This guy came to my high school and from his 20 min talk, I immediately wanted to pursue law. I graduated this year and I am now going to be admitted to the bar next March 2020. Thank you Mohsen for inspiring us all. Respect.
@@aukalender Protect individuals from them selves haha... Sounds like a LAW that benefits psychiatric institutions and grants them money in order to survive their technocratic and communist anti-freedom concepts.
THIS! Is why all female lawyers my firm has made a partner has goofed up to the point of no return. Priorities, Ladies. Not Pecs. Not Biceps. Prioritized, channeled and undivided attention here! Are you IN Law school? Do act this way during a lecture on some of the most important information you may EVER hear?? Or do you just SEE his biceps? For f*cks sake, look at his lips! How about sucking on those with hi....
My notes: 1:01 2:10 - Harm can mean different things 3:16 3:45 4:15 - Natural law defines what gives law validity 5:16 - Moral authority came from three sources (religion, intellectual, natural origin)
7:00 Morality does not need imposing. No sane person who is raised in a nurting environment will see violence and theft as a effective medium to get what they want. It only identifies that which is true - therefore that which is universal - therefore that which needs to be protected. The question of what system that would be to protect people - or resolve conflicts of breaches of natural law is in question as well. If we are to have any integrity - we first must start with one basic principle: That this system would first have to be predicated on voluntary action. NOT coercion.
I have several questions. First, when he says society, he is ultimately speaking about a collection of individuals. What draws a differentiation between laws of an individual and laws of a society if they address the same thing? Also, we may agree that morality is subjective (I personally don't), but what we actually mean by that is that we subscribe to different moral codes, them being perhaps not consistent with moral truths. We account for this by inwardly or outwardly stating that their moral codes are morally truthful insofar as they don't harm you. This presupposes a fundamental natural law upon which all innate morals take root. Why do we insist that "morality" is subjective? What do we mean by that?
@MCPretzelM999 Good question. Subjective morality is a technique of control used by the ruling class and other parasites in order to keep slaves in line. Natural Law and objective morality are synonymous.
Replace harm with consent and you're there. One can consent to be harmed (a boxing match) but one cannot consent to have their consent violated. It is the violation of consent that is the breach of natural law. Legislation violates natural law as it is backed by intimidation and force. Likewise it is not sex that is the criminal aspect of rape but the violation of consent, just as democracy violates the consent of the minority and those who don't wish to be ruled against their will.
Let's suppose a young girl consents to you injecting her with heroin. Is it then moral for you to for you to inject her with heroin? Given the fact that we know this will likely completely destroy her life, it is immoral. This demonstrates that consent is not the ultimate standard for morality.
I am a big admirer of those who make natural law a subordinate to their morality. The concept of natural law is the core of American Constitution. The opponent of natural law is social justice.
The first weakness is his theory is that it increases the tax burden on us? How does coercive taxation fit into natural law? Humans are born free and act as they please without encroaching on person or property. Taxation violates this principle. Not the other way around.
I personally believe that laws and morals should be separate entirely, a Mill said. Life, liberty and property are protected under the law, but morality is an individual concept.
You cannot separate them. Why should property be protected under law? That's a moral position you have and others don't (communists, feudalists, etc). Why should liberty be protected under law? That's a moral position you have that others don't (Nazis, I don't disagree with you, because you are correct that only life liberty and property should be protected. But your logic is flawed. Your conclusion contradicts your premise. Mill was pretty bad ass 😁. His arguments for free speech are impenetrable.
God, I wish every video on UA-cam was redacted so elegantly. Or at all for that matter. Well done on the lecture but especially well done on the production.
@Scottles293 Ultimately, the issues are so very much more complex than the way you have framed them. But yes a part of the struggle lies between universal access to healthcare versus financial expedience.
He had some good points. I did not even think about J.S. Mill theory like in terms of its weaknesses. He really broke down how natural law is viewed in relation to morality. However, he focuses a lot on morals and I find it difficult to describe morals. As I have argued, everyone has different morals; what is moral for me may not be moral for you and causes me to question the law because if it is based in morality then of course, the law is very subjective. Thus, it begs the question whether there is a common moral code in society.
