadors saw the human sacrifice being conducted by the natives, they deemed such laws and practices as evil and used it as partial justification for their atrocities. Not to argue for human sacrifice, but it was the ones with greater power who determined as such. In nazi germany, it was the nazi regime who held the power, and in post nazi germany, it was the UN who held the power through military force. In the civil rights era, many saw the discrimination as morally correct. I think the problem comes from how subjective morality is in itself, so in practice, all we have been able to implement as a society is legal positivism, where The Basic Norm is determined by the group that wields the most power in that society. We can only hope that said group is acting with our best interest and common moral principles in mind, but when we look at the so-called conflicting practices that are in place in the post-WWII era, like the targeted killings and advanced interrogation methods and abolishment of abortion with no exceptions, I think we can see this legal positivism in practice. If this is the case, then perhaps a departure towards natural law would be best, but we'd need a universally accepted understanding of morality and human rights.
I apologize for my English in advance. I totally agree with you, the only thing would like to add is the fact that we (as a worldwide society including all the governments) are making more and more laws. This, is mainly because our moral values are constantly changing and evolving, which is good. But what is not good is the fact that many old laws are still in use and may go against modern morality
"[Nasties] are evil? The [Anglo-Americans] are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!" -Donquixote Doflamingo
Neat video! I always appreciate these explorations of philosophical perspectives. If we want to talk about the morality and legitimacy of laws, I believe it's also necessary to consider the "purpose" of human society in the first place. The laws of a society reflect the purpose of that society. Purpose, in my *humble* opinion, is entirely subjective, and meaning is an individual experience. That being said, there can be a sort of society-wide meaning, which we can see the outlines of when we analyse our society's laws, and what we consider to be moral. Most commonly, our "society-wide meaning" is really just what the individuals in our ruling class consider meaningful, and use their power to influence society as a whole to pursue, directing all who contribute to society, to contribute for their own upper-class interests, rather than the interest of all; rather than the common good. If the purpose of your society is to assert dominance over other societies, by means of force and subjugation to expand your influence, then that is what your laws will reflect. If the purpose of your society is to produce goods in abundance, and distribute everything to all people, in accordance to their need, then that is what your laws will reflect. If the purpose of your society is to pursue and accumulate infinite amounts of profit as an individual, at the expense and well-being of others, on a planet of finite resources... you get the idea. Across all human societies, we have always been "building" something. We have always been producing. And the laws, and morals of our society, historically and observably, have tended to be centered around the things we are producing, and the process of how those things are produced. Why does human society exist? Beats me, but at least we can manipulate the world around us to build pyramids in the desert. And if building pyramids in the desert (among many other things, obviously) is what our society (ruling class) values, then the most effective ways to build those pyramids (e.g. slavery) may very well be among the first considerations of a society orienting itself as such. And that's where the laws come in. We (or more particularly, those with the power to), have always created or influenced the laws (through some method or another) in order to shape society in their own interests. One might also argue that much of the moral progress of recent human history (e.g. the abolition of feudalism, of slavery, the diminishing social validity of racism, of sexism, of bigotry in general, the expansion of workers' rights, and the fights for justice and equality, even when these things were unprofitable, and went against the superstructures of society) has been the result of those whom the laws have historically applied to--the lower classes--disobeying the authority of those who have always made and enforced the laws in their own interests--the upper classes--which has shown historically that its interests tend to be its own financial success, and have also shown that it is willing to do a great many very immoral, very terrible things to the lower stratum to keep things that way. Only giving in and granting concessions to the lower social stratum when necessary and strategic, and taking them away when they believe they can get away with it. Even today, the law in almost all nations, even Western, industrialised nations, are applied and enforced unequally, across different demographics and classes with an uneven hand, and with clear preference towards propertied and powerful classes. The law has always been a tool of civility, used by the ruling classes to filter morality through their own process of justice, created by them and to serve them. As a result, the morals of this society come to resemble the morality of Capitalism, of the wealthy, of consumerism, and of corporations. Even in your video, you struggle to speak on historical facts due to their unmarketability under Capitalism, and *are unable to use language freely,* on the corporate platform which reserves the right to refuse to fund your content, while siphoning millions from other content creators into the accounts of corporate executives in a boardroom sipping martinis celebrating their quarterly earnings. Is that moral? I'd argue not. Yet our laws protect and incentivise this behaviour, and the profit gained from it goes back into shaping these laws, to maintain the status quo, to maintain their influence over production and society at large, and to keep those below blind to the fact that others become wealthy off their labour. Many laws in modern neoliberal society are similarly, built around maintaining and expanding the power of production, for a few people that make or influence them, at least. Dialectical and historical materialism are some great frameworks to analyse the dynamic social changes across centuries, and in my opinion, remain the most scientific outlooks to examine world history, and modern politics & law, as well as the relations between different classes within societies. Yes. I am a filthy commie. And yes, I wrote way too much in a UA-cam comment. But at least of all the videos on the platform to write an essay in the comments for, these philosophy-based channels are probably the most fitting, heh.
im still expanding my vocabulary and knowledge and is a bit dumb. could you simplify what you said? all i got from your comment is that laws are highly influenced by the upper class. also what makes u a commie? i dont get it
@@daveenaurr This is gonna be another long one but, you asked lol. Laws, and the government as a whole, are influenced or directly controlled by the upper class through their power. In the case of the upper class, this power is money, assets, capital, or wealth of any kind, which is used, legally or illegally, to lobby special interest groups or bribe lawmakers. As long as there is an upper class with an obscene amount of wealth, and the ability to turn that wealth (and consequently, power), into power in the government, and power over fellow men, then that will always happen. Democracy exists in the state, but it is neoliberal democracy, and it cannot be real democracy. The reason for this is that if democracy is representative rule by the people, and the economy is tyrannically controlled by the mega rich, and if the economy and production are what give a nation its power, then we learn that he who rules the *ECONOMY* also rules the *government.* So, if the government were to be democratic, so too must the economy. In our case, the upper class vie with each other for greater control over the government, while anyone without land gets a puny vote, which we pretend makes any change whatsoever. Meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats work together to balance each other out, and ensure that nothing good ever happens, and nothing progressively changes for the working class. I'm a Communist because I've just laid out a fraction of the unsustainabilities inherent in the Capitalist system we live under, and I would prefer a legitimately democratic alternative, as the original American and French Revolutions intended, which were co-opted by the old aristocracy, to become the new rulers; cuz landlords, CEOs, and bosses replaced the Kings of State. Almost nobody owns the land they live on, and almost certainly nobody owns the land they work on. But they are our new kings, and they make the decisions which drive the nation, and which all the rest of us have to live with, using money that we the workers created for them, spent undemocratically and tyrannically, often to keep us down. And they reign in the politicians of the state with their mountains of gold.
The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy." -Addenda to Orders in Council The Emperor Paul Muad'dib
Hello Liv! A a first year law student, your explanation is very detailed and gave me new perspectives and better understanding of what I am currently studying! I regularly watch your video essays and I never knew one of your videos would actually be very useful in my studies. Thank you >:3
just started my bachelor of law journey in London and this was the first case we are studying. you have no idea how happy I am as an old subscriber to find this video!
To the best of my knowledge, this one of the best introductory presentations on Natural Law vs Legal Positivism I heard. Philosophically astute, and employing sound critical theory. You've found your groove with this one.
I've given this topic a lot of thought over the past couple years, so I really appreciate a run down on contemporary views. You gave me a lot to think about!
I love your channel! this reminds me so much of how complex humans really are, and how all of this is just the mere surface. I know that is already a huge part of philosophy but this video has been the most thought-provoking thing i have seen in a very long time. well done :)
Your oratory skills are superb and I think you will make very deeply considered and well worded arguments in any case you take as an attorney! Keep it up you're always entertaining and a great resource of information, I'm really glad I found your videos 😁👍
I've been aware of your content for a while now, but it was today when I finally decided to subscribe to your channel. I've realized that the way in which you present these complex ideas it's all just really digestible and I would reccomend this channel to anyone that may want to explore these topics in rather neutral perspective so they can do their research afterwards if they happen to be more interested in the topic. Keep it up! It is really so soothing to listen to you talking about this stuff. In regards to the video topic, I've always found myself inclined to David Hume and his axiomatic relativism. In a nutshell, it explains that most of our ethical theories and moral judgments arise from our own emotions towards other people's behaviors and beliefs to the point where morality and emotion are essentially inseparable from each other. That said, this would explain just how many things that we now identify as immoral and even inhuman could be justified under certain metaethical theories and frameworks that were widely accepted in the past. The Nuremberg trials are just another example of how we can use language to portray certain statements as if they were self-evident when in reality they are just leaving room for those who are powerful to make their own laws, rules, and codes of behavior and therefore force others to embrace such norms and ideas out of fear and military might. Ethical dilemmas can be found in every sphere of human activity and there is no definitive answers which will make everyone happy.
