I wanna thank Professor Todd Rackoff on his insight on diversity and social justice. I feel these regulations on Securities Regulations & Consumer law & labor law kinda of put things in perspective on our today society. I was fascinated by this class lecture on Political Ideology on different sector's between upper middle class and middle class and poor class. Thank you so much Harvard Law School for giving and teaching us students on how to gain knowledge on today's diversity and social class.
How does a legal fiction know anything about the intellectual virtues that also include justice? An inanimate object doesn't know what justice is, correct?
This class is excellent but maybe not all classes are worth the effort, so don’t be sure that enrolling at Harvard would be worth your time or money just because it’s a famous Uni.
Don't be disheartened, Harvard offers nothing special compared to other universities, just that it's name is popular that is why we place importance in it
Teachers should teach students how to think not what to think. It is horrifying that the professors asking the questions don't understand that they are not the gate keepers of what is right and wrong. Their bias is so blatant.
They shouldn’t be biased EXCEPT being biased towards the healthy principle of law i.e. preserving and promoting individual wellbeing. They should be VERY biased and VERY vocal about it.
I’m in my second year of community college and transfer to a 4 year college, and I’m planning to major in political science. And hopefully to become a lawyer. Thank you Harvard law school!!
Law and Politics should be distinct fields of study. Sadly so because politics should be applied law, but it is not. Many study law only to know the law and how to manipulate it.
36:53 Professor, it’s called integrity. And you teach by example. Take a stand for what matters to you and should matter for everyone else because it’s The Right Thing. Make a case for The Truth, for The Good, for the individual as social animal and his/ her potential to be much, much more than that! If teachers and Judges don’t, who will? Who will students emulate?
Last, but not least, thank you for this material. A last (rhetorical) question- are the students made aware at some point that maieutics is a thing worth considering, even though it didn’t quite end well for Socrates?
39:44 NO. Not persuade them. NEVER persuade them. For a few reasons: 1. It’s disrespectful because you manipulate them and insult their intelligence. 2. There will always be someone else who is better than you at persuading them (most likely with wrong intentions because manipulation and good intention are incompatible). 3. You teach them to perpetuate disrespect and dishonesty because they will use rhetoric to argue an immoral point- and win the argument/ case. Students must grow a strong spine. A proper Judge or teacher will fight to change unjust laws and systems.
A violation of the 1st &14th Amendment is when the national debt of 22 Trillion & 16 Trillion & 60 Billion of that is owned by the people by their Social Security Retirement Fund and the corporations appear to have no ownership of the debt at all.
I have graduate from an indian open university in politics science and public administration, may I get the full scholarship admission in law school Harvard as a master course..?
The real self of human beings are caged by concepts,values,processes taught formally. Man is born with instincts of justice, instincts of love and compassion. The idea of equality stems from this natural instinct of love and compassion. Free competition and survival of fittest is the law of jungle.
No. Humans are, fundamentally, animals; the fact that thousands of years of having laws have passed and, yet, not much progress has been made towards the humanisation of the animal, attests to this fact. The concept of Justice is, most likely, a fancy name for desire for retribution of the animal who is endowed with neocortex to a sufficient extent to lie to oneself and others. The proper meaning of Justice as social function with social and psychological benefits is of Divine origin, in my view, because it is not natural (the concepts of Truth and morality cannot possibly be explained by biology, despite some cognitive reverse engineering attempts). However, I would not insist on the acceptance of the Divine nature of Law; I’d be happy if others believed they are more clever than they are, if only they were genuinely moral people willing to make a thinking effort so that I could live in a sane society.
48:10 That’s why the law and verdicts should be in plain English without legal jargon. Though all efforts should be made to accommodate individual sensitivities, ultimately, a judgement is a judgment irrespective of how it makes others feel or think. The concepts of politeness and respect are overlapping but they’re not identical, and they must be clarified/ redefined. One should be polite out of respect for the other. Alas, it is not the case; politeness (with its extreme, political correctness) is divorced from respect. Sometimes, being blunt and firm is a sign of respect. You make a judgement, express your position in clear terms as politely as possible, but stand by it; how others feel is their problem.