I rebuke the fact that you found it necessary to call me a fool. I was simply just questioning the law and its relationship to morality. I appreciate a good discussion but no need to be disrespectful. We all have the right to have different views and I simply shared mine. Life is all about a learning experience. Religion is not a discussion I would ever get into with anyone because some people use religion as the basis for their moral code. Yes, I agree that morality has to do with what is right and what is wrong but as I have indicated, not everyone thinks of the harm, whether physical or psychological, that will be brought to a person if they carry out a specific action. They may have intended a different outcome with their actions which may not necessarily be to hurt someone or something. Human emotion has a lot to deal with how someone reacts or the action someone decides to take which is natural. Note well, not everyone shares the same beliefs so don't be fooled. I am sure that there have been judgements in law that you, yourself, find morally wrong, but based upon the facts and other factors surrounding an incident, it is left up to man to decide whether or not it was wrong or right. You seem to be living in a utopia but human behaviour is not perfect. People struggle everyday with morality; simply trying to decide whether their actions were right or wrong. That is the meat of the matter. Why do people find it ok to break into my house or car and steal from me? Take what I have worked hard for over a period of time and they take it from me in a day? In their minds, that is what is natural to them. You and I will condemn them for their actions but to them that was the only way they could feed their families. Trust me the criminals out here are not thinking about what they deem right or wrong; they are thinking about survival and that it is what comes natural to them and that goes for the white-collar criminals as well. Yes, I agree in a perfect world morals come from nature and yes, I believe that it should be inherent in everyone i.e. knowing right from wrong but how then do you explain crime, corruption, economic loss, bankruptcy, terrorism, infidelity, etc.?
Who defines what is moral & immoral at this time? The rulers. You are ruled, have no illusions. -> Laws should be obeyed if the law aligns with that particular morality. Whose particular morality should the law be attempted to be aligned with? Your own? The state? Someone else? Law enforcement? I found that what was taught in the law classes that I attended, had virtually no bearing on what goes on in reality. In reality, there are members of society that are _above_ the law, because they help to influence the law and are powerful. Right there, any theory of law is flipped on its head and is confusing.
Trang Wuong my understanding is that morals are cultivated by customs..what is morally right in your society isn't in mine.while laws could be a universal creature motivated by a common cause..ie international law. Sometimes something that is morally right is not always legal and vice versa. Legislators are the ones in the driving seat and they are the ones that can be stirred into the immoral paths.
Connor, I imagine that you would mean that morality can be "objectified," not necessarily objective. Morals are not tangible objects that can be empirically proven. Rather, it is an abstract, interior volition that matures in objective, verbal expression. The source of morality is not objective; I would argue it is subjective. Just because morality can be shared does not necessarily make it objective--but it may make it objectified (or reified).
People can only take so much responsibility though, if one has no options to eat unhealthy food, due to income or where they live, they can hardly be expected to eat healthy and take responsibility for their health. So is it the choices one makes or the choices that are given to them? Individual liberties and individual responsibility can only be taken into account is if everyone is on the same level.
The bigger the state, the easier it becomes to neglect personal responsibility. This only breeds contempt towards each other. Very little good comes from it. This is why society is in such decay.
TBH. LOVE is the Law, the only Law over all. It goes by Do no harm(feminine aspect) and take no shit(masculine) aspect. And the proper balancing of the two WILL bring about a synthesis of Love. That's NATURAL LAW. *drops mic*
What about not having laws at all? If natural law is REAL then doesn't that mean the universe will impose such law and the consequences of not behaving in accordance with the natural law? Wouldn't natural law itself be objective?
there are natural consequences if start defy natural law`s created by God Himself in the face of earthquakes ,tornado`s, tsunami`s and many other soul shaking punishments.
People get offended when others don't live up their values and expectations. This is called, "Eating the fruit of judgement". Forgiveness is spitting the fruit out and grace is not letting your judgement get under your skin. Mercy is getting offended, not forgiving but then handing out a suspended sentence. This is the lesson spoken of in the Garden of Eden. It's a story about taking responsibility for your own emotions but it was hijacked and twisted into an obedience lesson. Obedience is for children and slaves. Free adults don't need anyone to tell them how to live. They can see for themselves that the fruit makes them bitter inside and can decide to eat it or not but if they do, then they own their decision and take responsibility for it. The church, which is an early form of government turned that lesson into an obedience lesson and then capitalized on it and brought in the concept that you could pay a price for the offense instead of requiring the victim take responsibility for their own judgement and the emotions attached to them. Their concept is called a trade and this is the context in which the courts operate. An equal trade is what they call justice.
3:50 - Natural law is acknowledging the fact that there are moral laws DESPITE your subjective definitions on whats right and wrong. No sane individual wants their possesions to be stolen from them, to have anyone club them in the head. Natural Law simply seeks to explain that which IS by looking at empirical evidence and examing morality with logic. To identify TRUTH and truth is UNIVERSAL. It is in DIRECT opposition to moral relativism.
To say that morality is only subjective, takes out the deeper understanding and the true responsibility humans have to themselves and others. If we took the steps to teach everyone that morality also is objective, we did not need to have a government in the sense we have today. This is maybe utopia to think like this, but i think it is possible.
Would you then agree that individual liberties and social programs are inversely correlative? The excerpt is hypothetical and it explains why a seatbelt law would be imposed; there are plenty of people that believe they should have the right to eat whatever they want in Canada, yet they go to public hospitals and utilize social health. In addition, there are instances (such as welfare or health) where individual liberties to health and subsistence are founded by the collective responsibilities.
