Brilliantly explained and discussed. This Philosophy Professor seems to excel at explaining law cases better than some Law Professors. He has a gift of philosophical analysis and articulation. He must have read, written and spoken extensively to have developed such skills and mastery of philosophical analysis and articulation.
Just finished watching your Philosophy of Law course. I am a PhD candidate in Political Theory but for some reason I have never taken a course in Philosophy of Law in either my BA or MA. Of course I have studied Dworkin as a political theorist, but never touched upon his core ideas as a jurist. I thought your course would be a good starting point to fill this void and I was not disappointed. Thanks a lot for making this available for free!
Your lectures are phenomenal. Your style is masterful. I'm watching as much to learn about Hart and Dworkin as to improve my own lecturing technique. (But I do think you should reread parashat yitro, as malacha is definitely proscribed in the Ten commandments.)
Joshua Garroway: Although you are correct that, in the Ten Commandments, all work is prohibited on the Sabbath [Exodus, Chapter 20, 8 -"you shall not do any work"], the point that Justice Earl makes is that, by necessity, SOME work, like saving a life, putting out fire etc. are implicitly permitted. Call it a mini-paradox, if you will.
just cross across your video in time when i'm revising Dworkin, and i found it so much easier to understand now how his theory applies to hard case! thank you so much!
Your lectures are an intellectual treat, more people should watch them instead of mindless TV series. These are far better than any mystery show or detective story!
@@Ghsouza23 I'm glad you finally arrived, even if it took you some time. Now starts the real treat. :) By the way, I've put together a list of UA-cam channels where they deal with topics in philosophy, film theory, etc. I can paste it here as a comment if you're interested in some more intellectual explorations.
@@alittax Yes, please! I've had a lot of contact with the themes explored and all, took a few courses in college but it never drew my interest like this. I have ADHD and most of the time things need to be explained to me in a way that stimulates me otherwise I'll hate every single minute of it. I don't know how to explain but this guy could be talking about anything and I'd be interested, really haha
@@Ghsouza23 With pleasure :) Short videos by different Philosophy Professors: ua-cam.com/users/WirelessPhilosophy Philosophy professors: ua-cam.com/users/teachphilosophy ua-cam.com/users/PhiloofAlexandria ua-cam.com/users/OverthinkPodcastPhilosophyvideos ua-cam.com/users/RichardBrownphilosophy ua-cam.com/users/SeanCastleberryvideos ua-cam.com/users/AndrewChapmanPhilosophy ua-cam.com/channels/_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQ.html Philosophy lectures: ua-cam.com/users/PhilosophyOverdose2 Entertaining yet deep conversations on Philosophy: ua-cam.com/users/PhilosophyVibe A series where a brain scientist interviews philosophers, scientists, intellectuals and theologians about different intellectual topics (has lots of Theology content as well): ua-cam.com/users/CloserToTruthTV Entertaining and thought-provoking content: ua-cam.com/users/RationalAnimationsvideos ua-cam.com/users/LEMMiNO ua-cam.com/users/FreedominThought ua-cam.com/users/greymatter ua-cam.com/users/wisecrack ua-cam.com/users/Sisyphus55 ua-cam.com/users/PursuitofWondervideos Deep movie reviews/analyses: ua-cam.com/users/LiteratureDevil ua-cam.com/users/MauLerUA-cam ua-cam.com/channels/Ytu3JxrpI1XjNn-B_HqW4Q.html ua-cam.com/users/Nerdwriter1 Analytical idealism: ua-cam.com/users/bernardokastrup Content about film creation: ua-cam.com/users/filmcourage Philosophy of Star Wars: ua-cam.com/users/esfelectra Religious criticism: ua-cam.com/users/CosmicSkeptic ua-cam.com/channels/qZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg.html Content on art: ua-cam.com/users/GreatArtExplained Film theory: ua-cam.com/users/LessonsfromtheScreenplay ua-cam.com/users/everyframeapainting ua-cam.com/users/NowYouSeeIt Happy exploring! I wish you all the best!
Extremely thought provoking. Brilliantly explained. If you're interested in a humorous take on Riggs vs. Palmer, watch "Kind Hearts and Coronets," a British comedy, starring the great Alec Guinness in 7 roles, about a young chap who wants to become a duke, but, alas, there are seven persons in his and the duke's family who would "beat" him to the title, unless....Delightful.
The way my Remedies prof put this is that "the law" exists at the moment it is decided from the bench. This is distinct from regulations, statutes, treaties, constitutional provisions, case law, etc. Those are the parts the law is constructed from, but they're not "the law".
