This is what I love about you tube, great people explaining lectures in a way that law students can understand. Thank you for creating this video and helping elaborate these topics.
Not all law students study jurisprudence as part of a law degree, and that babbling dolt elucidates nothing because he understands nothing of law or jurisprudence; he switches his mouth to random select and just babbles - the man's a fool -a lightweight babbler.
I am a first year law student and I often find myself losing ground in this particular subject. I cannot be grateful enough for this channel🙌 From india🇮🇳
This is beyond amazing and has been absolutely helpful! I am so happy I came across this post! God bless you! You simplified a philosophical concept that often leaves people confused. You basically broke down a cumbersome concept into understandable bits! Please keep it up I'd totally look forward to seeing more from you! God bless you!
I commented on this video a couple of days ago. I’m just loving this series. I think I finally have a more concise statement to clarify, for myself, my own views. My viewpoint is this: there is no technical process by which an unjust law can be made legitimate. Or another way to say it: there’s no legitimate process that grants someone the right to make an unjust law.
That dolt Kaplan is no kind of lawyer - he simply does not have the wits; he understands nothing of jurisprudence; and does not even mention Kelsen. Positivist jurisprudence rightly does not concern itself with some with what law*ought* in some religious sense be , but rather answers the central question of jurisprudence 'what is law?' with look at what law*Is* rather than what you would *like* it to be; there is simply no point in looking a law from a religious/normative viewpoint because that will not tell you what law *Is*. the idea of so-called " natural law was cooked up or contrived, so that the charade of the Nuremberg trials to justify the hypocrisy of retrospective law making and the fiction that they were any kind of trial, by removing the defence of lawful authority. the notion of an "unjust law" had to be contrived or invented to meet or obviate that defence, and all reasonable men and professional lawyers to say nothing of positivist lawyers quite reasonably ask;" If I am to govern my behaviour by reference to the law, how am I to be able to discover what the law is? Guess or consult some sort of m normative/religious oracle? What is " just" to A is or can be " unjust to B. men (human beings/dreaming machines) have a nasty habit of declaring to be the law or law what they*would_like* to be and no finer example of that can be found that the complete nonsense or make-it-up-as-you-go-along, so-called international law. We positivists say that in order for men to be able to govern their behaviour lest the fall foul of some law, the need to be able to discover what the law *Is* *Before* they act, and to that end they need to be able to discover what law *Is, not be able to predict what some dreamer will suppose it to be at some unspecified future date. There are as many answers to the question'what is law as there are professors of jurisprudence aka the philosophy of law, and as there are judges and men with guns, and or dreamers suffering from the disease known as religion, defined as any world view based on any set of related unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business(all of which are predicated or conditioned by reactions of the particular emotional(like/dislike) functions or what various*Its* as in It-doesn't-like- it, and of course all emotional functions of men(human beings/dreaming machines) are different; what one likes another will not like. In fact *All* religion or that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business hangs on or is a function of the differing emotional functions of differing men, not one of which or whom have anything in common, save perhaps a tendency to be the abject slaves of their emotional(like/dislike) function , which is put another way by common lawyers speaking of what is called "*Equity";" it is as long as the Lord Chancellor's foot". Practicing layers like, or rather need to be able to make accurate predictions that they may advise their clients and thus need to know that the law(not law generally) *Is*, and insofar as there are any norms in the area of law, the cardinal norm is that whoever must obey the law, as it stands st the moment he acts or refrains from acting. Moreover jurisprudence and practical lawyers alike speak of sources of law which are known as Sovereigns(means those not subject to any authority,) for example kings presidents parliaments etc., and the reason that there i s no such thing as so-called international law, is that there is no international sovereign to make or be a source of so-called " international law, which in turn depends on what you are calling Law, for were there an international sovereign, not a single country or people would be able to describe itself as a*"Sovereign* independent nation, which *All* nations or peoples suppose themselves to be, one definition of law being commands of sovereigns or a sovereign. As a general rule those studying for a law degree only study jurisprudence(the philosophyof law) as an option in their final year when they are familiar with at least *some* law, which the babbling Kaplan is *Not*. It is perfectly true that some instances of law normative or morality/religion based many of them being criminal laws or laws purporting define or penalise what is called crime, men(human beings/dreaming machines) tending to refer to behaviour that *It-doesn't-likeas crimes or criminal, but that is only good or true for criminal law or laws which are indeed often basewd od the reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function or likes and dislikes, but that is not good for *All* instances of law and definitions must needs be good for *all* instances of what the seek to define or distinguish from all else.