Law as a Moral System The state is a law structure, and every law structure is inescapably a religious establishment. All law is an expression of some form of moral order, codified and made legal by acts of state. Moral order rests on a concept of ultimate order, on a theology. The source of law in any system is the god of that system, in that law-making is an attribute of sovereignty. This ’god’ can be man, the state, or some other entity which is made ultimate and sovereign, and is thus the working ‘god’ of the system. Every law on the statue books is concerned with morality or with the procedures for the enforcement of law, and all law is concerned with morality. We may disagree with the morality of the law, but we cannot deny the moral concern of law. Law is concerned with right and wrong; it punishes and restrains evil and protects the good, and this is exactly what morality is about. It is impossible to have law without having morality behind that law, because all law is simply enacted morality. The point is this: all law is enacted morality and presupposes a moral system, a moral law, and all morality presupposes a religion as its foundation. Law rests on morality, and morality on religion. Whenever and wherever you weaken the religious foundations of a country or people, you then weaken the morality also, and you take away the foundation of its law. The result is the progressive collapse of the law and order, and the breakdown of society. - R.J. Rushdoony
hawk8403 Religion in this sense is anything which holds ultimate authority. So the morality of the wolf pack is derived from its religion of leadership, in primitive humans it would have been something similar.
Although the grand-scale practise of social programs requires respective liberal compromise, there is nothing logical that stipulates the impossibility of the seat-belt example. The speaker is simply highlighting the rationale behind laws that enter the private sphere for the sake of public interest; the laws prevent people from utilizing social programs without partaking in taxes and laws which uphold these programs (i.e., a tax evader using a road that was built by the state).
People get offended when others don't live up their values and expectations. This is called, "Eating the fruit of judgement". Forgiveness is spitting the fruit out and grace is not letting your judgement get under your skin. Mercy is getting offended, not forgiving but then handing out a suspended sentence. This is the lesson spoken of in the Garden of Eden. It's a story about taking responsibility for your own emotions but it was hijacked and twisted into an obedience lesson. Obedience is for children and slaves. Free adults don't need anyone to tell them how to live. They can see for themselves that the fruit makes them bitter inside and can decide to eat it or not but if they do, then they own their decision and take responsibility for it. The church, which is an early form of government turned that lesson into an obedience lesson and and capitalized on it and brought in the concept that you could pay a price for it. This is called a trade and this is the context in which the cots operate. An equal trade is what they call justice.
Objective morality would be like objective truth... disagreements upon it would no more hinder eithers objectivity no more than a mad man contending 'apples fall up' would undermine the validity of the theory of gravity.
That’s why it’s against the moral law to imprison people who aren’t sick ...because they don’t pose a threat and the first instance of harm would be then committed by the law itself. If we let this happen the law itself becomes the tool that is used by society to harm individuals... The law is a double edged sword that cuts both ways .....
His problem is, he is assuming in his lecture that objective morality MUST BE enforced by the law of the land - No it does not! But subjective morality is still no bases for building a good society. In fact its dangerous!
There are many people that believe in natural law by this definition. Al'quida believes in natural law. They look to what they consider a holy book to determine what law should be. Boko Haram, a group which captured I think over 100 female children to sell them into sex slavery agrees with this view of natural law. They look to a book which they believe to be holy to determine what law should be. There is a reason why we don't base laws on holy books. Most of them are absently evil (look at deuteronomy chapter 13) and who gets to pick the book and how it will be imposed? You would immediately recognize it as oppression if someone from another religion says that you must abide by their religion, yet you want to do the same to them. People who want "natural law", a euphemism for theocracy, hate more than anything someone enforcing a religion they don't believe in on them. Yet, what do they want to do? They are the perfect embodiment of that which they hate most.
I know this is off topic so can any one in here recommend a Judicial Review experienced Lawyer in Nth Island Auckland City NZ Im aware of just 1''''I'd really appreciate any recommendations '' '' hope this was helpful and I hope UA-cam doesn't shadow ban this comment from public or private views '' '' 'Respectfully Mizaan'Adela AKALena
"This is going to have an impact on our collective tax burden..." This is where I get off the crazy train. Statist opinions have no place in Natural Law theory.
but,maybe even if its is subjective, we should act as if it is real or objective, a necessary lie to follow and obey ,simply for the sake of having laws that are subjective, just as dreams are not ''real'' and yet exist as exactly as they are..dreams.unsubstantial, but still important or ''meaningful'' for those who experience them.a good bluff or repeated lie, is a fact, in a philosophical, and even legal sense.
Listen carefully. Listen for words like, the collective, our society, others, shared, government rights... The individual is left out. Why? BTW... the government does not have any Rights. It has privileges , that the people, with Rights have given it.
this is all new age bullshit,. your body is your property no one can hurt you or decide what goes into your body an immoral action is an action that hurts another being, so that covers everything
Natural law.. not legalese maritime corporate fiction of authority., Be free., don’t contract with the corrupt legalese BS.. when asked.. “do you understand?” Always answer “No” You don’t “stand” “under” maritime legislation..