48:55 As I said earlier, there are limits to tolerance (I don’t like the concept of ‘tolerance’ in the first place because it implies superiority on the part of the one who tolerates). If a student believes that he/ she is better then somebody else because of one of their characteristics (race, gender, religion etc.) and displays a sense of entitlement, and/or if he/ she holds (other) beliefs that are incompatible with the fundamental, real values (for example if he/ she can think of a valid argument for nazism or theft or genocide or religiously motivated murder- albeit symbolic), he/ she should not be admitted or he/she should be expelled. Re this, some rights should be qualified, for example the right to free expression. Other rights should genuinely be absolute. There must be respect for diversity but only if diversity is subsumed to social cohesion. A society in which cultural/ ideological inter-tribal conflicts are tearing it apart serves nobody in that society. Claudia dixit. *gavel sound* I laugh but I am not joking.
here's an even better question for the professor. how the heck can anyone afford an attorney at $400 per hour? isn't that the real question? that's a typical rate for an atty in chicago. (divorce or immigration). and if the common hoi poli person can't afford a lawyer at those rates, do we really have any true justice system in the US?
you see, you dont have to ask anyone other than yourself, if the price is too high why are people still renting them? the problem is your perspective, as you see it from hoi poli person perspective that for ex. wants to get a divorce and looks for advice, you dont see the problem of hundreds of millions of dollars companies that want to merge etc. Its business and it often collides with just being fair with regular people, so either get over it or find a solution to your problem that isn't an attack on law proffesor, that has nothing to do with the prices
Indeed. Justice is dead as all are equal and some are more equal than others. It’s all part and parcel of the demoNcracy delusion that is a mere ideological mechanism of legitimising rampant injustice and oppression.
36:27 Yes, hear the others’ perspective- perception of facts, but, as a Judge, you must take a stance. What is true? Ascertain facts. What should be done? Apply the criteria of individual wellbeing. How do you restore the balance of Justice? Restore the social relationship whilst supporting the victim and the offender- each of them is an individual and both of them have to share the common social space. A Judge cannot sit on the fence, therefore the Law students should be encouraged and supported to learn how to take the correct (moral) position irrespective of what law X or caselaw Y says.
Why doesn't any of these students ask about who's interest the regulations are passed in favor of? In my estimation "interest" of the principle is the key stone of justice. Nobody asks about wether the society or group has the same rights as an individual. Wether the interest of the Individual outweighs the interest of the society or vice versa. Also, when do we make the determination to set aside the interest or rights of the individual to benefit the society at large?
The interests of the individual are more important than of a society. Why? Because any society has the sole purpose of ensuring and promoting the wellbeing of each of its individual members. Justice is needed because it is in the interest of each individual to live harmoniously with others, in a society. Individual wellbeing is- should be- the only reason for which societies exist. You cannot have a real/healthy society if some of its citizens are not ok; the contemporary societies are utter failures because the majority are psychologically comfortable with the socio- economic manifestations of scapegoating the ‘untouchables’ i.e. the ones who are ‘useless’ from an economic perspective (the elderly, those with disabilities, ‘the insane’, ‘the stupid’, ‘the criminal’, ‘the unworthy’). It’s an old, dirty game played by those who are in ideological leadership positions but have no brains and no balls. PS- Don’t even get me started on social utilitarianism.
“Now this is happening through Reagan, and Bush, and Obama, and who knows what will happen now.” Ohhhhh the innocence of 2017. We knew nothing of what 2020 brought 😮💨
Holy fucking shit! Cant these students accept that this professor wants them to think for themselves. All that money and they can't ask a decent question. However, im glad he is trying to to pontificate morality.
Yes, he is good 👍👏 Like Santa with his little helping elves in the audience, trying to get the students to open the gifts of self- awareness and critical thinking 😄
24:21 Therein lies the putrid root of the problem. A person being defined as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’. It’s a paradigm problem. It’s the paradigm of numbers which says that a person is not even a person. A person is a unit, something quantifiable with an economic value according to its (sic) ability (or lack thereof) to produce something. It’s capitalist utilitarianism that does not even think about individual rights and responsibilities outside the social contract reduced to a business contract. Not even that, as the legislator/ regulator is placing him/her/itself outside and above the total sum of these units, in a godlike fashion (usually the obscenely powerful few for whom money is not even an issue because their power is of another nature i.e. ideological).
36:38 You, as teacher, SHOULD know what must be achieved. How it can be achieved should be open for open and honest exchange of ideas and, hopefully, your students will come- up with good, new ideas. But WHAT should be achieved, the ‘WHAT FOR’, should not be open to debates between (groups of) people who lack a solid values foundation and, as a consequence, are too easily swayed by ‘influencers’ with various agendas whose goal is to destroy by dividing society. If you cannot have a heart, at least you must have a clear head and strong values.