These are the type of interns monologues I have with myself. Wish I made a channel and monetized these potentially video essays. Nice to see others have so I can just live vicariously through y’all.
okay really quickly, I LOVE YOUR TASTE IN MUSIC i am learning to play so many of these pieces and it's just delightful to have piano performances in your videos you have fantastic videos! thank you for sharing and all that stufffffff bye
I would like to add that American law does find some of it's roots in the common law and community moral codes. The concept of jury nullification finds its roots in common law and morality. The idea being that if you are in a trial by a jury of your peers and the jury finds the law or the punishment resulting from the law to be abhorrent, they may ignore the law. The concept of double jeopardy in the American legal system then comes into play because once the jury has put a "not guilty" verdict. The defendant may not be retried for the same crime. This to me would seem to indicate that the set of laws in America, finds its roots in the Morals of the community and legal positivism does not hold true.
@@BigHenFor Not sure where your knowledge is coming from. According to Wikipedia at least some of the original developers of legal positivism were the English Philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Austin.
Your content is improving with each vid! You have greally great research on all of the topics, it always sparks discussion among my friends and puts us back to uni years lol. Keep up the great work and gl in Uni olivia
man... I used to think studying Law would bore me to death but that I needed to do it because it is important (to other principles and to maybe help my research in the field I actually study, which is not law) but your videos dissecting law like this are making me see how interesting studying it can actually be thank you!!!!!
Kant’s Categorical Imperatives are really useful when thinking about morality. There are hypothetical and categorical imperatives or in other words there are rules that should only be followed in certain circumstances and rules that should always be followed. I look at the American laws and decide if i think it is categorical or hypothetical and go from there. Great video Liv!
Thank you for this video! It was really informative and helpful for me as I'm planning to do some legal philosophy for my coursework. I also really loved how you considered the Anglo-American laws.
I've watched an hour of your videos today and massively appreciate your detail and perspective. Thanks for the hard work, very considered and thought provoking.
Such a nuanced and involved topic that cannot be easily broken down. We are forever trapped between our fear of that which we have no control over, versus our desire to provide unblemished freedom. It may be that we are looking for an easy answer where none is to be found, like checking for your car keys in the same drawer even though they weren't there last time you looked.
Hey Olivia! Amazing video. Generally, in Law Schools, both in Brazil, where I live, as well as in Germany and France, where I have gone as exchange student, we are told that „legal positivism allowed the Nasty regime to thrive“. Recently we have seen more Dissertations debunking this myth, great to see a popularization of this alternative view out of academia!
Wow, you'd be a great teacher. I was actually just racking my brain over law and morality as I just couldn't pick sides to write for an essay, so it's nice to hear another person's take on this.
God damn. That quote from David Fraser about how lawyers are essentially mediums that channel institutionalised expressions of political supremacy is actually wild. It shone out so much to me because 4 years into my studies of law in Australia there has never been any phrase that perfectly encapsulates how I feel about what this career path I have chosen for myself has become to me. Like, from my studies it has just kept becoming increasingly clear that the very laws I am meant to uphold are governed by the prevailing political powers and institutions in my country that these bodies use to exert their idea of authority and a 'just' system and that... I'm apparently meant to be okay with that. I'm not comfortable with this idea, especially when these political bodies are all rich white men who only care about their own self-interests above all else (this isn't even counting how other countries in the world have to suffer too), and this unease had always been felt but until I actually had these thoughts and feelings I struggled with essentially written out with Fraser's quote all the fucking stars aligned and I suddenly had a throughline that made it all make sense. Like... shit. Thanks for bringing this to light it meant a lot to me. :)
11:53 OK I think that I will reference this list of 8 rules for a legal system to be genuine only as to advocate for my proposal of "reasonable expectation" because instead of trying to find an exhaustive list, I think perhaps this is somewhere where you either use some ambiguity to leave room for what might have been missed in the list or at the very least have this list seem more reasonable because, 8 rules your whole legal system must follow is very easy to argue against, you only have to criticise 1 of these rules and if you fail to make a good argument against it, move to the next, so at the very least these rules could be compressed down even if you don't want to leave ambiguity. For example 1 I didn't get the reference so I don't understand 2 Publicity - it is an unreasonable expectation that someone should follow a law that was for instance was passed in secret or that was not made difficult for the public to access, this can fall under "reasonable expectation". 3 4 There is a limit to what citizens can be reasonably be expected to follow, if even when one is aware of a law there are multiple interpretation or for example if the law is made extremely vague or difficult to understand. 5 It is unreasonable for someone to follow laws that contradict each other 6 It is unreasonable for one to follow an impossible law 7 If laws are changed frequently it would be unreasonable to expect one to follow this, for example a regime could change laws frequently so as to justify more arrests. This would sort of go with retroactivity but that's more of its own argument you'd have to make and I don't want to argue both unreasonable expectation and for that I'd like to focus on just 1. 8 If such group such as officials or certain ethnic groups can operate without following the law it is clearly unreasonable to expect that of others (also I would say a good argument for why police officers should get harsher punishments or at the VERY least the same punishments). ^Need to work harder on arguing some of these instead of simply asserting that they are true.^ Although I'm sure most people would agree without logicing it out but it is a necessary exercise to logic things out. I would also add that the "ignorance of the law is not a justification for lack of compliance" or whatever based on the assertion that the law is nessesarily moral is clearly unreasonable as we do not automatically or even ever go under the same moral frameworks as everyone else. As you can see I very easily compressed 2 & 4-8 into a single rule without much work. And if you feel this as an argument in court is too vague against bad faith actors or such then one could enshrine the 8 rules at simply examples written next to such a law if ones approach is to make this "reasonable expectation" law, although there are arguments to be made that making such laws will simply help to justify a system that still has immoral or unreasonable laws. But yeah, 16:30 this is exactly what I was talking about. But yeah, good video, just don't like how it sort of just takes this list and sort of just takes it as not just agreeable but almost just true without attempting gto really expand on it but instead just directly comparing it to nazi germany as if to provide evidence for it being correct without need for expanding upon. This is a common flaw I find in such videos on philosophy, they often take philosophers work as, while not nessesarily *the* truth, having some almost inherent authority instead of arguing for *why* it is good philosophy, this to me is almost dogmatic and to me seems sort of dangerous, from what I remember crash course doesn't do this sort of thing it argues for why a philosophical argument might be applicable to a given scenario but doesn't first present it uncritically. Anyones philosophy can be as valid as anyone else's, infact I would argue my ^ quick rephrasing of this philosophy ^ is better. And that's just the thing I would *ARGUE* philosophy has to be justified and examined, not just put next to examples that agree with it like in the video. *To be clear she does talk about what she sides with more or less but I think stopping so arbitrarily at talking about the exact philosophy this philosopher provides is a reference to authority that I disagree with heavily, or at least it does seem like a deference to authority, once might argue it isn't arbitrary as this is simply how this philosophy was most widely spread but I still don't think it justifies such a lack of actual philosophical discussion or argumentation and allowing the assertions to stand unargued. Also if I ever go on twitch or youtube where I need to watch my language I am so ready to use "nasty germany" genius! XD
I was searching for a video with this content but i didn't find any! One of our teachers said we should respect all laws pre year and it just poped up in my mind. Now I'm really happy to watch your video!