Sir ..i m very very thankuful to u ...a year ago i prepared my philosophy paper only from your video.....and i got 4 out of 4 GPA ....thankuu sooo much ..fot uploading such a usefull information .....lotssssssss of love from Pakistan ❤️❤️
Your videos are terrific. You're a much better philosophy teacher than I ever was (and as good as any I ever had--and in grad school I had Rod "the God" Chisholm!). Or whatever. Or something like that. BTW, I was at Brown at the same time as the (one-time?) Chairman of your Dept. at Greensboro, Gary Rosencrantz. Say hi to him for me.
Listening to this lecture made me think about an aspect of Stephen Skowronek’s cyclical theory of political time. Legal positivism seems to be, to me, a power vs authority issue. You may have the power as a judicial body to create laws but you also need to authority aka legitimacy via public sentiment to introduce those laws. While the law may not be the “right” or “moral” law to pursue, it is what the public asks for. Natural law may be more akin to policy pursued purely on data (descriptive normality?) That does not follow public opinion at the time.
Woww Thank u so muchhh for the explanation!! You pick a word to explain this in a simple way so for me as a non-english speaker country (Indonesia) I feel like I completely understand of what ur talking about. Especially when you illustrate a word with metaphore I don't have to pause it first and search the meaning on a google. LOL . Anyway I'm in the first semester studying about the Introductory of Law. That's why I got lost here in order to digging more about the explanation of the legal positivism. Also I've just watched some other legal theories you've made so I decided to hit my subscribe button, Greatt jobb sirr!!
Thank you so much, this is crucial to me right now in writing a paper due in 8 days. My professor has a thick accent and with digital interruptions it is hard to take good notes on his lectures.
I am student of Law at Pakistan and after graduation I am thinking to do master in Philosophy if God Almighty welling. That's why in my free time I come here to watch lectures really I learned a lot from these lecture, I am not lucky to join your classes physically but it's also my good luck at least I am watching it here on UA-cam in my home/university.
Thank you for uploading such informative videos. I have watched most of the videos in this playlist. After years of going through jurisprudence articles, I can finally articulate the theories in my words. These are great videos, I would have loved to have you as my professor in law school. Can you please share the name of specific articles that you normally teach/recommend in your classes?
Squash is played over here in Ireland by anyone that wants to play it, no matter what your social circumstances. It is played like hand ball "the Irish and mexican version".
Thank you mister Kaplan, my partner and I have long been having problems with sexual intercourse, but while watching your video, it happened so that we felt a sudden rush of passions and engaged in lengthy, steamy intercourse. Thank you.
Would legal postivists just say that laws are certain socially constructed norms that are regarded as authoritative by enough people and is enforced by the state? Or perhaps just regarded authoritative by the state?
Most legal positivists would say that something more than that is required for some norms to count as laws. For example, HLA Hart (the most famous and widely-cited legal positivist), thinks that in order for some socially constructed norms to count as laws those norms have to be part of a multi-leveled system, such that some of the norms say how to change other norms (like how a city bylaw says what procedure the city traffic commission has to follow in order to change the city traffic laws; that is an example of a norm specifying how you can change other norms). I will have two videos about Hart's view up in a day or two. But in general positivists do say something broadly like what you have in mind. Here is a video about the legal theory of another legal positivist, John Austin (though it is Austin's theory are summarized by Hart): ua-cam.com/video/0F62gA1LGfw/v-deo.html
I wonder what positivists have to say on the creation of law. One can treat law as a social fact when it's already there but when it comes to create the institution of law then there must be some guiding principle, whether this is morals or a religion, etc. It seems clear that law must have some ground beyond itself that would explain how it came to be. Or am i misundertanding something? Great videos by the way, I find them really helpful.
