Out of everyone in the world, I sincerely hope you have a great day. I'm a law student in South Africa and your videos help me understand Jurisprudence so much more. You are a blessing to law students everywhere.
I can't describe how much your concept of law videos have helped me! I have an exam tomorrow and all of our jurisprudence lectures have been online this semester (due to covid). We were left with no notes from our lecturer, and I had no understanding of these theorists until I watched your videos! Thanks again, you have a real talent for teaching and explaining concepts! :)
I and my sister were on the verge of breakdown with the initial chapters of Module guide of University of London on Jurisprudence until came across your lectures. Thanks a million Jeffrey and please continue to post more. Greetings from Pakistan
I foolishly decided to take a Philosophy of Law class by distance ed (meaning no live lectures, online or otherwise). Our instructor included this video in our reading material this week and I wish I had found your channel at the start of the semester. Thanks for uploading these - it's going to make reading and understanding the chapters easier for me!
i can't described how gratefull i am for watching your explanation about Dworkin and Hart debate, jeffrey you gonna get honour mention on my Bachelor Thesis
Ommfg thank you for your explanation of these theory. I admire both Hart and Dworkin. I want to recommend you to all students who are studying jurisprudence.
Somewhat cynically it seems at first blush, the jurist Roscoe Pound declared that "The law is what any judge in the land deems it to be at any given time." Thus, appeals could reverse trial courts' decisions, and the highest court can reverse or modify a lower court's ruling. And then there are case that are never appealed for whatever reason, including lack of funds. So there you have it in a nutshell.
Thank you for this video, I had to do a paper on the Hart-Dworkin debate and I wasn't getting anywhere (I'm not a philosophy fan) until I saw this. So thank you very much.
Hi prof! I love your jurisprudence lectures sooooooo much, thanks for your efforts!!!!!!! Just wondering if you could also cover Hart Fuller debate? That'd be amazing ❤❤
Super thanks from The Netherlands! I'm reading a text book on these topics for an introductory course. Your lectures are very helpful to make me better understand and see relationships between the diversity of theories and opinions.
As Hayek, who was in general quite favorable to Hart's position, put it in a footnote (1976): «If by 'system of rules' is understood a collection of articulated rules, this would certainly not constitute the whole law. Ronald M. Dworkin, who in an essay entitled 'Is Law a System of Rules?' (in R. S. Summers, ed., Essays in Legal Philosophy, Oxford and California, 1968) uses the term 'system' as equivalent to 'collection' (p. 52) and seems to accept only articulated rules as rules, shows convincingly that a system of rules so interpreted would be incomplete and requires for its completion what he calls 'principles'. (...) I prefer to use the term system for a body of rules that are mutually adjusted to each other and possess an order of rank, and of course I include in 'rules' not only articulated but also not yet articulated rules which are implicit in the system or have yet to be found to make the several rules consistent. Thus, while I wholly agree with the substance of Professor Dworkin's argument, I should, in my terminology, affirm that the law *is* a system (and not a mere collection) of (articulated and unarticulated) rules.»
The "rules of recognition" are explicitly mentioned in every Constitution. While the principles and values are implicit in every law, whose utility or practical applicability lies in creating a fair and just society.
🤔 Principles undoubtedly shape the legal system, but the principles are endemic to the _shapers,_ not the legal system itself. This is how you get judges making decisions that create law that is not in line with the principles of society at large, and consequently struggle to satisfy the rule of recognition. (The courts can make whatever narrow-minded judgements they like, but it doesn't matter if the rest of us simply ignore them.) This applies to the legislature as well. 🤷♂
Ingenious way of teaching. But I have the following question. Did you have to write a thesis on the Hart Dworkin debate. How would you go about it? What do you think is essential that should be included in the thesis? Do you have preferences?
Great Video. I had a question- Can Hartian judges not rely on principles directly while adjudicating the cases, even if they aren’t part of the legal system per se?
For theory of law to be solid it must explain laws in democracies and dictatorship. This is what I tell my students. Dworkin theory seemed perfect if you only consider common law systems but very difficult to apply in Nazi Germany.