I have seen the Hart V Dworkin & Riggs V Palmer issues which covers majority of Dworkin's theory. Can you make videos on the remaining parts such as Chain Novel Analogy & Hercules.
great topic! certainly there are lot more examples of everyday ethics being tied to legal cases as exceptions to written laws. a whole other add on or expansion video lesson worth at least i would think. hint, hint!
Basically, I came close but here goes: People v. Palmer proclaims that generally in the ordinary course of legislative affairs a majority constitutes a quorum to do business provided by the significance.
It's very strange to me to say that judges aren't just legislating extra laws that didn't previously exist and by invoking a notion of existing principles. legislators also invoke principles when making laws. By my view the point of electing government officials is to give the general populace a say in *which* principles get to be put in the forefront in the legal system. I can really see why Dworkin's theory on this is controversial. Do you have any recommendations for what I should look into for learning more about this?
This all sounds like a good argument that we shouldn't have "a legal system", but instead come up with something that doesn't require multiple layers of outright lies.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 The case of Riggs v Palmer, from 1889, discusses the issue of whether a murderer should inherit money from the victim's will. 03:37 🏛️ The majority opinion, given by Justice Earl, presents the concept of rational interpretation or equitable construction, suggesting that principles should guide legal decisions, not just the strict letter of the law. 06:22 📜 Three examples support the idea of rational interpretation, showing that laws should be reasonably applied in specific cases. 16:54 ⚖️ The dissenting opinion argues that withholding inheritance from the murderer, Elmer Palmer, would be unjust and constitutes double punishment for the same crime. 24:11 💡 Earl counters the double punishment argument by asserting that Elmer was not an heir before his grandfather's death and made himself an heir by committing the murder to benefit from the crime. 24:40 💼 Withholding the inheritance from Elmer Palmer, the murderer, does not impose additional punishment but rather prevents him from benefiting from the crime. 25:24 💰 The act of withholding potential inheritance does not take away something that Elmer was entitled to, as he only becomes an heir by committing the murder. 26:05 ⚖️ The case of Riggs v Palmer exemplifies Dworkin's argument that underlying principles, like "no one should profit from their own wrong," are integral to the legal system and should guide judicial decisions. Made with HARPA AI
in Saga Iceland, in the sagas, there's something called "self-judgment," in which a powerful man is given, or seizes, the power to judge: I'll decide this dispute, or else, I'll let you decide, and, usually, the one given, or who takes, the power, acts fairly, unless the other combatant has acted in way that's seen, by everyone, as obnoxious, and, usually, has a history of behaving obnoxiously. Saga Iceland had no police force, but it did have a court system--but that also allowed violence as part of court proceedings, and not just trial by combat, which was an option, too--so that a party that won a judgment had to enforce it himself, or with the help of family, allies and friends.
If you shouldn't profit from crime, then corporations should be fined enormous sums to make sure that the crimes they committed don't bring them profit, which is very much not the case.
Thanks for the great lectures. I’m pretty sure the Ten Commandments says you shouldn’t work on the sabbath. You’re also not supposed to work any servants or even your animals. Once again, thanks for your good work bringing beginners’ philosophy to the masses.
In this case, it would really only be the Christian 10 commandments. We are talking about early America here, that is the only 10 commandments they know.
@@I_Love_Learning You're not getting my point. The 10 commandments in the bible are listed several times and they are not the same each time. While this may be a pedantic point, I still like making it. If for no other reason than to point out how inconsistent the supposed universal truths of the bible are. Yeah, they don't differ (Exodus and Deuteronomy) a lot, but any change to God's unchanging law is still a change. And if I'm bringing up my main objections to the Decalogue, it's not the inconsistency, but its barbaric nature. It's a crappy set of rules. We've moved on since the Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe was written. This ancient and ignorant book is given more power, privilege and prestige than it deserves. It always rubs me the wrong way when we pretend it's relevant as anything but history. And even then, just a minor history among many.
