My Final Year Law exam on Jurisprudence/Legal Philosophy in about 6 hours' time and this short video summarises about a quarter of the work i needed to study. that process took me about 15 hours to get through. In short, great video!
My opinion that I’ve been forming lately is laws should be in place to keep the individual free as possible. Laws should protect other people from taking our natural rights. For example murder theft and rape would be wrong because you are exploiting an individual rights. Things like drugs, gay marriage, and freedom of thought and speech should be legal because they are not exploiting the freedoms of others. I’m still on the fence about abortion because I’m not 100% sure if it can be murder or not. It depends on the case. The government should not take away civil liberties based on religion or believes. Even though you think something is wrong it is not exploiting your rights. You can still practice religion but it can not make its way to law. Separation of church and state.
@@somebody700 The guy's model is sound, I'd think. Im currently writing a PhD thesis on the topic (to put it crudely and broadly) of criminal law, morality, and emotion. There have been many models defining the questions you have raised. For example, the concept of harm to others and what exactly constitutes harm is expounded upon by Joel Feinberg in his 4-volume series (1980s I think).
Multiple competing religious philosophies cause friction and sometimes violence in multiple societies. It's the same with ideologies as a whole in which religions can be classed under. Diametrical opposing values cannot exist forever in the same space if both have high rate of spread, influence or self growth. Eventually people will butt heads. All the situation needs is a match to set things off. History shows this over and over again. Still people continue to pretend like this isn't a problem so it just keeps happening and innocent people keep getting hurt. The goal should be protect individual liberties but not at the cost of social cohesion or societal trust.
It is a dangerous thing to confuse The Law for morality. That is to say, The Law only determines what is lawful and unlawful, not what is right and wrong. It is dangerous because, for example, as The Law of the 1950’s said gay sex was unlawful and therefore caused Alan Turing to choose castration over the potential of undergoing popular Hate Crimes in prison, the Law of tomorrow can create new situations in which other innocent people are castrated or persecuted.
As Spartacus rightly said, the definition of victim is your sticking point here. In terms of the moral law, for example, Devlin would define the victim as society. Therefore, having defined that victim, you can legitimately criminalise homosexuality etc according to Devlins argument.
@@voluntarism335 The only crime should be assault? Terribly problematic I'm afraid to say. So drunk driving, speeding, arson, Disorderly behaviour, and harassment- to name only a handful of crimes that do not require assault- should all be lawful?
Moral law exists only if it is factually true that people ought to do certain things, regardless of human belief. If it is factually true that people ought to do certain things, is truth a dead thing?
I don't see where you have made the connection between truth and behavior, but just because someone is supposed to do something morally, does not necessarily mean there is no truth, if anything (putting aside the is-ought problem) if you can successfully demonstrate that people ought to behave in a specific way, then you would prove the opposite, that moral truth does exist, not just that, you would prove that some kind of absolute truth exists, because you would have a factual and objective basis for why humans must act in a certain way.
THE LAW is only Legal 'IF... And ONLY' IF IT'S "MORAL".. Its so so so simple. There's only 10 commandments to follow, so just follow them !!!. All the small print and legal B. S was only written by another (most likely) man accoto his privelladged life experiences and the influence of his also privaledged friends that have up to now always been from the same club that they produced.!!!!. So all you do is follow Good morals.
My Final Year Law exam on Jurisprudence/Legal Philosophy in about 6 hours' time and this short video summarises about a quarter of the work i needed to study. that process took me about 15 hours to get through.
In short, great video!
Thanks for the feedback, hope the exam went well!
the bullet point generation
@@Learnloads Hi, what was the name of the case you were talking about.
Thank you, you've covered my first two topics in jurisprudence fantastically :)
I'm not studying law but this was a great video. Thank you.
This has absolutely been a very helpful, many many thanks
I am a first year law student and this was very helpful. Thank you 🤗
Natural Beauty where do you study? I also am first year law student. I think we can be friends:))
Same my mock exam with a 30 mark q on this is tomorrow!!
@@ljlkhagvajargaltumurbaatar9865 hey mate how's it going now
Thank you for helping me with my common law essay! :)
Recommended by our school from the Philippines 🇵🇭:) Thanks.
Ethics cannot be based on popularity but law must be.
Excellent proof that the idea of government is a religion.
Nice and helpful. Thank you sir.
This is a great resource! Thank you for sharing it really gave me a good understanding of the some of the relationship between law and morality.
Great understanding ! Thank you 😁😁.
Wonderful work
Thanks so much... This video has helped a lot .