Good question. Legal positivism is a thesis about what has to be true for a legal system to exist (specifically, it says that certain social facts need to obtain). It is undoubtedly true that when creating (and even maintaining) a legal system, the people involved with believe moral beliefs, will believe religious doctrine, etc. But *the fact that they believe those things* is a descriptive, social fact about what is going on inside their brains and what sound waves are coming out of their mouths. So the positivist has no problem granting that legal officials and others have moral ideas. Does that make sense?
Jeffrey Kaplan thank you for your answer. Would it be correct to say that the difference between the positivist and anti-positivist stances is not so much the entities that they describe but their ontological status? For example, Hart takes the internal attitude which involves criticism of other people’s conduct as a mere social fact whereas Dworkin sees it as a interpretation of a norm that involves moral principles. I ask because It seems to me that the line that separates the criticism of the internal attitude in Hart and interpretation in Dworkin is very thin. So it seems to me that the main difference is in how they approach that similar phenomenon: as a social fact in Hart’s case and a morally charged interpretation in Dowrkin’s case.
@@profjeffreykaplan I've thinking about this a lot and I think i can express my point more clearly. What I find paradoxical is that Hart (vs Austin) argues that it is essential that people take the sanctions of the sovereign to be justified. That is, they are not merely grounded on force (as the sanctions backed by threats of Austin. However, given he is a positivist, he doesn't take this process of justification as an interpretative process that involves moral reasonings. However, if the ultimate ground of law is this social pressure to act in acordance with the rules of obligation, aren't the subjects reduced to automata who determinate their feelings of disaproval on the basis of the rule of recognition? This is what I mean with the ontological difference regarging the object of study in Dworkin and Hart. While Hart takes humans as biological entities that produce certain sounds and have certain mental states, Dworkin takes them as subjects who actively involve their moral consideration to interpretate the actions of others.
It seems to me law is a social phenomenon in the same way building skyscrapers is a social phenomenon. That the endeavor requires social coherence and agreement does not remove the other relevant issues, such as purpose or use, adherence to natural laws (i.e. gravity, wind, plate tectonics, etc). "Social phenomenon" does not automatically dismiss the "ought."
Is there a chance you could do a video on natural law to look at Lon Fuller and the debate he had with Hart regarding legal positivism and natural law?? Or split it into two separate videos?
Sir please provide us an lecture on austin's imperative theory of law. That would be really helpful. I'm really struggling with this subject. By going through the books, I can't understand a thing. This lecture helped me understanding positivism and also i had better idea from the lecture you gave of utilitarianism.
Here is a lecture on Chapter 2 of Hart's "The Concept of Law" and the whole purpose of that chapter is to summarize Austin's theory: ua-cam.com/video/0F62gA1LGfw/v-deo.html And most philosophers of law or analytical jurisprudence scholars accept that Hart's summary of Austin is broadly accurate, so this should be helpful.
Im stuck on evaluating the separation theory, your videos have been amazingly helpful in understanding these concepts so far, could you weight in towards how i could go about doing so?
I don’t get the difference between the expressions and statements. In my opinion “boo” is a full equivalent of “I hate it”. It’s a message telling other people about my attitude to something. And it can be true or false. It’s true if it’s a sincere “boo” and false if it’s a fake one.
You cannot argue and communicate that you cannot argue and communicate, that'd be a contradiction in terms. In disagreeing with that statement you would also have to believe argumentation and communication is possible. Words don't exist in a vacuum, they exist to communicate a message using the means at your disposal, your body, and are interpreted given the context they're uttered in by the recipient's sensory faculties. Emotivism, when you think of it, is a rather absurd view to have.
