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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ❤️❤️
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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 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.
Legal positivism is a bane of humanity 1 Reply Legal positivism is a bane of humanity" - Or would be were" humanity" not imaginary and that title already taken by that disease morality/religion, which is indeed a very nasty disease to which men(human beings/dreaming machines) are prone since they tend to be - and*cannot_help* being, the abject slaves of their functions. So-called legal positivism is a term that only has any meaning when contrasted with that fantasy, that those infected with the disease religion/morality call"natural" law", which is pure invention or calling what you would*like* to be law, law, which is just fine if you define law as whatever any halfwit dreamer would*like* to be law, which would make or define law as whatever any halfwitted dreamer supposes or would_like* to be law, which would make law one thing at one moment and anything-you-please the next moment, depending on who is doing the liking and disliking or which or whose emotional function is reacting like or dislike and they are of course all different. Natural law, my arse!-Just call it make-it-up-as-you-go-along law, and there you have it. Idea of so-called natural law was cooked/dreamed up or contrived at the end of the warto enable the charade known as the Nuremburg trials to be dressed up as something other than what the Russians wanted to do, namely ill all Nazis out of hand, the English and the kinderlander-Americans, being too squeamish for that but that is exactly what they did but dressed it up as a lawful punishment for some retrospective laws which they invented purely so they could call killing Nazis lawful punishment after some nonsense called due process of law-which everyone knew perfectly well was a charade. The idea of natural law was cooked/dreamed up or contrived to render nugatory the perfectly legitimate defences of some prisoners [that they were going to kill anyway(and quite right too)] that they were merely obeying lawful orders, so natural law(some laws are unjust and thus not laws( was invented to disable that potential (and perfectly legitimate)defence. One of the supposed or invented tenets or principals of so-called natural law is that laws should not operate retrospectively(The principle that laws should not operate retrospectively is a tenet of natural law. Lon Fuller, a writer and jurist, described this principle as part of the "inner morality of law") Whose*" inner morality of law"? you may well ask, and the answer to that is the inner morality of those with the most guns and the greatest capacity for self-deceit and self-calming. Funy how the actus reus(the prohibited act) of the supposed and so-called offence of " war crimes" is no more, and no less, than *Losing* a war,, and you will not that not *one single* war winner has ever been prosecuted convicted of or penalised for war crimes, for the simple reason that the real crime of war is *Losing **-a-** war* All that religious bullshit that some call "morality" is - *in_Reality*(or what-is-and-cannot-be-different) no more and no les that the mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function of men(human beings dreaming machines) dressed up as some thing*Other_Than*what..... they..... *Are* namely no more and no less than he mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function of men(human beings dreaming machines) For bad/evil or wrong, simply read *It*-doesn't -*like* -it, and it is simple mendacity to pretend otherwise. Those the seek to pray in aid what they call " natural law should look up the fallacy argumentum ad naturam, despite the fact that there is nothing remotely *" natural*" about so-called " natural law, it be entirely and exclusively only, man made. It was *Invented* as a white sheet n in which to wrap killing prisoners of war out of hand - a fiction invented for the purposes of a sham and forgetting the simple truth that the moment you embark upon war you dispense with law. The that-which-is-and-cannot-be-different of the matter is that - like power , law and that-for-men mirage justice, come out of the barrel of a gun You studied law and jurisprudence as a part thereof at which university? The same one as the babbling halfwit Kaplan. It is perfectly true that*some* *but_only*some* instances of what might be called law arise out of the mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional function of men, or what men like to call "morals" but that is by no means true of *all* instances thereof. The purposeor function of the academic subject known as jurisprudence, or the philosophy of law is to address the ostensibly relatively simply question " What is Law?" There are as many answers to that question as there are professors of jurisprudence such as.L.A. Hart, a former professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University, wrote The Concept of Law- a relatively short and simple book, if not a locus classicus. If and when you rver qualify for university and study law, which on some views is a branch of philosophy, you may come to understand that a definition must be good for all instances of what you seek to define or distinguish from all else, and were you to be up to law, to come to be able to understand that depending on how you define either laws or rules that not all rules or law or all rules laws of which supposition you would be disabused in the first week of in whichever year you were able to study jurisprudence. For some reasoon the elsies or Lower Classes and or others without wits learning or breeding tend to think only of criminal law when they think of law despite the fact that only a tiny amount of what is called law is concerned with criminal law, some of which is indeed based on that