I love your videos, they always keep me glued to the screen until the end. It's obvious that you put a huge effort in every video, but this one in particular not only brings up an interesting topic, but also is by far the most well written and structured out of all your videos (for now). You're an amazing creator, always creative and intriguing. KEEP UP THE AMAZING WORK OLIVIA💕
Heinlein, for all his faults, was ultimately right in one aspect- at the end of the day, violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. The confluences of legality and morality are inexorably shaded by the societies put in place by those who have the biggest weapons, or are allowed to exist by those that have them. Suppose that the nasties took over the world, and we were born into a world where they controlled all information, with all sense of legality and morality going through that. Even if we obtained knowledge of genocide, we would not be able to call it an "amoral act", as we would be none the wiser as to what an alternative morality even could be. Amorality isn't intrinsically something, it is the absence of something. And you can't know something is missing if you never had a perception of what that something is or could be. At least, that's how I see it. I suppose the father of violence is mortality, but that's a different discussion.
hatte mir vorher nie noch nie gedanken darüber gemacht ob gesetze und moral immer zusammengehören und ob man auch rückwirkend bestrafen darf. das video hat mir mehr gebracht als ein jahr a-level philosophy. thank uuu
I’m currently writing a paper on the Hart-Fuller debate. It’s interesting that there is so much contention around the subjects of NL v. LP when it seems pretty clear that both are applied by most governments when and where they are most convenient. In the case of the grudge informer, it was clearly convenient to apply NL theory as it allowed for making examples of subjective wrongdoers who, in reality, were only doing what the laws of their land permitted at that time. Stripping away the right or wrong aspect of the argument, also subjective, quickly shows how shaky that approach becomes. It’s easy to attach morals to certain actions when they give us the warm and fuzzy feelings of seeing justice done, but it seems just as easy to forget that our senses of morality are not universal. Every nation in the world, past and present, has codified more than a few laws that each of the others would view as morally dubious, if not outright immoral, and yet we do not delegitimize each other’s national autonomy in keeping our own laws. Much to consider on this one. Thanks for the vid, you certainly bring up some interesting points. 🤔
i always love watching your videos. maybe you're not but i always sort of pool you in with commentary channels, but i always find your videos go one step deeper. i love them and thank you for doing what you do
this sounds a lot like john austin, a legal positivist, but i think hart's criticism of this idea is good. you can search it up if you're interested -- he compares thinking about law as solely a power-backed, habitual command to a gunman
Legal positivism caused the downfall of German democracy in the first place. The so called "enabling act" from 1933 granted Hitler absolute power and ended the Weimar Republic legally. This act gained a majority in the German parliament and was legally signed into law. This could happen because the constitution of Weimar Germany was based on legal positivism and lacked moral principles. That is the reason why in todays German constitution fundamental principles like the protection of human dignity and the institution of democracy are unchangeable. Even if every single member of the Germant parliament would be in favor of abolishing such "moral" principles, they could not be legally abolished. This is a vital lesson that post war Germany learned from its dark past and to me it is a convincing reason to reject legal positivism. "If injustice becomes law, everyone has the duty to oppose it." -Berthold Brecht
I think the purpose of law is to enforce morals (to a certain extent) that way no one is treated horribly. why do we have morals? in the beginning it was probably to protect ourselves, but now the law is supposed to make sure your safe. if the law tells you to do something immoral then it is no longer trustworthy, because almost any justification to do something immoral can be used against you. which makes you possibly unsafe. yeah, you can keep following the rules of your government. but the philosophy that made them choose whatever immoral thing is now law, is something you can be a victim of. a good example is slavery, we rebelled against who was in power if we hadn't who knows maybe poor people would be slaves or people with green eyes. maybe it's more likely not, but what's stopping them? Not morals.
Finally a comment that makes things a bit clear for me. But I also think that law is partially for maintaining order of society (which is also kinda needed) such as the procedure of buying a property, that you have to have an education of middle school (if you have the opportunity of this) etc.
I wrote a really long thesis here to support this but lemme just shorten it to the conclusion. I think morals are temporal social constructs. I believe Laws are from a person's or a people's morals so they are natural by design and they should be constructed in a way to encourage/give room to refinement and if they are so then we as a people should be Legal Positivists, since it will be through the law that we make unjust laws just, hope that makes sense.
I really appreciate your effort in producing these videos and the thoughtful discussion they generate - It's inspiring (makes me want to go back to school lmao) - see you on TedEx someday!
the grudge informer case and the case of speluncean explorers are basic books for anyone starting law school lol. from a law student, this video is very well done. maybe even better than my teacher's lecture 😂
I've always believed at some point we are responsible for our own (for lack of a better word) enslavement. The only thing thing keeping any politician/goverment in power is people. Which is why what goes on in totalitarian goverments awful. They keep them so deprived of human needs their focus is only to survive, and not to rebel. But just imagine if we lacked self preservation. Nothing is more dangerous than someone with nothing to loose.
I love watching your videos so much while I draw, but I have a question.. how do you find these topics? (I hope this doesn't come out in a rude way, I'm just always invested in your videos and the variety of topics you present)
I don't know her process for certain works but i would imagine they come through during university. for example, i could see "philosophy" of law being a subject and these topics arising and her being assigned reading for it and such. i would definitely love to see an inside look at her process as told by her though
One thing that it’s missing is that the link between morals and laws is that both are subordinate to the culture and ideas of those that created those laws. The whole discussion on whether laws HAVE to descend from morals is way less meaningful, if it is taken into account that morals are specific to a society and its culture or a subset of them. This is true even for ad personam laws, that might be immoral even to those that created them but descend from (and have their justification in) their creators’ ideas, culture and upbringing. This also goes for how the laws are enforced. Morality is just a trait, an aspect, in the set of traits that defines a culture of a society, and it might not be the most important trait. EDIT: forgot to add that if, for whatever reason, a culture changes, then the previous laws adopted by or forced onto the previous version of that culture probably won’t be recognised as valid anymore (abortion laws for example)
This video is more important than many people realize. I think your well researched approach is very objective given that I honestly cannot tell if you lean toward the postmodern or enlightenment perspective or to a dialectic which transcends these tags. Just a few points. I think your video is timely because the American system is being severely challenged right now. The postmodern philosophy is that all legal systems are ultimately based on efforts to sustain political power and this essentially makes it impossible for any system to aspire to universal principles. I would point to Foucault but your reference I think was better. This requires a complete deconstruction of the American metanarrative including the idea that our legal system was based on objective principles. You touched on the philosophical deep dive regarding the definition of moral principles which support a legal structure. The argument is that no matter what founding principle one attempts to reduce a chain of principles to it must be absurd by virtue of being the first. Obviously you were explaining this line of reasoning not advocating it and clearly this lexical approach is dangerous in that one risks not only deconstructing legal standards themselves but as well the philosophical ideas used to measure them such as the concepts of justice, objectivity, truth and good. This results in legal nihilism. This idea that principles are excuses invented for one’s own atrocities is a recent invention. The result is lawfare. And why not? If objectivity in law is impossible then you are left only with law as a weapon. In regard to Nuremberg. We should not lose sight of the fact that it took place at all. Nuremberg was deeply flawed but reached for the enlightenment idea that even War itself should have rules. Contrast this imperfection to the control case at the time which was the Russian front and the legal utopia enjoyed by officers on both sides after Stalingrad. Also, let’s be accurate. Nuremberg was not an automatic death sentence. Of the 177 defendants, 24 were sentenced to death, 20 to life imprisonment, 98 to lesser sentences and 25 defendants were found not guilty! Those are far better odds than many modern American court rooms.
You're so good at explaining things and I've been addicted to your videos. Could you ever make a video about "the subtle art of not giving a fuck" if you have time?
The thing of just law vs unjust law is, who gets to say it's just or unjust. If the people in charge gets to say it, then law and justice is one and the same. If the people get to say it, then how do we know there are more people agreeing to the unjust-ness of the law, and does it divides people? If it's up to my judgement, then do I get to decide what law to follow or to ignore based on my own preference?
Thank you very much for giving us a wonderful perspective on the matter of law and morality. I would like to know your views on one matter that has not been raised by anyone about the NASTY CASE you have cited. It is as follows: The German wife had simply obeyed the law of the land and had reported the husband's remarks against the Nasty Authorities. What if she did not do so but kept silent and the Nasty Authorities found out from some of their secret sources that the wife had not reported about the husband and as a result, she was convicted, what defence could she put up to save herself before the Nasty Court? Did she have any legitimate legal defence? Or would she have to take refuge under the Laws of Morality to save herself? What would the proponents of Natural Law say? Should she have embraced the role of a martyr?