Justice is a social construct with social function. One could bring into discussion the Divine Justice, but how can a human being conceive of a Divine plan that doesn’t include the human social realm? The spiritual and the social are- or should be- mirroring each other because, ultimately, the intra-psychic chaos or order creates both society and spiritual ideology. You cannot have a just society with an unjust god.
@@claudiamanta1943 yes indeed, there might be other kinds of justice such as divine, or even satanic justice, depending on what you believe in. However, I hardly believe those other kinds of justice can be used as grounds either to indict or to acquit someone. So, legally speaking, what would be the difference between saying justice or social justice?
That religious model cannot speak of a satanic justice as it is an oxymoron. What they believe in is a criminal god who poses as judge after, like a Mafia boss with split personality, commits crimes against humanity under one of his guises. It’s insane and one of the reasons for which I am very weary around those who believe in this insane stupidity (which is, roughly speaking, half the planet’s population). Their spiritual utilitarianism makes living amongst them a dangerous business because I never know when they have an acute psychotic episode and decide to sacrifice one or many on the altar of their delusions. Legally… I don’t know exactly what is (currently) meant by that. Is Justice more of a fuzzy sentiment- principle of law and social justice a form of revenge (reframed as restitution) to allegedly restore the social balance by addressing of more or less historical wrongs?
36:14 This confusion must be uprooted. There are no ‘alternative facts’. There are only facts invested with truth value (meant as correspondence with reality as perceived by a sane human being). Everything else is either a lie or a delusion. All facts have an added subjective (both at personal and cultural levels) value component- function (which, unfortunately, supersedes the truth value) that places them in the psychological- social interpretative and normative systems. A good Judge must ascertain facts and unpeel the subjective layers. According to what criteria? According to the only suprastructure that should be explicit and should permeate the whole interpretative- normative sociocultural layer i.e. the ultimate value which is the wellbeing of each individual human being. THAT should inform everything else. THAT is the most important thing, nay, the only thing that matters. No society is more important than any of the individuals. No gods are more important than any human being. No ideology is more important than any human being. And no human being is more important than any other human being. A Judge (any person of Law) should promote and maintain Justice because Justice is what harmonises (through the initial legislative acts and restoring the balance) the lives of all individuals who are- should be- social creatures.
30:18 I beg to differ. First of all, nobody is 100% objective. Secondly, a teacher is never just a catalyst and his/her own outlook on the matter and life, in general, transpires more or less transparently even if the teacher is not self- aware. But what is the purpose of teaching? Does it not come with a moral responsibility to help students think for themselves whilst nudging them in the direction of the good? Do we want lawyers who can find their way in the legal jungle so that they can climb the banana tree up to the Supreme Court or a more overtly political branch, OR people who can think clearly and are motivated by proper values to administer Justice?
38:13 Professor, you are lucky I’m not in your class 😄 Because I would ask you to defend your position. No, not ask you, I would cross-examine you because what you’re doing is a crime! What other socio- economic, cultural alternative models are there? What tips the balance of advantages- (dis)benefits in favour of one or another? According to what fundamental, universal value? This is what teaching should be like, get students thinking and weighing ideas and models. And if there is no good model, stir their creativity! What would a just society be like, to reflect the fundamental values?
45:54 I beg to differ. I would go much further than this and say that, if a student demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that they have a wrong attitude and weak values, he/ she should be politely expelled. It is irresponsible to allow a person with an ugly/ weak character to become a person in the legal profession. And this should be made explicit as an admission criteria as well as throughout the study years. Why nobody speaks about character, anymore?
The people attending this lecture are opiniated, narrowminded. The students only heard what they wanted to hear, this is evident by the kind of questions they asked the professor. It's scary to think that these students may one day be in a position of regulatory power as they would be as morally corrupt as Adolf Hitler. Listen to the questions and response (not to mention the pigeonholing they tried to pin the professor into) of how absolutely sure (absolute righteous) they are about THEIR way of doing things. The way the 1st and 4th attendee's felt that the professor (or school) should be morally obligated to ignore facts is abhorrent! (And these facts are …HOW THE NEW REGULATION IMPACTS EVERYONE …NOT JUST THOESE IN FAVOR OF THE SHINY NEW (FEEL-GOOD) REGULATION!) News Flash: Not everyone is wants to live like you! And that's where the "rub" needs to be ironed out. That's the conundrum - the message, the professor was trying to convey. Narrowminded ignorance isn't limited to those at the top of economic hierarchy or uneducated white males, there's an abundant amount of ignorance sitting in that lecture hall! Students should NEVER know their professor's position on anything! The professor's most paramount duty is to get the student to see everything! Not what to see, not what to think, but to see everything. Turn over every stone, exhaust all options, SEE IT ALL and then, and then …know how to think (digest and reflect) on everything you've seen; this is the job of an educator. The people asking dumb questions in this video are the problem in America. Instead of making the world better by making themselves better, they would rather tear another person down (by over regulation). It's true that no one has ever gone broke by giving. But you cannot pour from an empty cup. The attendees in this lecture have some water in their cups but they would rather spill someone else's cup than learn how how refill their own. These people are asking: what can the government do for me? They should instead be asking themselves: What can I do to make myself better, stronger, wealthier to help not only myself, but my neighbor and my country. The topic was regulatory law and how they differ from sector to sector. Questions were not asked at the conclusion of this lecture, the professor's perfectly functioning moral compass was attacked, that's what happened. To answer the 4th person that asked: Where (or who) decides what is morally correct? She should look at the nucleus of the professor's diagram on the chalkboard, that's where the answer can be found (or at least identified).