@@I_Love_Learning No need to be sorry. And I'll also admit I'm being a bit persnickety. It's a peeve I have when liberal Christians try to "out bible" conservative Christians and turn them liberal instead of arguing separation of church and state. The mention of the decalogue here doesn't really do that, but still, its my idiosyncrasy here on display. I even listened to a interview with the author of The Handmaiden's Tale where she was going on about how Jesus said to judge not, lest ye be judge. The author of like the premier novel arguing church and state separation was instead arguing that it is OK to use the bible to vet and drive public policy and our laws, as long as you just use the "right" verses and the "right" interpretation. Where I am in disagreement with that is that tacitly admits the we need to use the bible to shape our laws, just that we need to do it to her interpretation. Like I said, I think the argument she should be making is not "interpret the bible right" but: "We shouldn't be using the bible as the driver and shaper of our jurisprudence." But that is a bit cheeky of me, to feel the need to "correct" her on the issue. I restrained myself on that video and didn't comment. As this is an educational channel and there is probably disagreement and discussion in the class I felt it was OK to vent. But like I said, this is my idiosyncrasy here.
Where is the purposive approach, or purposivism, relevant in terms of this case, and in terms of rational interpretation? Is there any connection, Professor Kaplan?
Brilliantly explained and discussed. This Philosophy Professor seems to excel at explaining law cases better than some Law Professors. He has a gift of philosophical analysis and articulation. He must have read, written and spoken extensively to have developed such skills and mastery of philosophical analysis and articulation.
What a great explanation! Your teaching is very didactic and easy to understand. Keep it up!
Just finished watching your Philosophy of Law course. I am a PhD candidate in Political Theory but for some reason I have never taken a course in Philosophy of Law in either my BA or MA. Of course I have studied Dworkin as a political theorist, but never touched upon his core ideas as a jurist. I thought your course would be a good starting point to fill this void and I was not disappointed. Thanks a lot for making this available for free!
You explained +15 pages so well, thanks! also, the subtitles made it easier to understand
I was shocked when i saw you just have 3k subs, you definitely deserve way more, all the best and tysm.
I agree!
1 minute through this video and i already subscribed!!! 😂🙌🏼 that's how good it is!! Thank you so much for making it all sound easy
A great video! You’re an excellent professor. Keep up the good work!!
That's very kind. Thank you!
I have read a lot about this case because I have to teach Grade 12 Law and this is THE BEST EXPLANATION I have come across. Thank you so much!
Your lectures are phenomenal. Your style is masterful. I'm watching as much to learn about Hart and Dworkin as to improve my own lecturing technique. (But I do think you should reread parashat yitro, as malacha is definitely proscribed in the Ten commandments.)
Joshua Garroway: Although you are correct that, in the Ten Commandments, all work is prohibited on the Sabbath [Exodus, Chapter 20, 8 -"you shall not do any work"], the point that Justice Earl makes is that, by necessity, SOME work, like saving a life, putting out fire etc. are implicitly permitted. Call it a mini-paradox, if you will.
just cross across your video in time when i'm revising Dworkin, and i found it so much easier to understand now how his theory applies to hard case! thank you so much!
Thanks for the course. You have a true talent.
Great video explaning this particular case when the law crash with the principles of right and the interpretation of the law
Your lectures are an intellectual treat, more people should watch them instead of mindless TV series. These are far better than any mystery show or detective story!
Every video os his I watch gets better, and right now, at the near end of this one, I stand thirsty for more of this, where have I been all this time?
@@Ghsouza23
I'm glad you finally arrived, even if it took you some time. Now starts the real treat. :) By the way, I've put together a list of UA-cam channels where they deal with topics in philosophy, film theory, etc. I can paste it here as a comment if you're interested in some more intellectual explorations.