Do you know our biological clock is ticking, and it sets a certain time for our resting time, but our system times where we live, do everything to limit our time. Some are fortunate just to have all the things the system brings to break down one system. Different from those who take life risks, and what the system might work to do to take some out of existence. Then we have doctors who know what's going on, but they have a different agenda with other people's lives. Once we understand it all, we have the deniers who never want to face the truth about how the world really is. Who really knows the truth, but will go with wrong because the fear in them is too strong. Those are the reasons life stays wrong, who watched all the pain going on, and play a part so proud to be accepted by wrong. It's not hard to figure out what is going on. Sellouts.
He's saying, they're saying...and so on.....What are you saying? What do you stand for? Your example about a person crashing and getting more hurt without using a seatbelt and costing more money to the Healthcare system is flawed as how does the same law not apply to those not wearing helmets when riding motorcycles? Laws are not absolute, they change with the times and situations or new findings, therefore laws are essentially relative and never absolute. The only constant is change and that applies to laws, morality and so on....That's my thoughts....share yours?! Discussing what other people's beliefs are without sharing your own theory is plain and I'm sorry to say it does not enlighten me.
Why is he saying that "Natural" Laws com from anything besides nature? And why is he saying that "group" morality could somehow apply to a law found in nature? This is laughable. I can only imagine how this course finishes up. By selectively skirting around "attributes" of Natural Law, I'm sure he also doesn't understand how Natural Law, created through reason, creates freedom equality and peace. This has "Social Justice" written all over it. If this guy was "teaching" Natural Law, he would be referring to the Enlightenment and what Natural Law actually SAYS. But you can tell the students are just baffled and confused, so he's done his job. Haha.
Law's are all about money thats all and I don't believe in law's just live Life liberty and pursuit of happiness under God's laws and the sapream Court tell you that you have the right to freedom and free movement it's like what you eat enjoy whaer and think and we have the right to travel in a automobile to get From point a to point b without being daprived by a fake system we have a chose to go about our life's everyday enjoyment of life
![Natural Law and Positive Law in the American System [No. 86 LECTURE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4vAXv7ndvw0/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy came to my high school and from his 20 min talk, I immediately wanted to pursue law. I graduated this year and I am now going to be admitted to the bar next March 2020. Thank you Mohsen for inspiring us all. Respect.
So cool to hear you are being admitted to the bar ! All the best
@@lorriane9895 thank you so much, it was lovely x
So inspiring!! Congratulation!
@@alexandradenommee9493 thank you so much, really do appreciate it 🙂
@Pat Luxor what the hell are you talking about
The purpose of law is not only to protect society from harm but also protect individuals from harm from society.
@mynameisauk And what if those individuals do not want the protection?
@@BearSoetero Then law must protect individuals from themselves.
@@aukalender Protect individuals from them selves haha... Sounds like a LAW that benefits psychiatric institutions and grants them money in order to survive their technocratic and communist anti-freedom concepts.
very clear explanation yet i find it hard to focus - this guy is an eye candy :)
Lana Lawrenson Same thoughts hehe :)
Clearly my attention is at his arms, the sweater is trying hard to contain it. :)
THIS! Is why all female lawyers my firm has made a partner has goofed up to the point of no return. Priorities, Ladies. Not Pecs. Not Biceps. Prioritized, channeled and undivided attention here!
Are you IN Law school? Do act this way during a lecture on some of the most important information you may EVER hear?? Or do you just SEE his biceps?
For f*cks sake, look at his lips! How about sucking on those with hi....
chill
XD
Came across this just looking at stuff for my A-Level law exam. This is actually really good and makes brilliant points about law and morality.
My notes:
1:01
2:10 - Harm can mean different things
3:16
3:45
4:15 - Natural law defines what gives law validity
5:16 - Moral authority came from three sources (religion, intellectual, natural origin)
7:00 Morality does not need imposing. No sane person who is raised in a nurting environment will see violence and theft as a effective medium to get what they want. It only identifies that which is true - therefore that which is universal - therefore that which needs to be protected. The question of what system that would be to protect people - or resolve conflicts of breaches of natural law is in question as well. If we are to have any integrity - we first must start with one basic principle: That this system would first have to be predicated on voluntary action. NOT coercion.
I have several questions. First, when he says society, he is ultimately speaking about a collection of individuals. What draws a differentiation between laws of an individual and laws of a society if they address the same thing? Also, we may agree that morality is subjective (I personally don't), but what we actually mean by that is that we subscribe to different moral codes, them being perhaps not consistent with moral truths. We account for this by inwardly or outwardly stating that their moral codes are morally truthful insofar as they don't harm you. This presupposes a fundamental natural law upon which all innate morals take root. Why do we insist that "morality" is subjective? What do we mean by that?