Everyone should have an opinion because a human is not a plant. How people form that opinion and what do they do with it are relevant questions everyone should ask (themselves). Students come with their heavy baggage, some of which can be discarded. Give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance of changing their opinions if these are unhelpful. Also, of course they are ignorant. But ignorant in its proper meaning of lacking information/ knowledge can be addressed. Being unable and/ or unwilling to shake ignorance in its definition as attitude is extremely hard to change because attitudes and character are unlikely to change. That type of full cup cannot be emptied. Over- psychologising is a stupid idea that is favoured by those who are too weak and lazy to think clearly. It would be ideal for everyone in a society to acknowledge and address their individual deficiencies, but to let people at risk of harm (or, worse, cause them harm) until/ for the purpose of making them achieve whatever individual psychological ideal is a stupid idea verging on criminal. Protect first, support development afterwards. And respect the right of the individual to remain psychologically as they are if their conduct does not negatively affect anyone else in the legal sense. Standing for what is right is a duty. And no, nobody can know everything, therefore knowing and weighing salient facts is sufficient to make a decision. The professor’s scheme nucleus- Constitution is too vague and the Common Law should be abolished as an unnecessary dead weight. Respect the autonomy of a Judge and do not allow them to pass an unjust verdict because Adam and Eve (or their god, for that matter) said in the beginning of time something pertaining to the issue presented at the material time of the Court hearing.
To the professor, (who btw has not responded to a single comment), this is great, but you know you cannot tell any judge anywhere any of this BS. I am a practicing lawyer.
omg! administrative law is by definition not constitutional law! there is an invisible branch of the government! this guy doesn't even mention it even though that's what he's talking about!
Harvard has fallen. So many fallacies and a poor understand of Rawls. I wonder if its because so many Harvard students these days are affirmative action cases.
So refreshing to see someone lecture without PowerPoints
I wanna thank Professor Todd Rackoff on his insight on diversity and social justice. I feel these regulations on Securities Regulations & Consumer law & labor law kinda of put things in perspective on our today society. I was fascinated by this class lecture on Political Ideology on different sector's between upper middle class and middle class and poor class. Thank you so much Harvard Law School for giving and teaching us students on how to gain knowledge on today's diversity and social class.
Free Harvard lecture, awesome!
Thank you Harvard Law School for posting this video. May God Bless you all.
He is a good professor. When I listen to his presentation I was so attracted to his good performance to express the meaning of justice.
How does a legal fiction know anything about the intellectual virtues that also include justice? An inanimate object doesn't know what justice is, correct?
I'm obsessed with this
I'm 10 I really want to be a lawyer it's my dream so I'm watching this stuff
same age as you let’s be friends
@@briannaholloway857 sure
Good luck!
that’s awesome!
Same but I am 11
Wish there was more lectures. This is the closest I’m ever going get to being in a Harvard classroom, sadly.
Don’t say that, life is full of surprises! I‘ll pray for you! ❤️
It is why people only loved to listen Harvard lecture because of hard to get it. Ask how you so closely get in??
This class is excellent but maybe not all classes are worth the effort, so don’t be sure that enrolling at Harvard would be worth your time or money just because it’s a famous Uni.
Don't be disheartened, Harvard offers nothing special compared to other universities, just that it's name is popular that is why we place importance in it
Nice lecture delivery. Thank dear Sir.
I was always curious about it whenever I see him pass at the hall. Never knew he has youtube 😅
how is it possible that you can watch free lectures? amazing!
And why is “free college” such a big news talking point when we already have these lectures available
@@lakersfansince1991 well you can't get a degree or grades or much help from the professors unles you go to school there
This is only for lunch time.