A statement can be true or false, but a mere emotive expression can hardly have a truth value. "I hate that." "No, it is not the case that you hate that." is a conversation that makes sense. "Grrr!" "No, it is not the case that grrr." is a conversation that makes absolutely no sense.
i guess “shut the door!” is not a statement about the world but it implies that whoever is giving the command believes some statement like “if the door was shut, the temperature of the room would be more pleasant” and you can argue against this if you think the air is too stuffy and the door’s better left open
I'm just wondering how you filmed this and wrote this facing the camera all while your writing appears the right way around from us on whatever youre writing on???? Like if the camera is facing through glass and youre on the other side are you just skilled at writing backwards lmao
You are definitely not the first to ask! In fact, I get this question so frequently, I made a video explaining how it works: ua-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/v-deo.html
@@profjeffreykaplan that’s genius 😂 also thank you for these videos got myself an exam tomorrow and up until these videos I could not understand this subject, you really explain things well
And the problem, when you get law makers who don't believe in Natural Law or Natural Rights 🤷♀️ They attempt interpretation of the Constitution to fit their philosophy rather than the other way around
So ... I follow a colleague of yours on Twitter and I made a joke saying "inclusive positivist law was kind of woke" ... but the joke went nowere. What is the "inclusive" in "inclusive positivist law"? Thanks!
Being that law is based on theory, due to the lack of a single definition of the words being used in the law. A law can only exist when it is being used to force an action on an individual. Law can only be reactionary. To debate an interpretation of a law is invalid without the individual who wrote the law present to define the words used in the law.
I don't think that I have ever in my life met any proponent of natural law theory who is somehow unaware of the fact that unjust laws can be and are in fact regularly enacted. We recognize, of course, that laws as enacted carry the imprimatur of due process (even when they ultimately violate due process in their provisions) and will be considered legally enforceable by the agents of the state; however, this still does not make those laws just. Legal positivism can never be more than a descriptive theory-the law is what the law is, as written and as enacted; any claim that positivism can morally legitimize law in and of itself is flatly in error. There exists no moral duty to obey injust laws. Indeed, there is a moral duty to disobey them.
I teach jurisprudence and I have to say this is by far one of the most engaging and informative lectures on this topic. Great content, sir!
Thank you! I really appreciate your saying that.
This is what I love about you tube, great people explaining lectures in a way that law students can understand. Thank you for creating this video and helping elaborate these topics.
Not all law students study jurisprudence as part of a law degree, and that babbling dolt elucidates nothing because he understands nothing of law or jurisprudence; he switches his mouth to random select and just babbles - the man's a fool -a lightweight babbler.
Leaving this site without a comment is being ungrateful. You are a living genius.
I am a first year law student and I often find myself losing ground in this particular subject. I cannot be grateful enough for this channel🙌
From india🇮🇳
I was smiling all the way through. For two reasons. His lecture is so so interesting. He can really take me deep into understanding legal positivism.
This is beyond amazing and has been absolutely helpful! I am so happy I came across this post! God bless you! You simplified a philosophical concept that often leaves people confused.
You basically broke down a cumbersome concept into understandable bits! Please keep it up I'd totally look forward to seeing more from you!
God bless you!
Glad it was helpful! Check out the other videos already uploaded on my channel. There is a whole Philosophy of Law course playlist, for example.
I commented on this video a couple of days ago. I’m just loving this series. I think I finally have a more concise statement to clarify, for myself, my own views.
My viewpoint is this: there is no technical process by which an unjust law can be made legitimate. Or another way to say it: there’s no legitimate process that grants someone the right to make an unjust law.
Sir, you are an ideal example of what a Legal ought to be.
That dolt Kaplan is no kind of lawyer - he simply does not have the wits; he understands nothing of jurisprudence; and does not even mention Kelsen.
Positivist jurisprudence rightly does not concern itself with some with what law*ought* in some religious sense be , but rather answers the central question of jurisprudence 'what is law?' with look at what law*Is* rather than what you would *like* it to be; there is simply no point in looking a law from a religious/normative viewpoint because that will not tell you what law *Is*. the idea of so-called " natural law was cooked up or contrived, so that the charade of the Nuremberg trials to justify the hypocrisy of retrospective law making and the fiction that they were any kind of trial, by removing the defence of lawful authority. the notion of an "unjust law" had to be contrived or invented to meet or obviate that defence, and all reasonable men and professional lawyers to say nothing of positivist lawyers quite reasonably ask;" If I am to govern my behaviour by reference to the law, how am I to be able to discover what the law is? Guess or consult some sort of m normative/religious oracle? What is " just" to A is or can be " unjust to B.
men (human beings/dreaming machines) have a nasty habit of declaring to be the law or law what they*would_like* to be and no finer example of that can be found that the complete nonsense or make-it-up-as-you-go-along, so-called international law.