@@alittax Yes, please! I've had a lot of contact with the themes explored and all, took a few courses in college but it never drew my interest like this. I have ADHD and most of the time things need to be explained to me in a way that stimulates me otherwise I'll hate every single minute of it. I don't know how to explain but this guy could be talking about anything and I'd be interested, really haha
@@Ghsouza23
With pleasure :)
Short videos by different Philosophy Professors:
ua-cam.com/users/WirelessPhilosophy
Philosophy professors:
ua-cam.com/users/teachphilosophy
ua-cam.com/users/PhiloofAlexandria
ua-cam.com/users/OverthinkPodcastPhilosophyvideos
ua-cam.com/users/RichardBrownphilosophy
ua-cam.com/users/SeanCastleberryvideos
ua-cam.com/users/AndrewChapmanPhilosophy
ua-cam.com/channels/_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQ.html
Philosophy lectures:
ua-cam.com/users/PhilosophyOverdose2
Entertaining yet deep conversations on Philosophy:
ua-cam.com/users/PhilosophyVibe
A series where a brain scientist interviews philosophers, scientists, intellectuals and theologians about different intellectual topics (has lots of Theology content as well):
ua-cam.com/users/CloserToTruthTV
Entertaining and thought-provoking content:
ua-cam.com/users/RationalAnimationsvideos
ua-cam.com/users/LEMMiNO
ua-cam.com/users/FreedominThought
ua-cam.com/users/greymatter
ua-cam.com/users/wisecrack
ua-cam.com/users/Sisyphus55
ua-cam.com/users/PursuitofWondervideos
Deep movie reviews/analyses:
ua-cam.com/users/LiteratureDevil
ua-cam.com/users/MauLerUA-cam
ua-cam.com/channels/Ytu3JxrpI1XjNn-B_HqW4Q.html
ua-cam.com/users/Nerdwriter1
Analytical idealism:
ua-cam.com/users/bernardokastrup
Content about film creation:
ua-cam.com/users/filmcourage
Philosophy of Star Wars:
ua-cam.com/users/esfelectra
Religious criticism:
ua-cam.com/users/CosmicSkeptic
ua-cam.com/channels/qZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg.html
Content on art:
ua-cam.com/users/GreatArtExplained
Film theory:
ua-cam.com/users/LessonsfromtheScreenplay
ua-cam.com/users/everyframeapainting
ua-cam.com/users/NowYouSeeIt
Happy exploring! I wish you all the best!
I enjoy your videos. I’m curious: did you develop this format for Covid? Either way, it’s a great presentation and excellent use of technology.
My cat watches your videos intently. Really likes your lectures. I like them too.
Amazing explanation!!!
Extremely thought provoking. Brilliantly explained. If you're interested in a humorous take on Riggs vs. Palmer, watch "Kind Hearts and Coronets," a British comedy, starring the great Alec Guinness in 7 roles, about a young chap who wants to become a duke, but, alas, there are seven persons in his and the duke's family who would "beat" him to the title, unless....Delightful.
please post more😭😭😭
Ok. You are AWESOME! Just great!
The way my Remedies prof put this is that "the law" exists at the moment it is decided from the bench. This is distinct from regulations, statutes, treaties, constitutional provisions, case law, etc. Those are the parts the law is constructed from, but they're not "the law".
I have seen the Hart V Dworkin & Riggs V Palmer issues which covers majority of Dworkin's theory. Can you make videos on the remaining parts such as Chain Novel Analogy & Hercules.
do more law videos!
great topic! certainly there are lot more examples of everyday ethics being tied to legal cases as exceptions to written laws. a whole other add on or expansion video lesson worth at least i would think. hint, hint!
Great lecture. So a president cannot pardon himself after all?
Basically, I came close but here goes: People v. Palmer proclaims that generally in the ordinary course of legislative affairs a majority constitutes a quorum to do business provided by the significance.
It's very strange to me to say that judges aren't just legislating extra laws that didn't previously exist and by invoking a notion of existing principles. legislators also invoke principles when making laws.
By my view the point of electing government officials is to give the general populace a say in *which* principles get to be put in the forefront in the legal system. I can really see why Dworkin's theory on this is controversial.
Do you have any recommendations for what I should look into for learning more about this?
Anyone who studied Philosophy of Law and saw Dworkin there to the side in the beginning thought "yep I know what's coming".
You just saved my semester
Glad I could help!
Excellent
I think the interpretation of "keep it holy" is to keep it a "holy day" = "holiday" = no work.
"Take that Justice Earl" OMG lol 13:30
Muy buen vídeo, lástima que la traducción a español no ayudó mucho.:(
Can anyone recommend something similar for UK law ?please 🙏
why does anyone ignore the fact that they had justice EARL and justice GREY on the same court?
This all sounds like a good argument that we shouldn't have "a legal system", but instead come up with something that doesn't require multiple layers of outright lies.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📜 The case of Riggs v Palmer, from 1889, discusses the issue of whether a murderer should inherit money from the victim's will.
03:37 🏛️ The majority opinion, given by Justice Earl, presents the concept of rational interpretation or equitable construction, suggesting that principles should guide legal decisions, not just the strict letter of the law.
06:22 📜 Three examples support the idea of rational interpretation, showing that laws should be reasonably applied in specific cases.
16:54 ⚖️ The dissenting opinion argues that withholding inheritance from the murderer, Elmer Palmer, would be unjust and constitutes double punishment for the same crime.
24:11 💡 Earl counters the double punishment argument by asserting that Elmer was not an heir before his grandfather's death and made himself an heir by committing the murder to benefit from the crime.