I love the way you explained this because this makes me think of 'crime vrs government' meaning its ok for the government to do something but a regular citizen cant. A while ago people were talking about the methods the gov. got information out of Afghanistan people was to straight up torture them. They were saying "How is it that when the military kidnaps someone and tortures them for information its seen as "doing the right thing by any means" but say the Cartel did it it's seen as a crime" Personally i found the whole topic dumb yes its gonna be illegal for the Cartel to beat and torture people vrs. the military, but it did make me think of all the double standards in crimes depending on who does what and who did it.
I dont know about this topic, but im quite interested. Was is it actually legal to torture people in Afghanistan? Or did they try to hide these tortures ans only talken down some leaked ones?
(Excuse my grammer pls, im a non-native english speaker) I think that we can define and spot "unjust" or "evil" laws when we look on one thing, the furthering of unequality. If you have the law "you shall not kill" and you do it, you are getting punished for killing someone. We punish them not cause of who killed who but of the protection of equality cause everyone has the equal right to not be harmed. So the law is moral. If we take the situation with the woman and her husband in nazi germany. The law does not condem the act of badmouthing someone but the person who did it. Cause they resent the person for being a "traitor to its people" and the intent of the lawmaker was to silence criticism, so unequality. And you can do that with any law. You can always see in the creation of a law, who should be punished, who made the law and for what purpose. What is the intention of the law beyond its self. For example the law in nazi germany "jews are not allowed to do commerce and hold position of office" is an unjust and evil law cause it purpusly focuses one group and exludes another and trying to push them out of society. As she said in the video law is for enforcing equality. And if you make a law that is not trying to further equality but tries to enforce unequality its unjust and not moral. So yes, we can trial people for thing that were legal back then if we apply this reasoning. Even the germans knew that genocide, in a general term, is immoral and barbaric but cause its law its okay. That was even a discussion point at the Wannseekonferenz. There they even acknowledged that the gas cars are inhumane and barbaric. But they said its still okay under the Nuremberg laws, "nasty bur necessery" as they said. They drew from their law the moral superiority cause for them the aryan law was supirrior. So we can definitely say what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral. We dont even need a legal norm, just the definition of equality. And a person that does not act against unequal law is guilty of furthering unequality and acting against his peers and should be punished retroactively. Even if the person is doing it unknowingly, cause ignorance does not protect against punishment. (As is said, sry for my grammer)
I believe that law in of itself is a concept controlled by the balance between power and morals, and therefore can only be unjust should the balance be shifted from equilibrium. On the other hand, justice is blinded by power and morals and therefore should blindly follow the course of law, no matter the law. If the law is in equilibrium, then justice will prevail. This was probably my favourite video and I will probably watch it a couple more times to see if my views on law change, I have no doubt they will, especially in the following years when I begin to study it... Great work :)
Absolutely, I agree with your sentiment. Evil should not be ignored, for it is an integral part of our being. It's important to understand that evil is not a separate entity, rather it's a facet of our nature that surfaces under certain circumstances. Recognizing the potential for evil within us allows us to better understand our actions, motivations, and behaviors, which can, in turn, help us make more ethical choices. Furthermore, acknowledging our capacity for evil can give us the impetus to make conscious efforts to refrain from negative actions, thereby promoting personal growth and moral development. Ignoring this aspect of our nature would only hinder our understanding of ourselves and others, thereby limiting our potential for growth. This concept shouldn't be used as an excuse for malicious actions, but rather as a tool for self-improvement and self-awareness. Only by embracing our flaws and understanding our potential for both good and evil can we strive towards a better, more empathetic version of ourselves.
I have an assignment on this exact topic and I was just thinking how crazy it is that this video just popped up out out of sheer coincidence when there are so many other different ideas that could have been explored & discussed on this channel.
big thank you to my patreons! (who i so stupidly forgot to acknowledge in the actual video):
(ง︡'-'︠)ง
Aidan Bozeman
Alan Cisneros
beanu
Benjamin Walsh
bleech
Calob Humble
CDubb
Davis Tran
Deepto Chatterjee
Dhruv Singhal
Diego
embarajas
Fckle
Foreign Man in a Foreign Land
GeW
Guilherme Goncalves
Haakon
hairy socks
Henry Adams
Jacob McMillan
JakeForHire
Jeanie Lee
Jesse
Jonathan von Schroeder
Josh Hunt
Jun
Justin Raper
Kian Nahad
L E E
Lawra Clark
Lorenzo Villegas
maggie
Mason Motley
Michelle Jia
murkymorals
Name
O.H.B.
OkaySureWhyNot
Pbat1099
Robert Castro
Sabrina Fiore
Samantha Mandel
Sarah Karen
Simon
Soladoccitannia
Solomon Khan
Sreenivas Vasamsetti
Tim
Tim Butler
Viljami Valldén
WB
Would love to see you talk about the AI generated art that won the art competition and see how you think about AI and the meaning of art and stuff like that.
are you korean or latina..........................my wife!
@@Helelsonofdawn um what the fuck
LINK YOUR PATREON!
I love your aesthetic in this video
The entirety of Death Note serves as a pretty good examination of the idea that the pursuit of Justice excuses any means and justifies any action. Great video!
ah i've been meaning to watch this forever but still haven't yet
@@oliSUNvia it's got an amazing first half. sadly it veers off the anime wack path in the last 10ish episodes, but it's great fuel for philosophy discussions
@@gastonzumbo9860 Respectfully, I would disagree. I think it holds its own all the way to the very end with the Final Confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist. It does a great job of closing most plot holes and there's a satisfying end imo.
@@elucified I think he's talking about when the anime veers off and changes main characters after episode 26. I never heard of anyone hating on the ending of the first part. I hated everything after episode 26 because it's just a different show.
@@fighisver OH WITH THE KIDS sorry yeah I completely forgot those parts existed lmao my brain said "ep 26 is the last episode" whoops mb
I love how well “nasty” works in every sentence its used in 💖
Yes! Must be protected at all costs!
ذلقهق١
it's kind of dystopian that you have to use code words for such an important topic
true
Not really, you are allowed to say anything, you will just not get money
Also the term that she's using a code word for can be triggering to some people as well, so I think it's better to censor it like olivia did
If you want to use "dystopian" - it is dystopian that you would rather use a code than accept that advertises do not want to interrupt important topic with ads.
At the same time it seems easy to understand, she wants to profit from her work.
@@Enclave_Engineer Yup that's the issue. Well what truly runs society? Money. If people paying you refuse pay. For speaking about such an IMPORTANT topic. Gives a pretty good example of what the elites are really trying to do. Y'know. The ones with the most money/power thus, Dystopia. Think about it what's the real reason we are forbidden to talk about it. So that children don't search it up? For protecting what from whom? Hmm? And if you say that we are allowed to talk about. We actually aren't. That's precisely WHY non money. De monetization .
"Punish the nasty woman" was way funnier to me than it should've been
Honestly, I enjoy watching these videos because it makes me feel like some sort of philosopher sitting in a grass field and listening podcasts as I feed the geese.
That was pleasantly evocative. Love it.
Lazy?
@@kreativefortune9132 why are you acting like you're running around the house while watching youtube
i read this as "feed the grass" at first and i was like 👁👁
You explain your topics so well that even a non-native english speaker (like me) understands everything. Grüße aus Deutschland ✌🏼
Natuerlich sie spricht ueber deinen Land lol (excuse my german im not native)
@블랙나르시사 danke!
Runter vom Rasen!
Grüße zurück 🗿
Really? I was just thinking how difficult words I have seen here ..my poor vocabulary .. full of kpop
A big takeaway from this video seems to be that "might makes right" in terms of the legitimacy of a law: whosoever holds the greater power, militarily or politically, holds the moral high ground. In the precolonial american continent when the spanish conquistadors saw the human sacrifice being conducted by the natives, they deemed such laws and practices as evil and used it as partial justification for their atrocities. Not to argue for human sacrifice, but it was the ones with greater power who determined as such. In nazi germany, it was the nazi regime who held the power, and in post nazi germany, it was the UN who held the power through military force. In the civil rights era, many saw the discrimination as morally correct. I think the problem comes from how subjective morality is in itself, so in practice, all we have been able to implement as a society is legal positivism, where The Basic Norm is determined by the group that wields the most power in that society. We can only hope that said group is acting with our best interest and common moral principles in mind, but when we look at the so-called conflicting practices that are in place in the post-WWII era, like the targeted killings and advanced interrogation methods and abolishment of abortion with no exceptions, I think we can see this legal positivism in practice. If this is the case, then perhaps a departure towards natural law would be best, but we'd need a universally accepted understanding of morality and human rights.