It's a really good summary and clear talking. Understanding what you say is really important for me as a nonnative speaker.
Morality is best understood as a personal understanding of best practices. Ethics is formalized and/or shared morality.
Beautifully explained, Thank you.
My opinion that I’ve been forming lately is laws should be in place to keep the individual free as possible. Laws should protect other people from taking our natural rights. For example murder theft and rape would be wrong because you are exploiting an individual rights. Things like drugs, gay marriage, and freedom of thought and speech should be legal because they are not exploiting the freedoms of others. I’m still on the fence about abortion because I’m not 100% sure if it can be murder or not. It depends on the case. The government should not take away civil liberties based on religion or believes. Even though you think something is wrong it is not exploiting your rights. You can still practice religion but it can not make its way to law. Separation of church and state.
@@somebody700 The guy's model is sound, I'd think. Im currently writing a PhD thesis on the topic (to put it crudely and broadly) of criminal law, morality, and emotion. There have been many models defining the questions you have raised. For example, the concept of harm to others and what exactly constitutes harm is expounded upon by Joel Feinberg in his 4-volume series (1980s I think).
Multiple competing religious philosophies cause friction and sometimes violence in multiple societies. It's the same with ideologies as a whole in which religions can be classed under. Diametrical opposing values cannot exist forever in the same space if both have high rate of spread, influence or self growth. Eventually people will butt heads. All the situation needs is a match to set things off. History shows this over and over again. Still people continue to pretend like this isn't a problem so it just keeps happening and innocent people keep getting hurt. The goal should be protect individual liberties but not at the cost of social cohesion or societal trust.
Found this looking for further clarification on Devlin's disintegration theory. It helped. Thank you
good one😍
Thank yo so much for this
Thank you for your work!! This was extremely helpful!
Great video
this was actually amazing, thank you.
Very helpful, thank you
Good video for my test today on law and morality...thanks mate, haha. 😅
Thank you!! The video made a lot much clearer
How would you judge the case of the German soldier's wife
The worst in that is that they're having fun.
It is a dangerous thing to confuse The Law for morality. That is to say, The Law only determines what is lawful and unlawful, not what is right and wrong. It is dangerous because, for example, as The Law of the 1950’s said gay sex was unlawful and therefore caused Alan Turing to choose castration over the potential of undergoing popular Hate Crimes in prison, the Law of tomorrow can create new situations in which other innocent people are castrated or persecuted.
What’s the details of the case
something should only be a crime if there is a victim
As Spartacus rightly said, the definition of victim is your sticking point here. In terms of the moral law, for example, Devlin would define the victim as society. Therefore, having defined that victim, you can legitimately criminalise homosexuality etc according to Devlins argument.
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c "society" cannot be a victim, a victim is always an individual
@@voluntarism335 Nevertheless, even with that qualification, victimhood is something that's very easy to conjure when it comes to crime
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c The only crime is assault, so unless you've been assaulted in some way a crime has not taken place
@@voluntarism335 The only crime should be assault? Terribly problematic I'm afraid to say. So drunk driving, speeding, arson, Disorderly behaviour, and harassment- to name only a handful of crimes that do not require assault- should all be lawful?
Thank you for the information, it is clear concise and most importantly understandable (my professor really need to have a talk with you about it XD)
Clark Timothy Smith Paul Rodriguez Helen
One thing theology taught me about law is that what is good resides in a religious spirit. Not the law #christianity
#krishnamurti too
Don't need people to think
*I
There's an ISFJ inside an ENTP
Pas de figure de style dans la phrase précédente
thankyou
Moral law exists only if it is factually true that people ought to do certain things, regardless of human belief. If it is factually true that people ought to do certain things, is truth a dead thing?
I don't see where you have made the connection between truth and behavior, but just because someone is supposed to do something morally, does not necessarily mean there is no truth, if anything (putting aside the is-ought problem) if you can successfully demonstrate that people ought to behave in a specific way, then you would prove the opposite, that moral truth does exist, not just that, you would prove that some kind of absolute truth exists, because you would have a factual and objective basis for why humans must act in a certain way.
nice boots lol
THE LAW is only Legal 'IF... And ONLY' IF IT'S "MORAL".. Its so so so simple. There's only 10 commandments to follow, so just follow them !!!. All the small print and legal B. S was only written by another (most likely) man accoto his privelladged life experiences and the influence of his also privaledged friends that have up to now always been from the same club that they produced.!!!!. So all you do is follow Good morals.
lsbu gang wya
halatang reroke ang ilong