You still can't obtain a degree from just watching.
Teachers should teach students how to think not what to think. It is horrifying that the professors asking the questions don't understand that they are not the gate keepers of what is right and wrong. Their bias is so blatant.
Totally agree. I was actually surprised that they seem to be almost criticizing him for not forcing his ideology on his students. That’s not his role.
They shouldn’t be biased EXCEPT being biased towards the healthy principle of law i.e. preserving and promoting individual wellbeing. They should be VERY biased and VERY vocal about it.
I’m in my second year of community college and transfer to a 4 year college, and I’m planning to major in political science. And hopefully to become a lawyer. Thank you Harvard law school!!
Lies again? Take Meds
@@NazriB how do you know they're lying
Law and Politics should be distinct fields of study. Sadly so because politics should be applied law, but it is not. Many study law only to know the law and how to manipulate it.
36:53 Professor, it’s called integrity. And you teach by example. Take a stand for what matters to you and should matter for everyone else because it’s The Right Thing. Make a case for The Truth, for The Good, for the individual as social animal and his/ her potential to be much, much more than that! If teachers and Judges don’t, who will? Who will students emulate?
amazing, thanks Harvard
Rent control that’s exactly what the community needs. This video has a great subject. We need to help the poor.
Last, but not least, thank you for this material.
A last (rhetorical) question- are the students made aware at some point that maieutics is a thing worth considering, even though it didn’t quite end well for Socrates?
Gobbledygook! Remember the blessings of Liberty and teach that
Escola de direito de Harvard. Um sonho estudar nessa universidade.
Wait for it.....
Justice is equal rights of implications of doing what's right according to law
39:44 NO. Not persuade them. NEVER persuade them. For a few reasons:
1. It’s disrespectful because you manipulate them and insult their intelligence.
2. There will always be someone else who is better than you at persuading them (most likely with wrong intentions because manipulation and good intention are incompatible).
3. You teach them to perpetuate disrespect and dishonesty because they will use rhetoric to argue an immoral point- and win the argument/ case.
Students must grow a strong spine. A proper Judge or teacher will fight to change unjust laws and systems.
Thanks.
thank you lessons
A violation of the 1st &14th Amendment is when the national debt of 22 Trillion & 16 Trillion & 60 Billion of that is owned by the people by their Social Security Retirement Fund and the corporations appear to have no ownership of the debt at all.
I have graduate from an indian open university in politics science and public administration, may I get the full scholarship admission in law school Harvard as a master course..?
The real self of human beings are caged by concepts,values,processes taught formally.
Man is born with instincts of justice, instincts of love and compassion. The idea of equality stems from this natural instinct of love and compassion. Free competition and survival of fittest is the law of jungle.
No. Humans are, fundamentally, animals; the fact that thousands of years of having laws have passed and, yet, not much progress has been made towards the humanisation of the animal, attests to this fact.
The concept of Justice is, most likely, a fancy name for desire for retribution of the animal who is endowed with neocortex to a sufficient extent to lie to oneself and others. The proper meaning of Justice as social function with social and psychological benefits is of Divine origin, in my view, because it is not natural (the concepts of Truth and morality cannot possibly be explained by biology, despite some cognitive reverse engineering attempts). However, I would not insist on the acceptance of the Divine nature of Law; I’d be happy if others believed they are more clever than they are, if only they were genuinely moral people willing to make a thinking effort so that I could live in a sane society.
48:10 That’s why the law and verdicts should be in plain English without legal jargon. Though all efforts should be made to accommodate individual sensitivities, ultimately, a judgement is a judgment irrespective of how it makes others feel or think.
The concepts of politeness and respect are overlapping but they’re not identical, and they must be clarified/ redefined. One should be polite out of respect for the other. Alas, it is not the case; politeness (with its extreme, political correctness) is divorced from respect. Sometimes, being blunt and firm is a sign of respect. You make a judgement, express your position in clear terms as politely as possible, but stand by it; how others feel is their problem.
48:55 As I said earlier, there are limits to tolerance (I don’t like the concept of ‘tolerance’ in the first place because it implies superiority on the part of the one who tolerates). If a student believes that he/ she is better then somebody else because of one of their characteristics (race, gender, religion etc.) and displays a sense of entitlement, and/or if he/ she holds (other) beliefs that are incompatible with the fundamental, real values (for example if he/ she can think of a valid argument for nazism or theft or genocide or religiously motivated murder- albeit symbolic), he/ she should not be admitted or he/she should be expelled.