I apologize for my English in advance. I totally agree with you, the only thing would like to add is the fact that we (as a worldwide society including all the governments) are making more and more laws. This, is mainly because our moral values are constantly changing and evolving, which is good. But what is not good is the fact that many old laws are still in use and may go against modern morality
well said.
1¹111¹1⁹2
"[Nasties] are evil? The [Anglo-Americans] are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
-Donquixote Doflamingo
good old bigger stick democracy
Skip your bachelor's of law, Liv. Just apply for the bar exam now 😮💨 I think you'll be good.
😬i think LSAC will have something different to say about that
if you are in California, Virginia, Vermont or Washington, you can take the bar exam with out going to law school js
I'm pretty sure that isn't how it works in Canada...
@@nobreakingthepickle3452 Dont tell them.
she's majoring in philosophy, and in Canada you have to do the lsat to get into law school !
Incredible Collab with Sisyphus55! I need more!!
Agreed
Agreed, it was super cool
The collab was awesome! Sisyphus 55 is one of my favourite UA-camrs, so it was pretty cool to see this
One of your most interesting videos yet. I feel ✨educated✨
thank you!
yeah you definitely watched it 12 hours ago lmfao
@@PTSDZ do you.... not know that patrons get early links to videos? Sorry, I'm just confused if you're being sarcastic or not.
@@PTSDZ the privilege of being Olivia's patron
Neat video! I always appreciate these explorations of philosophical perspectives. If we want to talk about the morality and legitimacy of laws, I believe it's also necessary to consider the "purpose" of human society in the first place. The laws of a society reflect the purpose of that society. Purpose, in my *humble* opinion, is entirely subjective, and meaning is an individual experience. That being said, there can be a sort of society-wide meaning, which we can see the outlines of when we analyse our society's laws, and what we consider to be moral. Most commonly, our "society-wide meaning" is really just what the individuals in our ruling class consider meaningful, and use their power to influence society as a whole to pursue, directing all who contribute to society, to contribute for their own upper-class interests, rather than the interest of all; rather than the common good.
If the purpose of your society is to assert dominance over other societies, by means of force and subjugation to expand your influence, then that is what your laws will reflect. If the purpose of your society is to produce goods in abundance, and distribute everything to all people, in accordance to their need, then that is what your laws will reflect. If the purpose of your society is to pursue and accumulate infinite amounts of profit as an individual, at the expense and well-being of others, on a planet of finite resources... you get the idea.
Across all human societies, we have always been "building" something. We have always been producing. And the laws, and morals of our society, historically and observably, have tended to be centered around the things we are producing, and the process of how those things are produced. Why does human society exist? Beats me, but at least we can manipulate the world around us to build pyramids in the desert. And if building pyramids in the desert (among many other things, obviously) is what our society (ruling class) values, then the most effective ways to build those pyramids (e.g. slavery) may very well be among the first considerations of a society orienting itself as such. And that's where the laws come in. We (or more particularly, those with the power to), have always created or influenced the laws (through some method or another) in order to shape society in their own interests.
One might also argue that much of the moral progress of recent human history (e.g. the abolition of feudalism, of slavery, the diminishing social validity of racism, of sexism, of bigotry in general, the expansion of workers' rights, and the fights for justice and equality, even when these things were unprofitable, and went against the superstructures of society) has been the result of those whom the laws have historically applied to--the lower classes--disobeying the authority of those who have always made and enforced the laws in their own interests--the upper classes--which has shown historically that its interests tend to be its own financial success, and have also shown that it is willing to do a great many very immoral, very terrible things to the lower stratum to keep things that way. Only giving in and granting concessions to the lower social stratum when necessary and strategic, and taking them away when they believe they can get away with it.
Even today, the law in almost all nations, even Western, industrialised nations, are applied and enforced unequally, across different demographics and classes with an uneven hand, and with clear preference towards propertied and powerful classes. The law has always been a tool of civility, used by the ruling classes to filter morality through their own process of justice, created by them and to serve them. As a result, the morals of this society come to resemble the morality of Capitalism, of the wealthy, of consumerism, and of corporations. Even in your video, you struggle to speak on historical facts due to their unmarketability under Capitalism, and *are unable to use language freely,* on the corporate platform which reserves the right to refuse to fund your content, while siphoning millions from other content creators into the accounts of corporate executives in a boardroom sipping martinis celebrating their quarterly earnings.
Is that moral? I'd argue not. Yet our laws protect and incentivise this behaviour, and the profit gained from it goes back into shaping these laws, to maintain the status quo, to maintain their influence over production and society at large, and to keep those below blind to the fact that others become wealthy off their labour.
Many laws in modern neoliberal society are similarly, built around maintaining and expanding the power of production, for a few people that make or influence them, at least. Dialectical and historical materialism are some great frameworks to analyse the dynamic social changes across centuries, and in my opinion, remain the most scientific outlooks to examine world history, and modern politics & law, as well as the relations between different classes within societies.
Yes. I am a filthy commie. And yes, I wrote way too much in a UA-cam comment. But at least of all the videos on the platform to write an essay in the comments for, these philosophy-based channels are probably the most fitting, heh.
im still expanding my vocabulary and knowledge and is a bit dumb. could you simplify what you said? all i got from your comment is that laws are highly influenced by the upper class. also what makes u a commie? i dont get it
super well spoken and the only sane person on the planet
@@urdadsonic1036 no I'm just your garden-variety chronically verbose political extremist, unfortunately
@@daveenaurr This is gonna be another long one but, you asked lol. Laws, and the government as a whole, are influenced or directly controlled by the upper class through their power. In the case of the upper class, this power is money, assets, capital, or wealth of any kind, which is used, legally or illegally, to lobby special interest groups or bribe lawmakers. As long as there is an upper class with an obscene amount of wealth, and the ability to turn that wealth (and consequently, power), into power in the government, and power over fellow men, then that will always happen.
Democracy exists in the state, but it is neoliberal democracy, and it cannot be real democracy. The reason for this is that if democracy is representative rule by the people, and the economy is tyrannically controlled by the mega rich, and if the economy and production are what give a nation its power, then we learn that he who rules the *ECONOMY* also rules the *government.* So, if the government were to be democratic, so too must the economy.
In our case, the upper class vie with each other for greater control over the government, while anyone without land gets a puny vote, which we pretend makes any change whatsoever. Meanwhile, both Republicans and Democrats work together to balance each other out, and ensure that nothing good ever happens, and nothing progressively changes for the working class.
I'm a Communist because I've just laid out a fraction of the unsustainabilities inherent in the Capitalist system we live under, and I would prefer a legitimately democratic alternative, as the original American and French Revolutions intended, which were co-opted by the old aristocracy, to become the new rulers; cuz landlords, CEOs, and bosses replaced the Kings of State. Almost nobody owns the land they live on, and almost certainly nobody owns the land they work on. But they are our new kings, and they make the decisions which drive the nation, and which all the rest of us have to live with, using money that we the workers created for them, spent undemocratically and tyrannically, often to keep us down. And they reign in the politicians of the state with their mountains of gold.
Oh you’re communist? That’s cool. Can you come with me? I want to show you something via helicopter.
your videos are always so well made, love how much effort you put into them
The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from
ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of
one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a
difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy.
Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of
power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy."
-Addenda to Orders in Council The Emperor Paul Muad'dib
This is from the Dune series right?
Wise words, if not always practically applicable
@@hydromic2518 Yes part 2. I think Dune Messiah delves a lot into themes that deal with leadership and obedience.
@@Eckendenker yes it’s a lovely sci-fi series. Just wanted to confirm because it seemed familiar
One of my favorite topics covered by one of my favorite creators on the plattform, i’m in for a 29 minute treat
Hello Liv! A a first year law student, your explanation is very detailed and gave me new perspectives and better understanding of what I am currently studying! I regularly watch your video essays and I never knew one of your videos would actually be very useful in my studies. Thank you >:3
just started my bachelor of law journey in London and this was the first case we are studying. you have no idea how happy I am as an old subscriber to find this video!