We positivists say that in order for men to be able to govern their behaviour lest the fall foul of some law, the need to be able to discover what the law *Is* *Before* they act, and to that end they need to be able to discover what law *Is, not be able to predict what some dreamer will suppose it to be at some unspecified future date.
There are as many answers to the question'what is law as there are professors of jurisprudence aka the philosophy of law, and as there are judges and men with guns, and or dreamers suffering from the disease known as religion, defined as any world view based on any set of related unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business(all of which are predicated or conditioned by reactions of the particular emotional(like/dislike) functions or what various*Its* as in It-doesn't-like- it, and of course all emotional functions of men(human beings/dreaming machines) are different; what one likes another will not like. In fact *All* religion or that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business hangs on or is a function of the differing emotional functions of differing men, not one of which or whom have anything in common, save perhaps a tendency to be the abject slaves of their emotional(like/dislike) function , which is put another way by common lawyers speaking of what is called "*Equity";" it is as long as the Lord Chancellor's foot".
Practicing layers like, or rather need to be able to make accurate predictions that they may advise their clients and thus need to know that the law(not law generally) *Is*, and insofar as there are any norms in the area of law, the cardinal norm is that whoever must obey the law, as it stands st the moment he acts or refrains from acting. Moreover jurisprudence and practical lawyers alike speak of sources of law which are known as Sovereigns(means those not subject to any authority,) for example kings presidents parliaments etc., and the reason that there i
s no such thing as so-called international law, is that there is no international sovereign to make or be a source of so-called " international law, which in turn depends on what you are calling Law, for were there an international sovereign, not a single country or people would be able to describe itself as a*"Sovereign* independent nation, which *All* nations or peoples suppose themselves to be, one definition of law being commands of sovereigns or a sovereign.
As a general rule those studying for a law degree only study jurisprudence(the philosophyof law) as an option in their final year when they are familiar with at least *some* law, which the babbling Kaplan is *Not*.
It is perfectly true that some instances of law normative or morality/religion based many of them being criminal laws or laws purporting define or penalise what is called crime, men(human beings/dreaming machines) tending to refer to behaviour that *It-doesn't-likeas crimes or criminal, but that is only good or true for criminal law or laws which are indeed often basewd od the reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function or likes and dislikes, but that is not good for *All* instances of law and definitions must needs be good for *all* instances of what the seek to define or distinguish from all else.
thank you jeffrey please dont ever stop, i have a presentation due tomorrow and this has been very helpful
This is the first time I have not fallen asleep during a jurisprudence lesson. This lecture was very engaging, and I can not thank you enough.
👁👄👁my face when I discovered this channel
This is meeee my eyes are tearing up 😭....this is great
Same here
Honestly tho
It’s sooo helpful
Literally me right now.
I am awed! You break it down so well! Uptil now I've not been able to understand this concept. But you've driven it home so well for me. THANK YOU!
This is unbelievably good at teaching the topic... I have been confused in Jurisprudence for months and now it seems to have clicked...
Thanks! Glad it was helpful.
Sir ..i m very very thankuful to u ...a year ago i prepared my philosophy paper only from your video.....and i got 4 out of 4 GPA ....thankuu sooo much ..fot uploading such a usefull information .....lotssssssss of love from Pakistan ❤️❤️
Your videos are terrific. You're a much better philosophy teacher than I ever was (and as good as any I ever had--and in grad school I had Rod "the God" Chisholm!).
Or whatever.
Or something like that.
BTW, I was at Brown at the same time as the (one-time?) Chairman of your Dept. at Greensboro, Gary Rosencrantz. Say hi to him for me.
You know Gary! I will certainly let him know that Walter Horn says hello through the internet. And thank you for the kind words about my teaching!