Re this, some rights should be qualified, for example the right to free expression. Other rights should genuinely be absolute.
There must be respect for diversity but only if diversity is subsumed to social cohesion. A society in which cultural/ ideological inter-tribal conflicts are tearing it apart serves nobody in that society.
Claudia dixit. *gavel sound* I laugh but I am not joking.
What is justice? What is the right action of dharma when the law does not know what to do. What happens then? Just a thought.
Equal balance and measures
Reciprocity measures of sectors to law
Justice is a provision to wit of righteousness sake is fighting for what is right not wrongful acts
Who's watching in 2024? How lucky are you to have a Harvard Law School professor in your home?
here's an even better question for the professor. how the heck can anyone afford an attorney at $400 per hour? isn't that the real question? that's a typical rate for an atty in chicago. (divorce or immigration). and if the common hoi poli person can't afford a lawyer at those rates, do we really have any true justice system in the US?
you see, you dont have to ask anyone other than yourself, if the price is too high why are people still renting them? the problem is your perspective, as you see it from hoi poli person perspective that for ex. wants to get a divorce and looks for advice, you dont see the problem of hundreds of millions of dollars companies that want to merge etc. Its business and it often collides with just being fair with regular people, so either get over it or find a solution to your problem that isn't an attack on law proffesor, that has nothing to do with the prices
Szymxn_ you sound like hella of a good lawyer gotta give you that.
you have a point
Indeed. Justice is dead as all are equal and some are more equal than others. It’s all part and parcel of the demoNcracy delusion that is a mere ideological mechanism of legitimising rampant injustice and oppression.
the discussion is very tough...
36:27 Yes, hear the others’ perspective- perception of facts, but, as a Judge, you must take a stance. What is true? Ascertain facts. What should be done? Apply the criteria of individual wellbeing. How do you restore the balance of Justice? Restore the social relationship whilst supporting the victim and the offender- each of them is an individual and both of them have to share the common social space.
A Judge cannot sit on the fence, therefore the Law students should be encouraged and supported to learn how to take the correct (moral) position irrespective of what law X or caselaw Y says.
If you want to know the constitution....read The Constitution.
Why doesn't any of these students ask about who's interest the regulations are passed in favor of?
In my estimation "interest" of the principle is the key stone of justice. Nobody asks about wether the society or group has the same rights as an individual. Wether the interest of the Individual outweighs the interest of the society or vice versa. Also, when do we make the determination to set aside the interest or rights of the individual to benefit the society at large?
The interests of the individual are more important than of a society. Why? Because any society has the sole purpose of ensuring and promoting the wellbeing of each of its individual members. Justice is needed because it is in the interest of each individual to live harmoniously with others, in a society. Individual wellbeing is- should be- the only reason for which societies exist. You cannot have a real/healthy society if some of its citizens are not ok; the contemporary societies are utter failures because the majority are psychologically comfortable with the socio- economic manifestations of scapegoating the ‘untouchables’ i.e. the ones who are ‘useless’ from an economic perspective (the elderly, those with disabilities, ‘the insane’, ‘the stupid’, ‘the criminal’, ‘the unworthy’). It’s an old, dirty game played by those who are in ideological leadership positions but have no brains and no balls.
PS- Don’t even get me started on social utilitarianism.
Help! 21:16 of the video . The Ro____ test for legitimate inequity. I need the spelling so I can site this in my fed lawsuit .
“Now this is happening through Reagan, and Bush, and Obama, and who knows what will happen now.”
Ohhhhh the innocence of 2017. We knew nothing of what 2020 brought 😮💨
maybe we can superimpose Lochner sub. due process on Roe and its progeny
Liberty
Holy fucking shit! Cant these students accept that this professor wants them to think for themselves. All that money and they can't ask a decent question. However, im glad he is trying to to pontificate morality.
Yes, he is good 👍👏 Like Santa with his little helping elves in the audience, trying to get the students to open the gifts of self- awareness and critical thinking 😄
24:21 Therein lies the putrid root of the problem. A person being defined as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’. It’s a paradigm problem. It’s the paradigm of numbers which says that a person is not even a person. A person is a unit, something quantifiable with an economic value according to its (sic) ability (or lack thereof) to produce something. It’s capitalist utilitarianism that does not even think about individual rights and responsibilities outside the social contract reduced to a business contract. Not even that, as the legislator/ regulator is placing him/her/itself outside and above the total sum of these units, in a godlike fashion (usually the obscenely powerful few for whom money is not even an issue because their power is of another nature i.e. ideological).