To the best of my knowledge, this one of the best introductory presentations on Natural Law vs Legal Positivism I heard. Philosophically astute, and employing sound critical theory. You've found your groove with this one.
I've given this topic a lot of thought over the past couple years, so I really appreciate a run down on contemporary views. You gave me a lot to think about!
I love your channel! this reminds me so much of how complex humans really are, and how all of this is just the mere surface. I know that is already a huge part of philosophy but this video has been the most thought-provoking thing i have seen in a very long time. well done :)
Your oratory skills are superb and I think you will make very deeply considered and well worded arguments in any case you take as an attorney! Keep it up you're always entertaining and a great resource of information, I'm really glad I found your videos 😁👍
this lady, man she's one of the most well-spoken women ive ever seen. if she doesnt end up going to law school idk what im gonna do with myself.
I've been aware of your content for a while now, but it was today when I finally decided to subscribe to your channel. I've realized that the way in which you present these complex ideas it's all just really digestible and I would reccomend this channel to anyone that may want to explore these topics in rather neutral perspective so they can do their research afterwards if they happen to be more interested in the topic. Keep it up! It is really so soothing to listen to you talking about this stuff.
In regards to the video topic, I've always found myself inclined to David Hume and his axiomatic relativism. In a nutshell, it explains that most of our ethical theories and moral judgments arise from our own emotions towards other people's behaviors and beliefs to the point where morality and emotion are essentially inseparable from each other. That said, this would explain just how many things that we now identify as immoral and even inhuman could be justified under certain metaethical theories and frameworks that were widely accepted in the past. The Nuremberg trials are just another example of how we can use language to portray certain statements as if they were self-evident when in reality they are just leaving room for those who are powerful to make their own laws, rules, and codes of behavior and therefore force others to embrace such norms and ideas out of fear and military might. Ethical dilemmas can be found in every sphere of human activity and there is no definitive answers which will make everyone happy.
These are the type of interns monologues I have with myself. Wish I made a channel and monetized these potentially video essays.
Nice to see others have so I can just live vicariously through y’all.
okay really quickly, I LOVE YOUR TASTE IN MUSIC i am learning to play so many of these pieces and it's just delightful to have piano performances in your videos
you have fantastic videos! thank you for sharing and all that stufffffff bye
I would like to add that American law does find some of it's roots in the common law and community moral codes. The concept of jury nullification finds its roots in common law and morality. The idea being that if you are in a trial by a jury of your peers and the jury finds the law or the punishment resulting from the law to be abhorrent, they may ignore the law. The concept of double jeopardy in the American legal system then comes into play because once the jury has put a "not guilty" verdict. The defendant may not be retried for the same crime. This to me would seem to indicate that the set of laws in America, finds its roots in the Morals of the community and legal positivism does not hold true.
Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, legal positivism was a product of American jurisprudence.
@@BigHenFor Not sure where your knowledge is coming from. According to Wikipedia at least some of the original developers of legal positivism were the English Philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Austin.
Your content is improving with each vid! You have greally great research on all of the topics, it always sparks discussion among my friends and puts us back to uni years lol. Keep up the great work and gl in Uni olivia
man... I used to think studying Law would bore me to death but that I needed to do it because it is important (to other principles and to maybe help my research in the field I actually study, which is not law)
but your videos dissecting law like this are making me see how interesting studying it can actually be
thank you!!!!!
love how philosophical the topics are getting!
i wish your videos were put on spotify, your voice and use of language is both captivating and soothing 😔👊🏽
Kant’s Categorical Imperatives are really useful when thinking about morality. There are hypothetical and categorical imperatives or in other words there are rules that should only be followed in certain circumstances and rules that should always be followed. I look at the American laws and decide if i think it is categorical or hypothetical and go from there. Great video Liv!
I've been on UA-cam since its inception and I've never been to a video so early I'm so glad it was you ! You're gonna kill it out there
thank you so much!
Thank you for this video! It was really informative and helpful for me as I'm planning to do some legal philosophy for my coursework. I also really loved how you considered the Anglo-American laws.
I've watched an hour of your videos today and massively appreciate your detail and perspective. Thanks for the hard work, very considered and thought provoking.
Such a nuanced and involved topic that cannot be easily broken down.
We are forever trapped between our fear of that which we have no control over, versus our desire to provide unblemished freedom.
It may be that we are looking for an easy answer where none is to be found, like checking for your car keys in the same drawer even though they weren't there last time you looked.
The backwatch continues... I'm impressed. This is a case I had never heard of. Thanks for breaking it down.
Hey Olivia! Amazing video. Generally, in Law Schools, both in Brazil, where I live, as well as in Germany and France, where I have gone as exchange student, we are told that „legal positivism allowed the Nasty regime to thrive“. Recently we have seen more Dissertations debunking this myth, great to see a popularization of this alternative view out of academia!
Wow, you'd be a great teacher. I was actually just racking my brain over law and morality as I just couldn't pick sides to write for an essay, so it's nice to hear another person's take on this.
It's refreshing to see someone of your age with such intellect! I really enjoy your channel.
When you mentioned what the motive of the Nuremberg trials was, it reminded me of the cover-up of Unit 731 instead of trials and prosecuting.
God damn. That quote from David Fraser about how lawyers are essentially mediums that channel institutionalised expressions of political supremacy is actually wild. It shone out so much to me because 4 years into my studies of law in Australia there has never been any phrase that perfectly encapsulates how I feel about what this career path I have chosen for myself has become to me. Like, from my studies it has just kept becoming increasingly clear that the very laws I am meant to uphold are governed by the prevailing political powers and institutions in my country that these bodies use to exert their idea of authority and a 'just' system and that... I'm apparently meant to be okay with that. I'm not comfortable with this idea, especially when these political bodies are all rich white men who only care about their own self-interests above all else (this isn't even counting how other countries in the world have to suffer too), and this unease had always been felt but until I actually had these thoughts and feelings I struggled with essentially written out with Fraser's quote all the fucking stars aligned and I suddenly had a throughline that made it all make sense.
Like... shit. Thanks for bringing this to light it meant a lot to me. :)
11:53 OK I think that I will reference this list of 8 rules for a legal system to be genuine only as to advocate for my proposal of "reasonable expectation" because instead of trying to find an exhaustive list, I think perhaps this is somewhere where you either use some ambiguity to leave room for what might have been missed in the list or at the very least have this list seem more reasonable because, 8 rules your whole legal system must follow is very easy to argue against, you only have to criticise 1 of these rules and if you fail to make a good argument against it, move to the next, so at the very least these rules could be compressed down even if you don't want to leave ambiguity. For example
1 I didn't get the reference so I don't understand
2 Publicity - it is an unreasonable expectation that someone should follow a law that was for instance was passed in secret or that was not made difficult for the public to access, this can fall under "reasonable expectation".
3
4 There is a limit to what citizens can be reasonably be expected to follow, if even when one is aware of a law there are multiple interpretation or for example if the law is made extremely vague or difficult to understand.
5 It is unreasonable for someone to follow laws that contradict each other
6 It is unreasonable for one to follow an impossible law
7 If laws are changed frequently it would be unreasonable to expect one to follow this, for example a regime could change laws frequently so as to justify more arrests. This would sort of go with retroactivity but that's more of its own argument you'd have to make and I don't want to argue both unreasonable expectation and for that I'd like to focus on just 1.
8 If such group such as officials or certain ethnic groups can operate without following the law it is clearly unreasonable to expect that of others (also I would say a good argument for why police officers should get harsher punishments or at the VERY least the same punishments).
^Need to work harder on arguing some of these instead of simply asserting that they are true.^ Although I'm sure most people would agree without logicing it out but it is a necessary exercise to logic things out.
I would also add that the "ignorance of the law is not a justification for lack of compliance" or whatever based on the assertion that the law is nessesarily moral is clearly unreasonable as we do not automatically or even ever go under the same moral frameworks as everyone else.
As you can see I very easily compressed 2 & 4-8 into a single rule without much work. And if you feel this as an argument in court is too vague against bad faith actors or such then one could enshrine the 8 rules at simply examples written next to such a law if ones approach is to make this "reasonable expectation" law, although there are arguments to be made that making such laws will simply help to justify a system that still has immoral or unreasonable laws.
But yeah, 16:30 this is exactly what I was talking about.