god/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo that are otherwise known as norms and attract the adjective normative; men tend not to like being deprived of what they call "theirs" and are not at all fond of suffering bodily injury, and thus the mechanical-automatic reaction of the emotional function figure largely in their considerations of what to call crimes which are predominantly the subject matter of the said reactions or likesand dislikes which by some roundabout process of self-deception they like to call morality which is therefore entirely subjective, relative and temporary arising as it does out of the functions of subjective relative and temporary beings, or as one person put it" what is moral in Moscow is immoral Petersburg or in plain terms it all depends on who is doing the liking and disliking - nothing being objectively(not subjectively) likeable or dislikable, for the simple reason that those reactions are peculiar or particular to particular to particular beings all of who are different and having differing functions the reactions of which are rarely identical which may well be what the wretched creatures call " a good thing". In England we have a dish called bubble and squeak while the unfortunate Kaplan would attract babble and squeak - he really ought to steer clear of subjects for which he clearly lacks the wits.
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.
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!
Yeah, according to them the Nazis would not be considered criminals because, well, they didn't break German law. Legal positivism cannot pass the universalisation and justification standards and is therefore simply wrong.
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.
There is no real distinction to be made between what Kaplan calls "separation theory" and "conceptual analysis". What he calls "conceptual analysis" here is merely a restatement of what he calls "separation theory". Nor is there any rational distinction to be made for what he calls "non-cognitivism". Again, this is merely a restatement of "separation theory" in a slightly differing form, or, if you will, and explanation of why separation theory holds or should hold. And again, what we end up with is purely descriptive, devoid of any moral content, or if you prefer, utterly immoral, if the claim being made that morality is not germane to the moral legitimacy of enacted law, as some positivists actually claim. Yes, it is obviously important to understand what the law as enacted means and what the intent of the enactors was at the time of enactment. This still tells us nothing about the moral legitimacy of that law, unless your position is that there is no overarching moral framework in which we can or are morally permitted to evaluate the moral legitimacy of that law, something which is a fundamental principle of constitutionalism. In an explicitly constitutionalist society and government, like that of the United States, the positivist view holds no water, at all.
Non-cogntivism is not the same as the separation theory. Its a metaethical view that some legal positivits are/were committed to! Hart was agnostic about it.
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
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.
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🇮🇳
Leaving this site without a comment is being ungrateful. You are a living genius.
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 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.
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.
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.
👁👄👁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.
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.
thank you jeffrey please dont ever stop, i have a presentation due tomorrow and this has been very 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 ❤️❤️
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!
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.
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.
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.
This lecture helped me to understand this subject. Thanks.
Very engaging discussion! Much better than my online lectures where I was falling asleep 😅
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!
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!!
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!
Fantastic - I am happy I came across your post, this is so helpful - thank you
A true teacher at the summit.
Excellently put! You have made the complex theory so simple...thank you.
Thank you!
great video. Extremely helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
This could not have been more helpful! Thank you Sir.
Glad it helped!
Thanks Jeffrey! Excellent style and video!
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 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?
thank you! this video really helps me to do my assignment about legal positivism. keep going!!
The squash tangent was amazing
Ha, thanks! I really let myself go off there.
You are brilliant, skilled and gifted
May god bless you
thank you sir
I am forever grateful
love from bangladesh
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
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
Amazing teaching. Thank you!!!!
Fantastic lecture
Brilliant piece！
oh my god thankyou so much for this gold content
Love your lectures man!!
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."
This guy is writing backwards perfectly legibly without missing a beat
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.
thank you so much for all of this
Take A Moment
Thank you for your work.
Stay Safe
Stay Free 🌐
this was amazing
You are the best
This guy much better than the whole Indonesian Law School that sucks
Thanks a lot. This is very helpful!
You're welcome, glad it was helpful!
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
Great!!
Awesome!!!!