Hello, thank you for the video🙏🏻 I’m just wondering what would be considered real life examples of hard cases ? I’m just having trouble deciding if the case I’m looking at is a hard case
The other day I learned from Dworking why Law in the US is so much fun! (fun for those who like philosophy). (from an interview by Bill Moyers recorded in 1987)
Loved the explanation....very clear and easy to digest. I just have to ask....I know it has to have been asked already....what about this amazing ability to write backwards? Am I missing something?! This is like Destin (smartereveryday) learning to ride is backwards bicycle. I had to watch the video twice because the first time I was too distracted at trying to figure out if there's a mirror involved somehow or if Dr. Kaplan is really writing backwards!! Will watch more for sure!!
what i understood---- dworkin says that the institutions which will take up disputes and have to make a judgment that is not driven by a pre-concieved rule, they are making a historic or landmark judgement here. this judgement is only driven by what we call Principles which are basically in the spirit of the preamble or constitution or in spirit of justice..... these principle can be ,for eg.- equality is a principle and the SC is making a historic judgment which will later make a new law which is not based over a rule but a PRINCIPLE. and this PRINCIPLE was never talked about or stipulated by Hart. Hart has failed to properly formulise the middle road between primary and secondary rules since he couldn't talk about WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN FRONT OF LAW MAKERS/ LAW AMENDERS. AM I RIGHT????
I don't see how "principles" make the "rules of recognition" fall apart. Both seem legit. To me, "principles" could be tucked into Hart's theory. Am I missing something?
Holy cow has this critique never been more relevant than in 2023-2024. I'm scared to know how future me will react to this comment that I put down, whether it'll be seen as a fluke or the beginning of the end of the rule of law.
Of course principles are part of our system of jurisprudence, at least, in the United States, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. Take for example, the Declaration of Independence. It's manifestly true that the Declaration carries no force of law, yet the principles therein described (chiefly, equality, unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc., but also a laundry list of specific offenses against the rights of Americans by the King and Parliament, many of which will eventually be specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights) are indubitably the foundational principles upon which the Constitution, the actual law, is predicated.
He talks as if a vehicle necessarily has an engine, or at least that having an engine is relevant to judging whether something is a vehicle. But a bicycle is a vehicle.
The first half of Scott Shapiro's "Legality" is a very good introduction to the discipline. Also, You can go through my Philosophy of Law course: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIYDwqvtqIHm9SOQpSeKVKU0 or just my lectures on Hart's "The Concept of Law" ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8
Jeffrey: Pet Peeve: Why don't you cover Blackstone, which contains the logic of the English and American constitutions, but you cover the philosophers who seek to circumvent that logic? This is a universal criticism of every major institution. The curriculum at the top half dozen law schools barely passes for sophistry. It's embarrassing.... ;)
Out of everyone in the world, I sincerely hope you have a great day. I'm a law student in South Africa and your videos help me understand Jurisprudence so much more. You are a blessing to law students everywhere.
Co. All the best with Fgn's test today.
goodluck for the test today UCT people 😂😭💕
You guys are literally gathered here😂🥴
This one saved lives Unathi
same, im here from argentina and this HELPS
I can't describe how much your concept of law videos have helped me! I have an exam tomorrow and all of our jurisprudence lectures have been online this semester (due to covid). We were left with no notes from our lecturer, and I had no understanding of these theorists until I watched your videos! Thanks again, you have a real talent for teaching and explaining concepts! :)
Glad I could help! Good luck with the exam tomorrow!
@@profjeffreykaplan Thank you so much!
I and my sister were on the verge of breakdown with the initial chapters of Module guide of University of London on Jurisprudence until came across your lectures. Thanks a million Jeffrey and please continue to post more.
Greetings from Pakistan
society would be so different if everyone taught law like this. thank you so much!! this is so accessible and valuable.
These videos have saved my life in understanding one of my classes for my degree thank you so much!
I love the way you explain things. So simple and clear. Thank you soooo much
Thanks for the kind words. You're welcome!
I foolishly decided to take a Philosophy of Law class by distance ed (meaning no live lectures, online or otherwise). Our instructor included this video in our reading material this week and I wish I had found your channel at the start of the semester. Thanks for uploading these - it's going to make reading and understanding the chapters easier for me!
i can't described how gratefull i am for watching your explanation about Dworkin and Hart debate, jeffrey you gonna get honour mention on my Bachelor Thesis
You are single handedly saving me in my current courses.
Thank you so much for all Concept of Law videos, made so much sense and ive grasped the concept, just because of you.
Thanks again.
You're very welcome!
oh this is the best explanation of dworkin's criticism i've come across.
Ommfg thank you for your explanation of these theory. I admire both Hart and Dworkin. I want to recommend you to all students who are studying jurisprudence.
Excellent explanation! Clear, concise and easy to understand.
Thank you for the kind words! Glad you liked it.