But yeah, good video, just don't like how it sort of just takes this list and sort of just takes it as not just agreeable but almost just true without attempting gto really expand on it but instead just directly comparing it to nazi germany as if to provide evidence for it being correct without need for expanding upon. This is a common flaw I find in such videos on philosophy, they often take philosophers work as, while not nessesarily *the* truth, having some almost inherent authority instead of arguing for *why* it is good philosophy, this to me is almost dogmatic and to me seems sort of dangerous, from what I remember crash course doesn't do this sort of thing it argues for why a philosophical argument might be applicable to a given scenario but doesn't first present it uncritically. Anyones philosophy can be as valid as anyone else's, infact I would argue my ^ quick rephrasing of this philosophy ^ is better. And that's just the thing I would *ARGUE* philosophy has to be justified and examined, not just put next to examples that agree with it like in the video.
*To be clear she does talk about what she sides with more or less but I think stopping so arbitrarily at talking about the exact philosophy this philosopher provides is a reference to authority that I disagree with heavily, or at least it does seem like a deference to authority, once might argue it isn't arbitrary as this is simply how this philosophy was most widely spread but I still don't think it justifies such a lack of actual philosophical discussion or argumentation and allowing the assertions to stand unargued.
Also if I ever go on twitch or youtube where I need to watch my language I am so ready to use "nasty germany" genius! XD
I was searching for a video with this content but i didn't find any! One of our teachers said we should respect all laws pre year and it just poped up in my mind. Now I'm really happy to watch your video!
All of your videos are right on the money every single time. I love the concepts brought forth and how you approach them.
girlie, I just want to thank you for giving me an idea for a bachelor's thesis!!!!!!!
I can't properly articulate how very good this video is!! Omg you're so good!
I love your videos, they always keep me glued to the screen until the end. It's obvious that you put a huge effort in every video, but this one in particular not only brings up an interesting topic, but also is by far the most well written and structured out of all your videos (for now). You're an amazing creator, always creative and intriguing. KEEP UP THE AMAZING WORK OLIVIA💕
Great essay! Thank you for sharing your journey and showing how important it is to listen to everyone
Heinlein, for all his faults, was ultimately right in one aspect- at the end of the day, violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. The confluences of legality and morality are inexorably shaded by the societies put in place by those who have the biggest weapons, or are allowed to exist by those that have them.
Suppose that the nasties took over the world, and we were born into a world where they controlled all information, with all sense of legality and morality going through that. Even if we obtained knowledge of genocide, we would not be able to call it an "amoral act", as we would be none the wiser as to what an alternative morality even could be. Amorality isn't intrinsically something, it is the absence of something. And you can't know something is missing if you never had a perception of what that something is or could be.
At least, that's how I see it. I suppose the father of violence is mortality, but that's a different discussion.
It's refreshing to see and hear you
thanks for this video, i'm taking a class on social/political philosophy and a LOT of it has gone over my head so far! this makes sense and is concise
Sheesh, i found your channel yesterday, and its amazing, im absolutely obsessed
hatte mir vorher nie noch nie gedanken darüber gemacht ob gesetze und moral immer zusammengehören und ob man auch rückwirkend bestrafen darf. das video hat mir mehr gebracht als ein jahr a-level philosophy. thank uuu
icl youre one of my favourite video essay-ers. lovely video as usual 💓
Olivia. This is by far one of your best videos yet. Absolutely great stuff. Please keep up the great work
You cover a lot of interesting topics I never see a lot of people think about. Keep up the good work 👊
I’m currently writing a paper on the Hart-Fuller debate. It’s interesting that there is so much contention around the subjects of NL v. LP when it seems pretty clear that both are applied by most governments when and where they are most convenient. In the case of the grudge informer, it was clearly convenient to apply NL theory as it allowed for making examples of subjective wrongdoers who, in reality, were only doing what the laws of their land permitted at that time. Stripping away the right or wrong aspect of the argument, also subjective, quickly shows how shaky that approach becomes. It’s easy to attach morals to certain actions when they give us the warm and fuzzy feelings of seeing justice done, but it seems just as easy to forget that our senses of morality are not universal. Every nation in the world, past and present, has codified more than a few laws that each of the others would view as morally dubious, if not outright immoral, and yet we do not delegitimize each other’s national autonomy in keeping our own laws. Much to consider on this one. Thanks for the vid, you certainly bring up some interesting points. 🤔
These are the kind of conversations I love to have but struggle to find!!
i always love watching your videos. maybe you're not but i always sort of pool you in with commentary channels, but i always find your videos go one step deeper. i love them and thank you for doing what you do
Morals are a blanket and story to cover the fact law is based on power alone
Power comes from the barrel of a gun
-Mao Zedong
this sounds a lot like john austin, a legal positivist, but i think hart's criticism of this idea is good. you can search it up if you're interested -- he compares thinking about law as solely a power-backed, habitual command to a gunman
@@oliSUNvia Thanks! I'll take a look at that, love your vids and takes!
Your channel grew so much in quite a short time. Awesome!
is there a such thing as a good law if none of those laws were agreed on by everyone before they were made? thats my stance
Legal positivism caused the downfall of German democracy in the first place. The so called "enabling act" from 1933 granted Hitler absolute power and ended the Weimar Republic legally. This act gained a majority in the German parliament and was legally signed into law. This could happen because the constitution of Weimar Germany was based on legal positivism and lacked moral principles. That is the reason why in todays German constitution fundamental principles like the protection of human dignity and the institution of democracy are unchangeable. Even if every single member of the Germant parliament would be in favor of abolishing such "moral" principles, they could not be legally abolished. This is a vital lesson that post war Germany learned from its dark past and to me it is a convincing reason to reject legal positivism.
"If injustice becomes law, everyone has the duty to oppose it." -Berthold Brecht
SISYPHUUUUS didn't expect this colab
personally, i would be a fantastic surgeon if it weren't for "laws".
laws around transferring job certifications for immigrants truly is such a frustrating barrier
@@oliSUNvia how tf did you know i'm an immigrant 😭
bae wake up new oliSUNvia vid!
Your work is very good. I keep coming back for more. I enjoy your intelligence and talented delivery of information.
thank you for subtitlessss
the joy on my face when sisyphus started talking
The collab we've all been waiting for
great video, i hadn't thought of these topics before and this was a great introduction to those two branches
I think the purpose of law is to enforce morals (to a certain extent) that way no one is treated horribly. why do we have morals? in the beginning it was probably to protect ourselves, but now the law is supposed to make sure your safe. if the law tells you to do something immoral then it is no longer trustworthy, because almost any justification to do something immoral can be used against you. which makes you possibly unsafe. yeah, you can keep following the rules of your government. but the philosophy that made them choose whatever immoral thing is now law, is something you can be a victim of. a good example is slavery, we rebelled against who was in power if we hadn't who knows maybe poor people would be slaves or people with green eyes. maybe it's more likely not, but what's stopping them? Not morals.
Finally a comment that makes things a bit clear for me. But I also think that law is partially for maintaining order of society (which is also kinda needed) such as the procedure of buying a property, that you have to have an education of middle school (if you have the opportunity of this) etc.
I wrote a really long thesis here to support this but lemme just shorten it to the conclusion.
I think morals are temporal social constructs.
I believe Laws are from a person's or a people's morals so they are natural by design and they should be constructed in a way to encourage/give room to refinement and if they are so then we as a people should be Legal Positivists, since it will be through the law that we make unjust laws just, hope that makes sense.
I really appreciate your effort in producing these videos and the thoughtful discussion they generate - It's inspiring (makes me want to go back to school lmao) - see you on TedEx someday!
this is a new interesting idea you've given me about law. great video.
completely unrelated to this awesome video but where do u get ur jewelry? it's so prettyyyy
the grudge informer case and the case of speluncean explorers are basic books for anyone starting law school lol.
from a law student, this video is very well done. maybe even better than my teacher's lecture 😂
I've always believed at some point we are responsible for our own (for lack of a better word) enslavement. The only thing thing keeping any politician/goverment in power is people. Which is why what goes on in totalitarian goverments awful. They keep them so deprived of human needs their focus is only to survive, and not to rebel. But just imagine if we lacked self preservation. Nothing is more dangerous than someone with nothing to loose.
Or if we were willing to die for what we believe in
W sisyphus collab. I just discovered your channel and its pretty cool.