Very good.
great content !
This is really helpful to me. Thank you!
You're welcome. Glad to help!
Professor Kaplan, will you consider to talk about the debate about whether math is subjective or objective in the future? :)
thank you so much.
Why isn´t this guy my teacher. Keep it up
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
I found my channel. God bless you
This is so cool, thanks so much for making them
My pleasure!
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
amazing
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
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?
Great video! Over on my channel I do careful readings of classic Positivist texts, currently Hans Kelsen.
Useful. Thank you.
You're welcome!
Thank you!
great video, is there anything else on critical legal studies theory?
I am very interested in how he writes mirrored texts from the back of a glass.
How are you doing this?
Is there a mirror?
Or are you incredibly skilled at writing backwards ?
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 for LLM 🎉
❤️❤️❤️👏
thank you 🙇
You're welcome!
Perfect
It is fun that you emphasize Joseph Raz is still alive LOL
Plz make video on phenomenalism
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?
Legal Positivism talks about called Power, not Law. Separation thesis basically said that Power is different from Law.
this guys good
Legal positivism is a bane of humanity
Legal positivism is a bane of humanity
1
Reply Legal positivism is a bane of humanity" - Or would be were" humanity" not imaginary and that title already taken by that disease morality/religion, which is indeed a very nasty disease to which men(human beings/dreaming machines) are prone since they tend to be - and*cannot_help* being, the abject slaves of their functions.
So-called legal positivism is a term that only has any meaning when contrasted with that fantasy, that those infected with the disease religion/morality call"natural" law", which is pure invention or calling what you would*like* to be law, law, which is just fine if you define law as whatever any halfwit dreamer would*like* to be law, which would make or define law as whatever any halfwitted dreamer supposes or would_like* to be law, which would make law one thing at one moment and anything-you-please the next moment, depending on who is doing the liking and disliking or which or whose emotional function is reacting like or dislike and they are of course all different.
Natural law, my arse!-Just call it make-it-up-as-you-go-along law, and there you have it.
Idea of so-called natural law was cooked/dreamed up or contrived at the end of the warto enable the charade known as the Nuremburg trials to be dressed up as something other than what the Russians wanted to do, namely ill all Nazis out of hand, the English and the kinderlander-Americans, being too squeamish for that but that is exactly what they did but dressed it up as a lawful punishment for some retrospective laws which they invented purely so they could call killing Nazis lawful punishment after some nonsense called due process of law-which everyone knew perfectly well was a charade.
The idea of natural law was cooked/dreamed up or contrived to render nugatory the perfectly legitimate defences of some prisoners [that they were going to kill anyway(and quite right too)] that they were merely obeying lawful orders, so natural law(some laws are unjust and thus not laws( was invented to disable that potential (and perfectly legitimate)defence. One of the supposed or invented tenets or principals of so-called natural law is that laws should not operate retrospectively(The principle that laws should not operate retrospectively is a tenet of natural law. Lon Fuller, a writer and jurist, described this principle as part of the "inner morality of law")
Whose*" inner morality of law"? you may well ask, and the answer to that is the inner morality of those with the most guns and the greatest capacity for self-deceit and self-calming.
Funy how the actus reus(the prohibited act) of the supposed and so-called offence of " war crimes" is no more, and no less, than *Losing* a war,, and you will not that not *one single* war winner has ever been prosecuted convicted of or penalised for war crimes, for the simple reason that the real crime of war is *Losing **-a-** war*
All that religious bullshit that some call "morality" is - *in_Reality*(or what-is-and-cannot-be-different) no more and no les that the mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function of men(human beings dreaming machines) dressed up as some thing*Other_Than*what..... they..... *Are* namely no more and no less than he mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional(like/dislike) function of men(human beings dreaming machines) For bad/evil or wrong, simply read *It*-doesn't -*like* -it, and it is simple mendacity to pretend otherwise.
Those the seek to pray in aid what they call " natural law should look up the fallacy argumentum ad naturam, despite the fact that there is nothing remotely *" natural*" about so-called " natural law, it be entirely and exclusively only, man made.