Somewhat cynically it seems at first blush, the jurist Roscoe Pound declared that "The law is what any judge in the land deems it to be at any given time." Thus, appeals could reverse trial courts' decisions, and the highest court can reverse or modify a lower court's ruling. And then there are case that are never appealed for whatever reason, including lack of funds. So there you have it in a nutshell.
Thank you for this video, I had to do a paper on the Hart-Dworkin debate and I wasn't getting anywhere (I'm not a philosophy fan) until I saw this. So thank you very much.
Glad to help!
Hey, thank you for the help! I was struggling with my essay and this has helped so much!
Glad this was helpful!
Hi prof! I love your jurisprudence lectures sooooooo much, thanks for your efforts!!!!!!! Just wondering if you could also cover Hart Fuller debate? That'd be amazing ❤❤
Ok, I’ll be the one to ask. How is he writing facing himself but it’s also facing the viewer?
Brilliantly explained! Top class teaching.
You are simply outstanding mate. Your teaching ability is as good as it gets. All the best.
Super thanks from The Netherlands! I'm reading a text book on these topics for an introductory course. Your lectures are very helpful to make me better understand and see relationships between the diversity of theories and opinions.
Wow this video deserves more likes …thank you so much Jeffrey for making me pass my philosophy of law exams 👍🙏🏼
You saved me one day before my exams: thanks Jeffrey 😍
As Hayek, who was in general quite favorable to Hart's position, put it in a footnote (1976): «If by 'system of rules' is understood a collection of articulated rules, this would certainly not constitute the whole law. Ronald M. Dworkin, who in an essay entitled 'Is Law a System of Rules?' (in R. S. Summers, ed., Essays in Legal Philosophy, Oxford and California, 1968) uses the term 'system' as equivalent to 'collection' (p. 52) and seems to accept only articulated rules as rules, shows convincingly that a system of rules so interpreted would be incomplete and requires for its completion what he calls 'principles'. (...) I prefer to use the term system for a body of rules that are mutually adjusted to each other and possess an order of rank, and of course I include in 'rules' not only articulated but also not yet articulated rules which are implicit in the system or have yet to be found to make the several rules consistent. Thus, while I wholly agree with the substance of Professor Dworkin's argument, I should, in my terminology, affirm that the law *is* a system (and not a mere collection) of (articulated and unarticulated) rules.»
Did Hayek make this footnote in The Constitution of Liberty?
@@Blackcomanche It is in the second volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty, originally published in 1976.
@@variztia Thank you for answering my question!
Thank you Mister Kaplan for this very good explanation! It really helped me and a friend to understand this topic.
Glad to hear that!
The "rules of recognition" are explicitly mentioned in every Constitution. While the principles and values are implicit in every law, whose utility or practical applicability lies in creating a fair and just society.
I'm curious of how did You get the text of phrases in the correct way in they glass, i don't think You wrote it backwards, didnt You?
How are you writing all this?? I mean which board are u using..if u please tell me
Excelente exposición Mr. Kaplan, muchísimas gracias.
Just gonna express my gratitude to you. I am so glad i found your page. Jurisprudence is crazy #wits-SA
Glad I could help!
Wish our lecturers where this good.
🤔 Principles undoubtedly shape the legal system, but the principles are endemic to the _shapers,_ not the legal system itself. This is how you get judges making decisions that create law that is not in line with the principles of society at large, and consequently struggle to satisfy the rule of recognition. (The courts can make whatever narrow-minded judgements they like, but it doesn't matter if the rest of us simply ignore them.) This applies to the legislature as well. 🤷♂
Thank you so much for the clarifying video, and for making legal theory understandable!
My pleasure!
Do you really write backwords ¿?¿?™
I am from Ghana. Thank you
How does Dworkin distinguish principles from (for example) values, attitudes, and biases?
You are Great Sir... Plz upload informative videos on jurisprudence
Thanks a lot for making such videos! Really helpful
Glad you like them!
You sir are a God send. Thank you so much!
Ingenious way of teaching. But I have the following question. Did you have to write a thesis on the Hart Dworkin debate. How would you go about it? What do you think is essential that should be included in the thesis? Do you have preferences?
Great Video. I had a question- Can Hartian judges not rely on principles directly while adjudicating the cases, even if they aren’t part of the legal system per se?
Are there any book/articles of McCormick that you would suggest? And thanks for the great lecture!
I am a fan of his 1994 book "Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory"
@@profjeffreykaplan Will look into it, thank you very much!
For theory of law to be solid it must explain laws in democracies and dictatorship. This is what I tell my students. Dworkin theory seemed perfect if you only consider common law systems but very difficult to apply in Nazi Germany.