@MCPretzelM999 Good question. Subjective morality is a technique of control used by the ruling class and other parasites in order to keep slaves in line. Natural Law and objective morality are synonymous.
Replace harm with consent and you're there. One can consent to be harmed (a boxing match) but one cannot consent to have their consent violated. It is the violation of consent that is the breach of natural law. Legislation violates natural law as it is backed by intimidation and force. Likewise it is not sex that is the criminal aspect of rape but the violation of consent, just as democracy violates the consent of the minority and those who don't wish to be ruled against their will.
I think you have put it properly, thank you.
+Namaste1001 So then what is law ??
if it is not a behavioural code that is sourced in a particular morality
+Namaste1001 I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain it a little more ?
Let's suppose a young girl consents to you injecting her with heroin. Is it then moral for you to for you to inject her with heroin? Given the fact that we know this will likely completely destroy her life, it is immoral. This demonstrates that consent is not the ultimate standard for morality.
@@Tdisputations
>This demonstrates that consent is not the ultimate standard for morality.
It is the standard by which the use of force is justified.
After reading conventional law I remember how it does not recognise love and affection so as to keep emotions in check
Everyone loves how this guy explained well, but no one (except me) appreciates the cameraman who followed the guy all throughout the video.
I am a big admirer of those who make natural law a subordinate to their morality. The concept of natural law is the core of American Constitution. The opponent of natural law is social justice.
The first weakness is his theory is that it increases the tax burden on us? How does coercive taxation fit into natural law? Humans are born free and act as they please without encroaching on person or property. Taxation violates this principle. Not the other way around.
See David McKillop's answers to samuelbentorah's questions in the comment section.
***** haha, know the feeling
(about growing pessimistic about the "our species")
I personally believe that laws and morals should be separate entirely, a Mill said. Life, liberty and property are protected under the law, but morality is an individual concept.
Accurate
Any man or women can do an evil act
+31T3 1337 N008 thats actually criticism towards the natural law itself
You cannot separate them. Why should property be protected under law? That's a moral position you have and others don't (communists, feudalists, etc). Why should liberty be protected under law? That's a moral position you have that others don't (Nazis,
I don't disagree with you, because you are correct that only life liberty and property should be protected. But your logic is flawed. Your conclusion contradicts your premise.
Mill was pretty bad ass 😁. His arguments for free speech are impenetrable.
Can anybody explain what Socrates theory is on natural law theory
Very well spoken. Very nice complementary to Mark Passios work on Natural Law and The Great Work
@Jake Neva How so? This guy seems to think morality is relative which it clearly is not.
this guy is a genius simply put
Where can I get full lecture?
i actually think that he should be my future law professor lol
+GLORIA SHEEN My university is always recruiting!
He is brilliant. I learned a bit if law in social worker course
Thanks Eve! I am thrilled you find the videos helpful.
I claim veto power; I don't consent.
"Force without consent creates injustice".
This comment is more valid now than ever
which university in NZ do you teach at?
I leanred alot from this thatnk you senpai san I love these vidzzz
This video help me to understand better especially i'm a foundation of law student. Thank you
God, I wish every video on UA-cam was redacted so elegantly. Or at all for that matter. Well done on the lecture but especially well done on the production.
@Scottles293 Ultimately, the issues are so very much more complex than the way you have framed them. But yes a part of the struggle lies between universal access to healthcare versus financial expedience.
2:31 - This is a poor example. Welfare/Healthcare funded through taxation is a breach on Natural Law in the first place.
Capitalism poses the initial attack on natural law.
The part where he talks about the seat belt is a perfect argument AGAINST healthcare.
@Monstrous Entertainment Seat belt laws and the very idea that a government can provide care for someone's health is preposterous.
Look around at what exactly?
great job brother
Compared to Positivism, NL is the only theory that actually puts some theoretical limits on the power of law.
NL is the only law.
He had some good points. I did not even think about J.S. Mill theory like in terms of its weaknesses. He really broke down how natural law is viewed in relation to morality.
However, he focuses a lot on morals and I find it difficult to describe morals. As I have argued, everyone has different morals; what is moral for me may not be moral for you and causes me to question the law because if it is based in morality then of course, the law is very subjective. Thus, it begs the question whether there is a common moral code in society.