Interesting doctrine
36:38 You, as teacher, SHOULD know what must be achieved. How it can be achieved should be open for open and honest exchange of ideas and, hopefully, your students will come- up with good, new ideas. But WHAT should be achieved, the ‘WHAT FOR’, should not be open to debates between (groups of) people who lack a solid values foundation and, as a consequence, are too easily swayed by ‘influencers’ with various agendas whose goal is to destroy by dividing society.
If you cannot have a heart, at least you must have a clear head and strong values.
also, if you are referring to a text or case, please put a cite in your comments.....
Does Justice need the adjective 'social'? What other purpose can it have?
Corporal
@@dudydude3287 Dude, at ease. Yours faithfully, a dudet.
Justice is a social construct with social function. One could bring into discussion the Divine Justice, but how can a human being conceive of a Divine plan that doesn’t include the human social realm? The spiritual and the social are- or should be- mirroring each other because, ultimately, the intra-psychic chaos or order creates both society and spiritual ideology. You cannot have a just society with an unjust god.
@@claudiamanta1943 yes indeed, there might be other kinds of justice such as divine, or even satanic justice, depending on what you believe in. However, I hardly believe those other kinds of justice can be used as grounds either to indict or to acquit someone. So, legally speaking, what would be the difference between saying justice or social justice?
That religious model cannot speak of a satanic justice as it is an oxymoron. What they believe in is a criminal god who poses as judge after, like a Mafia boss with split personality, commits crimes against humanity under one of his guises. It’s insane and one of the reasons for which I am very weary around those who believe in this insane stupidity (which is, roughly speaking, half the planet’s population). Their spiritual utilitarianism makes living amongst them a dangerous business because I never know when they have an acute psychotic episode and decide to sacrifice one or many on the altar of their delusions.
Legally… I don’t know exactly what is (currently) meant by that. Is Justice more of a fuzzy sentiment- principle of law and social justice a form of revenge (reframed as restitution) to allegedly restore the social balance by addressing of more or less historical wrongs?
Hello Mr Gillespie..... Hello Judge
anyone can gave the script
36:14 This confusion must be uprooted. There are no ‘alternative facts’. There are only facts invested with truth value (meant as correspondence with reality as perceived by a sane human being). Everything else is either a lie or a delusion. All facts have an added subjective (both at personal and cultural levels) value component- function (which, unfortunately, supersedes the truth value) that places them in the psychological- social interpretative and normative systems. A good Judge must ascertain facts and unpeel the subjective layers. According to what criteria? According to the only suprastructure that should be explicit and should permeate the whole interpretative- normative sociocultural layer i.e. the ultimate value which is the wellbeing of each individual human being. THAT should inform everything else. THAT is the most important thing, nay, the only thing that matters. No society is more important than any of the individuals. No gods are more important than any human being. No ideology is more important than any human being. And no human being is more important than any other human being.
A Judge (any person of Law) should promote and maintain Justice because Justice is what harmonises (through the initial legislative acts and restoring the balance) the lives of all individuals who are- should be- social creatures.
I thought law school is socratic method?
Why i cannot get my credits
good
What is law
30:18 I beg to differ. First of all, nobody is 100% objective. Secondly, a teacher is never just a catalyst and his/her own outlook on the matter and life, in general, transpires more or less transparently even if the teacher is not self- aware.
But what is the purpose of teaching? Does it not come with a moral responsibility to help students think for themselves whilst nudging them in the direction of the good? Do we want lawyers who can find their way in the legal jungle so that they can climb the banana tree up to the Supreme Court or a more overtly political branch, OR people who can think clearly and are motivated by proper values to administer Justice?
38:13 Professor, you are lucky I’m not in your class 😄 Because I would ask you to defend your position. No, not ask you, I would cross-examine you because what you’re doing is a crime!
What other socio- economic, cultural alternative models are there? What tips the balance of advantages- (dis)benefits in favour of one or another? According to what fundamental, universal value? This is what teaching should be like, get students thinking and weighing ideas and models. And if there is no good model, stir their creativity! What would a just society be like, to reflect the fundamental values?
Rule of law
45:54 I beg to differ. I would go much further than this and say that, if a student demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that they have a wrong attitude and weak values, he/ she should be politely expelled. It is irresponsible to allow a person with an ugly/ weak character to become a person in the legal profession. And this should be made explicit as an admission criteria as well as throughout the study years. Why nobody speaks about character, anymore?