Olivia and Sisyphus gotta be one of the most underrated crossovers of all time
I love watching your videos so much while I draw, but I have a question.. how do you find these topics? (I hope this doesn't come out in a rude way, I'm just always invested in your videos and the variety of topics you present)
I am also curious to know about the discovery process behind ultimately deciding on what topic to make a video about!
I don't know her process for certain works but i would imagine they come through during university. for example, i could see "philosophy" of law being a subject and these topics arising and her being assigned reading for it and such. i would definitely love to see an inside look at her process as told by her though
One thing that it’s missing is that the link between morals and laws is that both are subordinate to the culture and ideas of those that created those laws. The whole discussion on whether laws HAVE to descend from morals is way less meaningful, if it is taken into account that morals are specific to a society and its culture or a subset of them. This is true even for ad personam laws, that might be immoral even to those that created them but descend from (and have their justification in) their creators’ ideas, culture and upbringing. This also goes for how the laws are enforced. Morality is just a trait, an aspect, in the set of traits that defines a culture of a society, and it might not be the most important trait.
EDIT: forgot to add that if, for whatever reason, a culture changes, then the previous laws adopted by or forced onto the previous version of that culture probably won’t be recognised as valid anymore (abortion laws for example)
This video is more important than many people realize. I think your well researched approach is very objective given that I honestly cannot tell if you lean toward the postmodern or enlightenment perspective or to a dialectic which transcends these tags.
Just a few points. I think your video is timely because the American system is being severely challenged right now. The postmodern philosophy is that all legal systems are ultimately based on efforts to sustain political power and this essentially makes it impossible for any system to aspire to universal principles. I would point to Foucault but your reference I think was better. This requires a complete deconstruction of the American metanarrative including the idea that our legal system was based on objective principles.
You touched on the philosophical deep dive regarding the definition of moral principles which support a legal structure. The argument is that no matter what founding principle one attempts to reduce a chain of principles to it must be absurd by virtue of being the first. Obviously you were explaining this line of reasoning not advocating it and clearly this lexical approach is dangerous in that one risks not only deconstructing legal standards themselves but as well the philosophical ideas used to measure them such as the concepts of justice, objectivity, truth and good. This results in legal nihilism. This idea that principles are excuses invented for one’s own atrocities is a recent invention. The result is lawfare. And why not? If objectivity in law is impossible then you are left only with law as a weapon.
In regard to Nuremberg. We should not lose sight of the fact that it took place at all. Nuremberg was deeply flawed but reached for the enlightenment idea that even War itself should have rules. Contrast this imperfection to the control case at the time which was the Russian front and the legal utopia enjoyed by officers on both sides after Stalingrad. Also, let’s be accurate. Nuremberg was not an automatic death sentence. Of the 177 defendants, 24 were sentenced to death, 20 to life imprisonment, 98 to lesser sentences and 25 defendants were found not guilty! Those are far better odds than many modern American court rooms.
You're so good at explaining things and I've been addicted to your videos.
Could you ever make a video about "the subtle art of not giving a fuck" if you have time?
Thanks for making this video. I really liked it
IVE BEEN WAITING FOR A VIDEO LIKE THIS! exactly why i commit tax fraud
The thing of just law vs unjust law is, who gets to say it's just or unjust. If the people in charge gets to say it, then law and justice is one and the same. If the people get to say it, then how do we know there are more people agreeing to the unjust-ness of the law, and does it divides people? If it's up to my judgement, then do I get to decide what law to follow or to ignore based on my own preference?
Thank you very much for giving us a wonderful perspective on the matter of law and morality. I would like to know your views on one matter that has not been raised by anyone about the NASTY CASE you have cited. It is as follows: The German wife had simply obeyed the law of the land and had reported the husband's remarks against the Nasty Authorities. What if she did not do so but kept silent and the Nasty Authorities found out from some of their secret sources that the wife had not reported about the husband and as a result, she was convicted, what defence could she put up to save herself before the Nasty Court?
Did she have any legitimate legal defence? Or would she have to take refuge under the Laws of Morality to save herself?
What would the proponents of Natural Law say? Should she have embraced the role of a martyr?
love the case of the grudge informer :3
Nice to have you back Olivia
I love the way you explained this because this makes me think of 'crime vrs government' meaning its ok for the government to do something but a regular citizen cant. A while ago people were talking about the methods the gov. got information out of Afghanistan people was to straight up torture them. They were saying "How is it that when the military kidnaps someone and tortures them for information its seen as "doing the right thing by any means" but say the Cartel did it it's seen as a crime"
Personally i found the whole topic dumb yes its gonna be illegal for the Cartel to beat and torture people vrs. the military, but it did make me think of all the double standards in crimes depending on who does what and who did it.
I dont know about this topic, but im quite interested. Was is it actually legal to torture people in Afghanistan? Or did they try to hide these tortures ans only talken down some leaked ones?
(Excuse my grammer pls, im a non-native english speaker) I think that we can define and spot "unjust" or "evil" laws when we look on one thing, the furthering of unequality. If you have the law "you shall not kill" and you do it, you are getting punished for killing someone. We punish them not cause of who killed who but of the protection of equality cause everyone has the equal right to not be harmed. So the law is moral. If we take the situation with the woman and her husband in nazi germany. The law does not condem the act of badmouthing someone but the person who did it. Cause they resent the person for being a "traitor to its people" and the intent of the lawmaker was to silence criticism, so unequality. And you can do that with any law. You can always see in the creation of a law, who should be punished, who made the law and for what purpose. What is the intention of the law beyond its self. For example the law in nazi germany "jews are not allowed to do commerce and hold position of office" is an unjust and evil law cause it purpusly focuses one group and exludes another and trying to push them out of society. As she said in the video law is for enforcing equality. And if you make a law that is not trying to further equality but tries to enforce unequality its unjust and not moral. So yes, we can trial people for thing that were legal back then if we apply this reasoning. Even the germans knew that genocide, in a general term, is immoral and barbaric but cause its law its okay. That was even a discussion point at the Wannseekonferenz. There they even acknowledged that the gas cars are inhumane and barbaric. But they said its still okay under the Nuremberg laws, "nasty bur necessery" as they said. They drew from their law the moral superiority cause for them the aryan law was supirrior. So we can definitely say what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral. We dont even need a legal norm, just the definition of equality. And a person that does not act against unequal law is guilty of furthering unequality and acting against his peers and should be punished retroactively. Even if the person is doing it unknowingly, cause ignorance does not protect against punishment. (As is said, sry for my grammer)
this discussion at 25:00 describes the limits of sovereignty and the right of a country to decide what is legal/illegal.
I believe that law in of itself is a concept controlled by the balance between power and morals, and therefore can only be unjust should the balance be shifted from equilibrium. On the other hand, justice is blinded by power and morals and therefore should blindly follow the course of law, no matter the law. If the law is in equilibrium, then justice will prevail.
This was probably my favourite video and I will probably watch it a couple more times to see if my views on law change, I have no doubt they will, especially in the following years when I begin to study it... Great work :)
Absolutely, I agree with your sentiment. Evil should not be ignored, for it is an integral part of our being. It's important to understand that evil is not a separate entity, rather it's a facet of our nature that surfaces under certain circumstances. Recognizing the potential for evil within us allows us to better understand our actions, motivations, and behaviors, which can, in turn, help us make more ethical choices.
Furthermore, acknowledging our capacity for evil can give us the impetus to make conscious efforts to refrain from negative actions, thereby promoting personal growth and moral development. Ignoring this aspect of our nature would only hinder our understanding of ourselves and others, thereby limiting our potential for growth.
This concept shouldn't be used as an excuse for malicious actions, but rather as a tool for self-improvement and self-awareness. Only by embracing our flaws and understanding our potential for both good and evil can we strive towards a better, more empathetic version of ourselves.
I really really really like your use of "Nasty" in this context. It is funny and makes total sense, even if it wasn't for UA-cam's silly system.
The answer might surprise you..... (it's no)
BAHAHA
BABE WAKE UP, OLISUNVIA POSTED
Awesome video! You got me hyped to read papers! Not mecessarily rare but not far from unusual either hahah
Keep the great content coming, Olivia! ❤
I have an assignment on this exact topic and I was just thinking how crazy it is that this video just popped up out out of sheer coincidence when there are so many other different ideas that could have been explored & discussed on this channel.