I rebuke the fact that you found it necessary to call me a fool. I was simply just questioning the law and its relationship to morality. I appreciate a good discussion but no need to be disrespectful. We all have the right to have different views and I simply shared mine. Life is all about a learning experience. Religion is not a discussion I would ever get into with anyone because some people use religion as the basis for their moral code. Yes, I agree that morality has to do with what is right and what is wrong but as I have indicated, not everyone thinks of the harm, whether physical or psychological, that will be brought to a person if they carry out a specific action. They may have intended a different outcome with their actions which may not necessarily be to hurt someone or something. Human emotion has a lot to deal with how someone reacts or the action someone decides to take which is natural. Note well, not everyone shares the same beliefs so don't be fooled. I am sure that there have been judgements in law that you, yourself, find morally wrong, but based upon the facts and other factors surrounding an incident, it is left up to man to decide whether or not it was wrong or right.
You seem to be living in a utopia but human behaviour is not perfect. People struggle everyday with morality; simply trying to decide whether their actions were right or wrong. That is the meat of the matter. Why do people find it ok to break into my house or car and steal from me? Take what I have worked hard for over a period of time and they take it from me in a day? In their minds, that is what is natural to them. You and I will condemn them for their actions but to them that was the only way they could feed their families. Trust me the criminals out here are not thinking about what they deem right or wrong; they are thinking about survival and that it is what comes natural to them and that goes for the white-collar criminals as well.
Yes, I agree in a perfect world morals come from nature and yes, I believe that it should be inherent in everyone i.e. knowing right from wrong but how then do you explain crime, corruption, economic loss, bankruptcy, terrorism, infidelity, etc.?
Super helpful thank you!! Sums up the basics of most of the topics in my Jurisprudence paper.
Thanks for doing my homework for me
Haha! That wasn't the aim.
i LIKED THIS VIDEO... THIS LECTURER IS GOOD.. helped me quite a bit with nat law prt.. any continuation of this topic??? if so plz upload... thank u!!
Thank you, this is so essential.
Who defines what is moral & immoral at this time? The rulers. You are ruled, have no illusions.
-> Laws should be obeyed if the law aligns with that particular morality.
Whose particular morality should the law be attempted to be aligned with? Your own? The state? Someone else? Law enforcement?
I found that what was taught in the law classes that I attended, had virtually no bearing on what goes on in reality. In reality, there are members of society that are _above_ the law, because they help to influence the law and are powerful. Right there, any theory of law is flipped on its head and is confusing.
Trang Wuong my understanding is that morals are cultivated by customs..what is morally right in your society isn't in mine.while laws could be a universal creature motivated by a common cause..ie international law.
Sometimes something that is morally right is not always legal and vice versa. Legislators are the ones in the driving seat and they are the ones that can be stirred into the immoral paths.
can someone tell me what is nature of law ?
One law of nature is if you drink too much you get 🤢.
Connor, I imagine that you would mean that morality can be "objectified," not necessarily objective. Morals are not tangible objects that can be empirically proven. Rather, it is an abstract, interior volition that matures in objective, verbal expression. The source of morality is not objective; I would argue it is subjective. Just because morality can be shared does not necessarily make it objective--but it may make it objectified (or reified).
People can only take so much responsibility though, if one has no options to eat unhealthy food, due to income or where they live, they can hardly be expected to eat healthy and take responsibility for their health. So is it the choices one makes or the choices that are given to them? Individual liberties and individual responsibility can only be taken into account is if everyone is on the same level.
I generally agree that people should take responsibility for their actions, but this is often (unfortunately) not the case.
The bigger the state, the easier it becomes to neglect personal responsibility. This only breeds contempt towards each other. Very little good comes from it. This is why society is in such decay.
TBH. LOVE is the Law, the only Law over all. It goes by Do no harm(feminine aspect) and take no shit(masculine) aspect. And the proper balancing of the two WILL bring about a synthesis of Love. That's NATURAL LAW. *drops mic*
Lord Fazoolz
the only law is see written, drops mic = law
Anarchy is not chaos. Its no rulers , not rules. Natural law is preferrable even though it to is socially constructed.
What about not having laws at all? If natural law is REAL then doesn't that mean the universe will impose such law and the consequences of not behaving in accordance with the natural law? Wouldn't natural law itself be objective?
there are natural consequences if start defy natural law`s created by God Himself in the face of earthquakes ,tornado`s, tsunami`s and many other soul shaking punishments.
People get offended when others don't live up their values and expectations.
This is called, "Eating the fruit of judgement".
Forgiveness is spitting the fruit out and grace is not letting your judgement get under your skin. Mercy is getting offended, not forgiving but then handing out a suspended sentence.
This is the lesson spoken of in the Garden of Eden. It's a story about taking responsibility for your own emotions but it was hijacked and twisted into an obedience lesson.
Obedience is for children and slaves. Free adults don't need anyone to tell them how to live. They can see for themselves that the fruit makes them bitter inside and can decide to eat it or not but if they do, then they own their decision and take responsibility for it.
The church, which is an early form of government turned that lesson into an obedience lesson and then capitalized on it and brought in the concept that you could pay a price for the offense instead of requiring the victim take responsibility for their own judgement and the emotions attached to them.