Really very nice . I am surprise to see that such channels are existing which has deep academic discussion. Love from India
Clarity personified!! I thoroughly enjoyed!
Listening to this lecture made me think about an aspect of Stephen Skowronek’s cyclical theory of political time.
Legal positivism seems to be, to me, a power vs authority issue. You may have the power as a judicial body to create laws but you also need to authority aka legitimacy via public sentiment to introduce those laws. While the law may not be the “right” or “moral” law to pursue, it is what the public asks for. Natural law may be more akin to policy pursued purely on data (descriptive normality?) That does not follow public opinion at the time.
Woww Thank u so muchhh for the explanation!! You pick a word to explain this in a simple way so for me as a non-english speaker country (Indonesia) I feel like I completely understand of what ur talking about. Especially when you illustrate a word with metaphore I don't have to pause it first and search the meaning on a google. LOL . Anyway I'm in the first semester studying about the Introductory of Law. That's why I got lost here in order to digging more about the explanation of the legal positivism. Also I've just watched some other legal theories you've made so I decided to hit my subscribe button, Greatt jobb sirr!!
Very engaging discussion! Much better than my online lectures where I was falling asleep 😅
Fantastic - I am happy I came across your post, this is so helpful - thank you
This could not have been more helpful! Thank you Sir.
Glad it helped!
A true teacher at the summit.
This lecture helped me to understand this subject. Thanks.
great video. Extremely helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
The squash tangent was amazing
Ha, thanks! I really let myself go off there.
Excellently put! You have made the complex theory so simple...thank you.
Thank you!
Thank you so much, this is crucial to me right now in writing a paper due in 8 days. My professor has a thick accent and with digital interruptions it is hard to take good notes on his lectures.
Glad it was helpful!
thank you! this video really helps me to do my assignment about legal positivism. keep going!!
You are brilliant, skilled and gifted
I am student of Law at Pakistan and after graduation I am thinking to do master in Philosophy if God Almighty welling.
That's why in my free time I come here to watch lectures really I learned a lot from these lecture, I am not lucky to join your classes physically but it's also my good luck at least I am watching it here on UA-cam in my home/university.
Thanks Jeffrey! Excellent style and video!
I believe Frédéric Bastiat does the best job describing natural law and eloquently argued its superiority.
4th year law student here, thank you so much for these videos they are so helpful!
Thank you for uploading such informative videos. I have watched most of the videos in this playlist. After years of going through jurisprudence articles, I can finally articulate the theories in my words. These are great videos, I would have loved to have you as my professor in law school.
Can you please share the name of specific articles that you normally teach/recommend in your classes?
Amazing teaching. Thank you!!!!
Squash is played over here in Ireland by anyone that wants to play it, no matter what your social circumstances. It is played like hand ball "the Irish and mexican version".
yup irl
Love your lectures man!!
oh my god thankyou so much for this gold content
Thank you mister Kaplan, my partner and I have long been having problems with sexual intercourse, but while watching your video, it happened so that we felt a sudden rush of passions and engaged in lengthy, steamy intercourse. Thank you.
Pay UA-cam go bring your channel on searches man. I stumbled literally
Brilliant piece！
Fantastic lecture
thank you so much for all of this
May god bless you
thank you sir
I am forever grateful
love from bangladesh
Would legal postivists just say that laws are certain socially constructed norms that are regarded as authoritative by enough people and is enforced by the state? Or perhaps just regarded authoritative by the state?
Most legal positivists would say that something more than that is required for some norms to count as laws. For example, HLA Hart (the most famous and widely-cited legal positivist), thinks that in order for some socially constructed norms to count as laws those norms have to be part of a multi-leveled system, such that some of the norms say how to change other norms (like how a city bylaw says what procedure the city traffic commission has to follow in order to change the city traffic laws; that is an example of a norm specifying how you can change other norms). I will have two videos about Hart's view up in a day or two. But in general positivists do say something broadly like what you have in mind. Here is a video about the legal theory of another legal positivist, John Austin (though it is Austin's theory are summarized by Hart): ua-cam.com/video/0F62gA1LGfw/v-deo.html
I just posted the video explaining part of Hart's version of positivism: ua-cam.com/video/Xg_9F2h89TE/v-deo.html
@@profjeffreykaplan thanks
this was amazing
I wonder what positivists have to say on the creation of law. One can treat law as a social fact when it's already there but when it comes to create the institution of law then there must be some guiding principle, whether this is morals or a religion, etc. It seems clear that law must have some ground beyond itself that would explain how it came to be. Or am i misundertanding something? Great videos by the way, I find them really helpful.