It was *Invented* as a white sheet n in which to wrap killing prisoners of war out of hand - a fiction invented for the purposes of a sham and forgetting the simple truth that the moment you embark upon war you dispense with law.
The that-which-is-and-cannot-be-different of the matter is that - like power , law and that-for-men mirage justice, come out of the barrel of a gun
You studied law and jurisprudence as a part thereof at which university? The same one as the babbling halfwit Kaplan.
It is perfectly true that*some* *but_only*some* instances of what might be called law arise out of the mechanical-automatic reactions of the emotional function of men, or what men like to call "morals" but that is by no means true of *all* instances thereof.
The purposeor function of the academic subject known as jurisprudence, or the philosophy of law is to address the ostensibly relatively simply question " What is Law?"
There are as many answers to that question as there are professors of jurisprudence such as.L.A. Hart, a former professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University, wrote The Concept of Law- a relatively short and simple book, if not a locus classicus. If and when you rver qualify for university and study law, which on some views is a branch of philosophy, you may come to understand that a definition must be good for all instances of what you seek to define or distinguish from all else, and were you to be up to law, to come to be able to understand that depending on how you define either laws or rules that not all rules or law or all rules laws of which supposition you would be disabused in the first week of in whichever year you were able to study jurisprudence.
For some reasoon the elsies or Lower Classes and or others without wits learning or breeding tend to think only of criminal law when they think of law despite the fact that only a tiny amount of what is called law is concerned with criminal law, some of which is indeed based on that god/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo that are otherwise known as norms and attract the adjective normative; men tend not to like being deprived of what they call "theirs" and are not at all fond of suffering bodily injury, and thus the mechanical-automatic reaction of the emotional function figure largely in their considerations of what to call crimes which are predominantly the subject matter of the said reactions or likesand dislikes which by some roundabout process of self-deception they like to call morality which is therefore entirely subjective, relative and temporary arising as it does out of the functions of subjective relative and temporary beings, or as one person put it" what is moral in Moscow is immoral Petersburg or in plain terms it all depends on who is doing the liking and disliking - nothing being objectively(not subjectively) likeable or dislikable, for the simple reason that those reactions are peculiar or particular to particular to particular beings all of who are different and having differing functions the reactions of which are rarely identical which may well be what the wretched creatures call " a good thing". In England we have a dish called bubble and squeak while the unfortunate Kaplan would attract babble and squeak - he really ought to steer clear of subjects for which he clearly lacks the wits.
How is Legal Positivism different than a Theocratic Regime?
That explanation about squash got me ROFL... "snobby and elitist" LOL
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.
You had me at squash
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!
Are you actually writing backward?
struggling with this module.
*Legal Positivism means* never repaying your law school student loans
Legal positivism is legal eugenics
Yeah, according to them the Nazis would not be considered criminals because, well, they didn't break German law.
Legal positivism cannot pass the universalisation and justification standards and is therefore simply wrong.
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.
There is no real distinction to be made between what Kaplan calls "separation theory" and "conceptual analysis". What he calls "conceptual analysis" here is merely a restatement of what he calls "separation theory". Nor is there any rational distinction to be made for what he calls "non-cognitivism". Again, this is merely a restatement of "separation theory" in a slightly differing form, or, if you will, and explanation of why separation theory holds or should hold. And again, what we end up with is purely descriptive, devoid of any moral content, or if you prefer, utterly immoral, if the claim being made that morality is not germane to the moral legitimacy of enacted law, as some positivists actually claim.
Yes, it is obviously important to understand what the law as enacted means and what the intent of the enactors was at the time of enactment. This still tells us nothing about the moral legitimacy of that law, unless your position is that there is no overarching moral framework in which we can or are morally permitted to evaluate the moral legitimacy of that law, something which is a fundamental principle of constitutionalism. In an explicitly constitutionalist society and government, like that of the United States, the positivist view holds no water, at all.
Non-cogntivism is not the same as the separation theory. Its a metaethical view that some legal positivits are/were committed to! Hart was agnostic about it.
Why analytical school is called positive school
Can any one please answer
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
Great job, young professor.
Pretty amusing for me when he says 'or whatever'🤣🤣