Hello, thank you for the video🙏🏻 I’m just wondering what would be considered real life examples of hard cases ? I’m just having trouble deciding if the case I’m looking at is a hard case
The most famous real-life example is probably Riggs v Palmer, which I have this video about: ruclips.net/video/9XQ7mKUv8a8/видео.html
I have a question, in what chapter/page does Dworkin talk about strong discretion?
Thank you (merci) from Montreal
Does This guy actually write backwards?
amazing stuff, so helpful and easy to take in!
Glad it was helpful!
The other day I learned from Dworking why Law in the US is so much fun! (fun for those who like philosophy).
(from an interview by Bill Moyers recorded in 1987)
Loved the explanation....very clear and easy to digest. I just have to ask....I know it has to have been asked already....what about this amazing ability to write backwards? Am I missing something?! This is like Destin (smartereveryday) learning to ride is backwards bicycle. I had to watch the video twice because the first time I was too distracted at trying to figure out if there's a mirror involved somehow or if Dr. Kaplan is really writing backwards!! Will watch more for sure!!
You are not the first to ask about this! Here is the explanation: ruclips.net/video/6_d44bla_GA/видео.html
@@profjeffreykaplan Just watched it...oh man..that's cool. Thanks professor. I look forward to more videos. Cheers from Valencia, Spain.
Dear number one life saver, Can you please do a video about Scott J. Shapiro, The hart-Dworkin Debate - A short Guide for the perplexed?
what i understood---- dworkin says that the institutions which will take up disputes and have to make a judgment that is not driven by a pre-concieved rule, they are making a historic or landmark judgement here. this judgement is only driven by what we call Principles which are basically in the spirit of the preamble or constitution or in spirit of justice..... these principle can be ,for eg.- equality is a principle and the SC is making a historic judgment which will later make a new law which is not based over a rule but a PRINCIPLE. and this PRINCIPLE was never talked about or stipulated by Hart. Hart has failed to properly formulise the middle road between primary and secondary rules since he couldn't talk about WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN FRONT OF LAW MAKERS/ LAW AMENDERS.
AM I RIGHT????
I don't see how "principles" make the "rules of recognition" fall apart. Both seem legit. To me, "principles" could be tucked into Hart's theory. Am I missing something?
What book would you recommend for understanding criminal jurisprudence
Thank you very much🙏
where does Neil McCormick talk about the RoR?
Thanks thanks thanks
Many many thanks
The vehicle example (as a hard case) is not convincing.
A beautiful explanation !
Thanks!
Holy cow has this critique never been more relevant than in 2023-2024. I'm scared to know how future me will react to this comment that I put down, whether it'll be seen as a fluke or the beginning of the end of the rule of law.
great video! finally got a 1.1
Good work
I have an exam tomorrow and this is so helpfull omg
Of course principles are part of our system of jurisprudence, at least, in the United States, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. Take for example, the Declaration of Independence. It's manifestly true that the Declaration carries no force of law, yet the principles therein described (chiefly, equality, unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc., but also a laundry list of specific offenses against the rights of Americans by the King and Parliament, many of which will eventually be specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights) are indubitably the foundational principles upon which the Constitution, the actual law, is predicated.
So good!! Thank you so much!
He talks as if a vehicle necessarily has an engine, or at least that having an engine is relevant to judging whether something is a vehicle. But a bicycle is a vehicle.
What is the best book to study jurisprudence
The first half of Scott Shapiro's "Legality" is a very good introduction to the discipline. Also, You can go through my Philosophy of Law course: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIYDwqvtqIHm9SOQpSeKVKU0
or just my lectures on Hart's "The Concept of Law" ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8
@@profjeffreykaplan What book would you recommend for understanding criminal jurisprudence
@@profjeffreykaplan thank you please recommend for this too
very helpful!
Thank you!
Wow this channel and it's author belong in the future
Top stuff Good sir!
Isn't this guy great?
He is the best!
Thankyou you’re a lifesaver
You are welcome!
Thank you. Save hours of readings .
Brilliant
This helps
Great video thanks man
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dworkin Hart or Hart-ly Dworkin
👌🏼
Saved meeeee 😭😭😭
You best thank God for cutesy anime songs.
Jeffrey: Pet Peeve: Why don't you cover Blackstone, which contains the logic of the English and American constitutions, but you cover the philosophers who seek to circumvent that logic? This is a universal criticism of every major institution. The curriculum at the top half dozen law schools barely passes for sophistry. It's embarrassing.... ;)