The people attending this lecture are opiniated, narrowminded. The students only heard what they wanted to hear, this is evident by the kind of questions they asked the professor. It's scary to think that these students may one day be in a position of regulatory power as they would be as morally corrupt as Adolf Hitler. Listen to the questions and response (not to mention the pigeonholing they tried to pin the professor into) of how absolutely sure (absolute righteous) they are about THEIR way of doing things. The way the 1st and 4th attendee's felt that the professor (or school) should be morally obligated to ignore facts is abhorrent!
(And these facts are …HOW THE NEW REGULATION IMPACTS EVERYONE …NOT JUST THOESE IN FAVOR OF THE SHINY NEW (FEEL-GOOD) REGULATION!)
News Flash: Not everyone is wants to live like you! And that's where the "rub" needs to be ironed out.
That's the conundrum - the message, the professor was trying to convey.
Narrowminded ignorance isn't limited to those at the top of economic hierarchy or uneducated white males, there's an abundant amount of ignorance sitting in that lecture hall!
Students should NEVER know their professor's position on anything! The professor's most paramount duty is to get the student to see everything! Not what to see, not what to think, but to see everything. Turn over every stone, exhaust all options, SEE IT ALL and then, and then …know how to think (digest and reflect) on everything you've seen; this is the job of an educator.
The people asking dumb questions in this video are the problem in America. Instead of making the world better by making themselves better, they would rather tear another person down (by over regulation). It's true that no one has ever gone broke by giving. But you cannot pour from an empty cup. The attendees in this lecture have some water in their cups but they would rather spill someone else's cup than learn how how refill their own. These people are asking: what can the government do for me? They should instead be asking themselves: What can I do to make myself better, stronger, wealthier to help not only myself, but my neighbor and my country.
The topic was regulatory law and how they differ from sector to sector. Questions were not asked at the conclusion of this lecture, the professor's perfectly functioning moral compass was attacked, that's what happened.
To answer the 4th person that asked: Where (or who) decides what is morally correct? She should look at the nucleus of the professor's diagram on the chalkboard, that's where the answer can be found (or at least identified).
Everyone should have an opinion because a human is not a plant. How people form that opinion and what do they do with it are relevant questions everyone should ask (themselves).
Students come with their heavy baggage, some of which can be discarded. Give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance of changing their opinions if these are unhelpful. Also, of course they are ignorant. But ignorant in its proper meaning of lacking information/ knowledge can be addressed. Being unable and/ or unwilling to shake ignorance in its definition as attitude is extremely hard to change because attitudes and character are unlikely to change. That type of full cup cannot be emptied.
Over- psychologising is a stupid idea that is favoured by those who are too weak and lazy to think clearly. It would be ideal for everyone in a society to acknowledge and address their individual deficiencies, but to let people at risk of harm (or, worse, cause them harm) until/ for the purpose of making them achieve whatever individual psychological ideal is a stupid idea verging on criminal. Protect first, support development afterwards. And respect the right of the individual to remain psychologically as they are if their conduct does not negatively affect anyone else in the legal sense.
Standing for what is right is a duty. And no, nobody can know everything, therefore knowing and weighing salient facts is sufficient to make a decision.
The professor’s scheme nucleus- Constitution is too vague and the Common Law should be abolished as an unnecessary dead weight. Respect the autonomy of a Judge and do not allow them to pass an unjust verdict because Adam and Eve (or their god, for that matter) said in the beginning of time something pertaining to the issue presented at the material time of the Court hearing.
"THE DAVID."(201 I.Q.)
Did you or not accept the overide
In exchange to socialism 🤪 but laws dont matter if active or provate sectorism
To the professor, (who btw has not responded to a single comment), this is great, but you know you cannot tell any judge anywhere any of this BS. I am a practicing lawyer.
Explain.
Пиздец , чтобы у нас в шараге так можно было с хавчиком по аудитории гонять пока препод что-то рассказывает
Хахахаха у меня учительница за то чтобы мы приносили чайники и пили чай вместе с ней на уроке
omg! administrative law is by definition not constitutional law! there is an invisible branch of the government! this guy doesn't even mention it even though that's what he's talking about!
he seems to make that clear at the start, if administrative law = common law
^ "if" ?? ^ that nullifies the grammar of whatever it was that you meant.
This was stupid. I guess Rawl's would be proud, but that's not saying much for intellectual integrity.
Harvard has fallen. So many fallacies and a poor understand of Rawls. I wonder if its because so many Harvard students these days are affirmative action cases.
jesus fucking christ?
Why do liberals insist on making college free when we already have UA-cam?
what liberals man everyone wants free shit but nobody wants to work for it
what a useless lecture