Good question. Legal positivism is a thesis about what has to be true for a legal system to exist (specifically, it says that certain social facts need to obtain). It is undoubtedly true that when creating (and even maintaining) a legal system, the people involved with believe moral beliefs, will believe religious doctrine, etc. But *the fact that they believe those things* is a descriptive, social fact about what is going on inside their brains and what sound waves are coming out of their mouths. So the positivist has no problem granting that legal officials and others have moral ideas. Does that make sense?
Jeffrey Kaplan thank you for your answer. Would it be correct to say that the difference between the positivist and anti-positivist stances is not so much the entities that they describe but their ontological status? For example, Hart takes the internal attitude which involves criticism of other people’s conduct as a mere social fact whereas Dworkin sees it as a interpretation of a norm that involves moral principles. I ask because It seems to me that the line that separates the criticism of the internal attitude in Hart and interpretation in Dworkin is very thin. So it seems to me that the main difference is in how they approach that similar phenomenon: as a social fact in Hart’s case and a morally charged interpretation in Dowrkin’s case.
@@profjeffreykaplan I've thinking about this a lot and I think i can express my point more clearly. What I find paradoxical is that Hart (vs Austin) argues that it is essential that people take the sanctions of the sovereign to be justified. That is, they are not merely grounded on force (as the sanctions backed by threats of Austin. However, given he is a positivist, he doesn't take this process of justification as an interpretative process that involves moral reasonings. However, if the ultimate ground of law is this social pressure to act in acordance with the rules of obligation, aren't the subjects reduced to automata who determinate their feelings of disaproval on the basis of the rule of recognition? This is what I mean with the ontological difference regarging the object of study in Dworkin and Hart. While Hart takes humans as biological entities that produce certain sounds and have certain mental states, Dworkin takes them as subjects who actively involve their moral consideration to interpretate the actions of others.
Professor Kaplan, will you consider to talk about the debate about whether math is subjective or objective in the future? :)
I am very interested in how he writes mirrored texts from the back of a glass.
It seems to me law is a social phenomenon in the same way building skyscrapers is a social phenomenon. That the endeavor requires social coherence and agreement does not remove the other relevant issues, such as purpose or use, adherence to natural laws (i.e. gravity, wind, plate tectonics, etc). "Social phenomenon" does not automatically dismiss the "ought."
Is there a chance you could do a video on natural law to look at Lon Fuller and the debate he had with Hart regarding legal positivism and natural law?? Or split it into two separate videos?
This guy is writing backwards perfectly legibly without missing a beat
Take A Moment
Thank you for your work.
Stay Safe
Stay Free 🌐
How are you doing this?
Is there a mirror?
Or are you incredibly skilled at writing backwards ?
You are the best
great content !
Very good.
Thanks a lot. This is very helpful!
You're welcome, glad it was helpful!
This is so cool, thanks so much for making them
My pleasure!
Sir please provide us an lecture on austin's imperative theory of law. That would be really helpful.
I'm really struggling with this subject. By going through the books, I can't understand a thing. This lecture helped me understanding positivism and also i had better idea from the lecture you gave of utilitarianism.
Here is a lecture on Chapter 2 of Hart's "The Concept of Law" and the whole purpose of that chapter is to summarize Austin's theory: ua-cam.com/video/0F62gA1LGfw/v-deo.html
And most philosophers of law or analytical jurisprudence scholars accept that Hart's summary of Austin is broadly accurate, so this should be helpful.
@@profjeffreykaplan thank youuuu
great video, is there anything else on critical legal studies theory?
Great!!
Awesome!!!!
This is really helpful to me. Thank you!
You're welcome. Glad to help!
thank you so much.