Their concept is called a trade and this is the context in which the courts operate. An equal trade is what they call justice.
3:50 - Natural law is acknowledging the fact that there are moral laws DESPITE your subjective definitions on whats right and wrong. No sane individual wants their possesions to be stolen from them, to have anyone club them in the head. Natural Law simply seeks to explain that which IS by looking at empirical evidence and examing morality with logic. To identify TRUTH and truth is UNIVERSAL. It is in DIRECT opposition to moral relativism.
To say that morality is only subjective, takes out the deeper understanding and the true responsibility humans have to themselves and others. If we took the steps to teach everyone that morality also is objective, we did not need to have a government in the sense we have today. This is maybe utopia to think like this, but i think it is possible.
Would you then agree that individual liberties and social programs are inversely correlative? The excerpt is hypothetical and it explains why a seatbelt law would be imposed; there are plenty of people that believe they should have the right to eat whatever they want in Canada, yet they go to public hospitals and utilize social health. In addition, there are instances (such as welfare or health) where individual liberties to health and subsistence are founded by the collective responsibilities.
He is one intelligent man!
Law as a Moral System
The state is a law structure, and every law structure is inescapably a religious establishment. All law is an expression of some form of moral order, codified and made legal by acts of state. Moral order rests on a concept of ultimate order, on a theology. The source of law in any system is the god of that system, in that law-making is an attribute of sovereignty. This ’god’ can be man, the state, or some other entity which is made ultimate and sovereign, and is thus the working ‘god’ of the system.
Every law on the statue books is concerned with morality or with the procedures for the enforcement of law, and all law is concerned with morality. We may disagree with the morality of the law, but we cannot deny the moral concern of law. Law is concerned with right and wrong; it punishes and restrains evil and protects the good, and this is exactly what morality is about. It is impossible to have law without having morality behind that law, because all law is simply enacted morality.
The point is this: all law is enacted morality and presupposes a moral system, a moral law, and all morality presupposes a religion as its foundation. Law rests on morality, and morality on religion. Whenever and wherever you weaken the religious foundations of a country or people, you then weaken the morality also, and you take away the foundation of its law. The result is the progressive collapse of the law and order, and the breakdown of society.
- R.J. Rushdoony
Ragnar Lokison All morality is derived from religion? Then where did we get morality before we created religion?
hawk8403 Religion in this sense is anything which holds ultimate authority. So the morality of the wolf pack is derived from its religion of leadership, in primitive humans it would have been something similar.
+hawk8403 ah ha!
Although the grand-scale practise of social programs requires respective liberal compromise, there is nothing logical that stipulates the impossibility of the seat-belt example. The speaker is simply highlighting the rationale behind laws that enter the private sphere for the sake of public interest; the laws prevent people from utilizing social programs without partaking in taxes and laws which uphold these programs (i.e., a tax evader using a road that was built by the state).
I love this lecture
People get offended when others don't live up their values and expectations.
This is called, "Eating the fruit of judgement".
Forgiveness is spitting the fruit out and grace is not letting your judgement get under your skin. Mercy is getting offended, not forgiving but then handing out a suspended sentence.
This is the lesson spoken of in the Garden of Eden. It's a story about taking responsibility for your own emotions but it was hijacked and twisted into an obedience lesson.
Obedience is for children and slaves. Free adults don't need anyone to tell them how to live. They can see for themselves that the fruit makes them bitter inside and can decide to eat it or not but if they do, then they own their decision and take responsibility for it.
The church, which is an early form of government turned that lesson into an obedience lesson and and capitalized on it and brought in the concept that you could pay a price for it. This is called a trade and this is the context in which the cots operate. An equal trade is what they call justice.
Objective morality would be like objective truth...
disagreements upon it would no more hinder eithers objectivity no more than a mad man contending 'apples fall up' would undermine the validity of the theory of gravity.
That’s why it’s against the moral law to imprison people who aren’t sick ...because they don’t pose a threat and the first instance of harm would be then committed by the law itself.
If we let this happen the law itself becomes the tool that is used by society to harm individuals...
The law is a double edged sword that cuts both ways .....
I can't concentrate....he is literally the spitting image of my father ahaha XD
That cough was tooooo way Strong
You are excellent! Thanks for your good-effort. :-)
"...our collective tax burden". You just violated the rights of everyone.
Oooo...clever retort. :)
And statement of fact.
The editing makes this lecture seem self-contradictory.
His problem is, he is assuming in his lecture that objective morality MUST BE enforced by the law of the land -
No it does not!
But subjective morality is still no bases for building a good society. In fact its dangerous!
Its illegal to use a legal name. Google Legal Name Fraud.
A law or Allah?
Jamal Hunt I hope, for the sake of the world, that you are not studying law.
It sounds like he's saying Allah when he says a law.