24:40 💼 Withholding the inheritance from Elmer Palmer, the murderer, does not impose additional punishment but rather prevents him from benefiting from the crime.
25:24 💰 The act of withholding potential inheritance does not take away something that Elmer was entitled to, as he only becomes an heir by committing the murder.
26:05 ⚖️ The case of Riggs v Palmer exemplifies Dworkin's argument that underlying principles, like "no one should profit from their own wrong," are integral to the legal system and should guide judicial decisions.
Made with HARPA AI
in Saga Iceland, in the sagas, there's something called "self-judgment," in which a powerful man is given, or seizes, the power to judge: I'll decide this dispute, or else, I'll let you decide, and, usually, the one given, or who takes, the power, acts fairly, unless the other combatant has acted in way that's seen, by everyone, as obnoxious, and, usually, has a history of behaving obnoxiously. Saga Iceland had no police force, but it did have a court system--but that also allowed violence as part of court proceedings, and not just trial by combat, which was an option, too--so that a party that won a judgment had to enforce it himself, or with the help of family, allies and friends.
More videos
Thank you from Indonesia 😄
If you shouldn't profit from crime, then corporations should be fined enormous sums to make sure that the crimes they committed don't bring them profit, which is very much not the case.
what was the outcome of the case? who won and did anyone get the money?
Palmer, the grandson, lost. The daughters got the money!
@@profjeffreykaplan thank you!
13:15 i know damn well this nigga did not pull out the HEBREW. this man is a GOAT
I would have used the word "Justice " here.
Yasher koach on that fact check 🔥
NEVER trust someone named Elmer!
תודה רבה גרמי על שיעור מדהים. בעניין שבת נאמר לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם שפירושו הוא האיסור לעבוד כך שהשופט צודק לפחות לפי פרשניות מסוימות.
Nothing radical about it. Rational interpretation does gives human judges way too much power.
Thanks for the great lectures.
I’m pretty sure the Ten Commandments says you shouldn’t work on the sabbath. You’re also not supposed to work any servants or even your animals.
Once again, thanks for your good work bringing beginners’ philosophy to the masses.
You checked the 10 commandments? Which ones? There are more than one ten commandments.
In this case, it would really only be the Christian 10 commandments. We are talking about early America here, that is the only 10 commandments they know.
@@I_Love_Learning You're not getting my point. The 10 commandments in the bible are listed several times and they are not the same each time. While this may be a pedantic point, I still like making it. If for no other reason than to point out how inconsistent the supposed universal truths of the bible are. Yeah, they don't differ (Exodus and Deuteronomy) a lot, but any change to God's unchanging law is still a change. And if I'm bringing up my main objections to the Decalogue, it's not the inconsistency, but its barbaric nature. It's a crappy set of rules. We've moved on since the Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe was written. This ancient and ignorant book is given more power, privilege and prestige than it deserves. It always rubs me the wrong way when we pretend it's relevant as anything but history. And even then, just a minor history among many.
@@johnobrien6415 Hmm, I didnn't know that. I didn't know that, but you are correct. Sorry about that.
@@I_Love_Learning No need to be sorry. And I'll also admit I'm being a bit persnickety. It's a peeve I have when liberal Christians try to "out bible" conservative Christians and turn them liberal instead of arguing separation of church and state. The mention of the decalogue here doesn't really do that, but still, its my idiosyncrasy here on display. I even listened to a interview with the author of The Handmaiden's Tale where she was going on about how Jesus said to judge not, lest ye be judge. The author of like the premier novel arguing church and state separation was instead arguing that it is OK to use the bible to vet and drive public policy and our laws, as long as you just use the "right" verses and the "right" interpretation. Where I am in disagreement with that is that tacitly admits the we need to use the bible to shape our laws, just that we need to do it to her interpretation. Like I said, I think the argument she should be making is not "interpret the bible right" but: "We shouldn't be using the bible as the driver and shaper of our jurisprudence." But that is a bit cheeky of me, to feel the need to "correct" her on the issue. I restrained myself on that video and didn't comment. As this is an educational channel and there is probably disagreement and discussion in the class I felt it was OK to vent. But like I said, this is my idiosyncrasy here.
@@johnobrien6415 I agree, church and state should be totally separate. Didn't know that about the author of Handmaids Tale. Hmm.
Let him inherit the money.
❤❤❤❤
Ah yes, the slayer rule. Fun times, had by no one.
Español 😭
Where is the purposive approach, or purposivism, relevant in terms of this case, and in terms of rational interpretation? Is there any connection, Professor Kaplan?