Im stuck on evaluating the separation theory, your videos have been amazingly helpful in understanding these concepts so far, could you weight in towards how i could go about doing so?
The separation theory is shit
Just stumbled into this video, very stimulating. Heading to your channel in hopes of a playlist.
Useful. Thank you.
You're welcome!
Does he writes backwards??
I don’t get the difference between the expressions and statements. In my opinion “boo” is a full equivalent of “I hate it”. It’s a message telling other people about my attitude to something. And it can be true or false. It’s true if it’s a sincere “boo” and false if it’s a fake one.
You cannot argue and communicate that you cannot argue and communicate, that'd be a contradiction in terms. In disagreeing with that statement you would also have to believe argumentation and communication is possible.
Words don't exist in a vacuum, they exist to communicate a message using the means at your disposal, your body, and are interpreted given the context they're uttered in by the recipient's sensory faculties.
Emotivism, when you think of it, is a rather absurd view to have.
A statement can be true or false, but a mere emotive expression can hardly have a truth value.
"I hate that." "No, it is not the case that you hate that." is a conversation that makes sense.
"Grrr!" "No, it is not the case that grrr." is a conversation that makes absolutely no sense.
Why analytical school is called positive school
Can any one please answer
i guess “shut the door!” is not a statement about the world but it implies that whoever is giving the command believes some statement like “if the door was shut, the temperature of the room would be more pleasant” and you can argue against this if you think the air is too stuffy and the door’s better left open
Why isn´t this guy my teacher. Keep it up
I found my channel. God bless you
I'm just wondering how you filmed this and wrote this facing the camera all while your writing appears the right way around from us on whatever youre writing on???? Like if the camera is facing through glass and youre on the other side are you just skilled at writing backwards lmao
You are definitely not the first to ask! In fact, I get this question so frequently, I made a video explaining how it works: ua-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/v-deo.html
@@profjeffreykaplan that’s genius 😂 also thank you for these videos got myself an exam tomorrow and up until these videos I could not understand this subject, you really explain things well
How is Legal Positivism different than a Theocratic Regime?
Thank you!
amazing
Great video! Over on my channel I do careful readings of classic Positivist texts, currently Hans Kelsen.
thank you 🙇
You're welcome!
And the problem, when you get law makers who don't believe in Natural Law or Natural Rights 🤷♀️
They attempt interpretation of the Constitution to fit their philosophy rather than the other way around
struggling with this module.
It is fun that you emphasize Joseph Raz is still alive LOL
Are you actually writing backward?
This guy much better than the whole Indonesian Law School that sucks
Plz make video on phenomenalism
That explanation about squash got me ROFL... "snobby and elitist" LOL
So ... I follow a colleague of yours on Twitter and I made a joke saying "inclusive positivist law was kind of woke" ... but the joke went nowere. What is the "inclusive" in "inclusive positivist law"? Thanks!
Pretty amusing for me when he says 'or whatever'🤣🤣
❤️❤️❤️👏
❤this for LLM 🎉
Being that law is based on theory, due to the lack of a single definition of the words being used in the law. A law can only exist when it is being used to force an action on an individual. Law can only be reactionary.
To debate an interpretation of a law is invalid without the individual who wrote the law present to define the words used in the law.
Legal Positivism talks about called Power, not Law. Separation thesis basically said that Power is different from Law.
Great job, young professor.
You had me at squash
Perfect
I don't think that I have ever in my life met any proponent of natural law theory who is somehow unaware of the fact that unjust laws can be and are in fact regularly enacted. We recognize, of course, that laws as enacted carry the imprimatur of due process (even when they ultimately violate due process in their provisions) and will be considered legally enforceable by the agents of the state; however, this still does not make those laws just. Legal positivism can never be more than a descriptive theory-the law is what the law is, as written and as enacted; any claim that positivism can morally legitimize law in and of itself is flatly in error. There exists no moral duty to obey injust laws. Indeed, there is a moral duty to disobey them.
What if what you consider immoral most others would consider not immoral?
this guys good
Can you please be my professor? At Liberty everything is so traditional and monotone. The books they provide confuse me even more.