Oh thought it may have been a racist remark. In that case I take back what I said :)
We follow the laws becau😮se we don't want to get beaten and put in jail or killed because X Over Control😢
I can't unduratand🙃🙃🙃🙃
Perhaps a little more precision and I can help out
There are many people that believe in natural law by this definition. Al'quida believes in natural law. They look to what they consider a holy book to determine what law should be. Boko Haram, a group which captured I think over 100 female children to sell them into sex slavery agrees with this view of natural law. They look to a book which they believe to be holy to determine what law should be. There is a reason why we don't base laws on holy books. Most of them are absently evil (look at deuteronomy chapter 13) and who gets to pick the book and how it will be imposed? You would immediately recognize it as oppression if someone from another religion says that you must abide by their religion, yet you want to do the same to them. People who want "natural law", a euphemism for theocracy, hate more than anything someone enforcing a religion they don't believe in on them. Yet, what do they want to do? They are the perfect embodiment of that which they hate most.
I know this is off topic so can any one in here recommend a Judicial Review experienced Lawyer in Nth Island Auckland City NZ Im aware of just 1''''I'd really appreciate any recommendations '' '' hope this was helpful and I hope UA-cam doesn't shadow ban this comment from public or private views '' '' 'Respectfully Mizaan'Adela AKALena
"This is going to have an impact on our collective tax burden..." This is where I get off the crazy train. Statist opinions have no place in Natural Law theory.
The only crime is theft period every being in the universe knows this
Well said.
Natural law isnt a theory it is a fact. Statutes are rules for slaves
stop look and STARE
but,maybe even if its is subjective, we should act as if it is real or objective, a necessary lie to follow and obey ,simply for the sake of having laws that are subjective, just as dreams are not ''real'' and yet exist as exactly as they are..dreams.unsubstantial, but still important or ''meaningful'' for those who experience them.a good bluff or repeated lie, is a fact, in a philosophical, and even legal sense.
THE LAWWWWW
That it is!
B
I need not obey.
The the laws of nature & of natures God from the Declaration of Independence - it not a theory it was gift from God
Listen carefully. Listen for words like, the collective, our society, others, shared, government rights...
The individual is left out. Why?
BTW... the government does not have any Rights. It has privileges , that the people, with Rights have given it.
Horrible argument regarding insurance. Fails to take into account that taxation itself is immoral. Anyway....
this is all new age bullshit,. your body is your property no one can hurt you or decide what goes into your body
an immoral action is an action that hurts another being, so that covers everything
Natural law.. not legalese maritime corporate fiction of authority.,
Be free., don’t contract with the corrupt legalese BS..
when asked.. “do you understand?” Always answer “No”
You don’t “stand” “under” maritime legislation..
Do you know our biological clock is ticking, and it sets a certain time for our resting time, but our system times where we live, do everything to limit our time. Some are fortunate just to have all the things the system brings to break down one system. Different from those who take life risks, and what the system might work to do to take some out of existence. Then we have doctors who know what's going on, but they have a different agenda with other people's lives. Once we understand it all, we have the deniers who never want to face the truth about how the world really is. Who really knows the truth, but will go with wrong because the fear in them is too strong. Those are the reasons life stays wrong, who watched all the pain going on, and play a part so proud to be accepted by wrong. It's not hard to figure out what is going on. Sellouts.
He's saying, they're saying...and so on.....What are you saying? What do you stand for? Your example about a person crashing and getting more hurt without using a seatbelt and costing more money to the Healthcare system is flawed as how does the same law not apply to those not wearing helmets when riding motorcycles? Laws are not absolute, they change with the times and situations or new findings, therefore laws are essentially relative and never absolute. The only constant is change and that applies to laws, morality and so on....That's my thoughts....share yours?! Discussing what other people's beliefs are without sharing your own theory is plain and I'm sorry to say it does not enlighten me.
Lex iniusta non est lex. Natural law is the only law.
Why is he saying that "Natural" Laws com from anything besides nature? And why is he saying that "group" morality could somehow apply to a law found in nature? This is laughable. I can only imagine how this course finishes up. By selectively skirting around "attributes" of Natural Law, I'm sure he also doesn't understand how Natural Law, created through reason, creates freedom equality and peace. This has "Social Justice" written all over it. If this guy was "teaching" Natural Law, he would be referring to the Enlightenment and what Natural Law actually SAYS. But you can tell the students are just baffled and confused, so he's done his job. Haha.
Wow! This dude is HOTTTTTT.
He’s so hot 😍🔥🔥🔥
ayo chile
Law's are all about money thats all and I don't believe in law's just live Life liberty and pursuit of happiness under God's laws and the sapream Court tell you that you have the right to freedom and free movement it's like what you eat enjoy whaer and think and we have the right to travel in a automobile to get From point a to point b without being daprived by a fake system we have a chose to go about our life's everyday enjoyment of life
What a bunch of positive law bullshit.
nope