Honestly, I had enjoyed this lecture of jurisprudence especially the legal debate between the two theorists. I was given an assignment on this field and feels confused on where I should begin, but now, I have a clue about it. Thanks goes to professor of Law for this length narration he made. Law students where they are around the globe will benefits from your lecture! God bless you and continue to do more open lectures like this.
Thank you for an excellent video that has simplified all the tonnes of materials I've read. It has brought a lot of clarity to me. Thank you once again
Please make more videos on jurisprudence... India need Professor like you .. its a shame how underrated jurisprudence is just because we dont have somebody like you to teach us the real beauty of jurisprudence ❤
As written, it is semantically unclear whether the bicycle is a vehicle. "What is" is not enough. One must appeal to the intention of the law, or "what ought to be". Forbidding vehicles in the park is a law that ought to preserve the peace and beauty of the park. Bringing a motor vehicle in to the park clearly violates what is and what ought to be. Bringing a bicycle in to the park does not.
Far be it for me to weigh on this or that side of the debate between Hart and Fuller, but I can opine that Hart's position is a bit too extreme for me, while I don't at all like the notion of "Morality," as a guiding principle in law or otherwise. Here's an example: Let's assume that Roe vs Wade is still the law in the US. The Fullerists, I presume, would say that it violates the principle that murder or intentional killing of a human being is wrong, and thus abortion laws of any kind violate Natural Law. Hartists, I presume, would introduce refinements, such as (1) Allowing proscribed abortions is a public policy (to enable, for example, people to decide when they want to have children; for example, to prevent kids from ending up destitute in orphanages; to allow, for example, saving the mother's life under certain circumstances; to allow, for example, a woman who had been raped not to carry the child of the rapist. and several more exceptions). Who is right? clearly, if one is NOT "Pro-Life," Hart's position prevails (and I agree), but Fuller would say that the governing principle is the 'Thou shall not intentionally kill another human being" (except in war, in an execution [yes, and I don't agree, but for a completely different reasons]. Who is right? In other word, neither one seems to have 100% of the Truth on their side, so why the argument? Could we not say that, in real life, competing ideas and ideologies often clash, but must they? I suppose that's called Utopia, which the place I prefer to exist. As usual, legal & philosophical questions may be CLARIFIED by many, many examples --back & forth. Well presented Professor Singh Rathore. Thanks.
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.
It only took me the length of this video vs. 12 weeks of lectures, to actually understand the positions of the two theorists. Well done and thank you.
Honestly, I had enjoyed this lecture of jurisprudence especially the legal debate between the two theorists. I was given an assignment on this field and feels confused on where I should begin, but now, I have a clue about it.
Thanks goes to professor of Law for this length narration he made. Law students where they are around the globe will benefits from your lecture! God bless you and continue to do more open lectures like this.
Haha same! Was confused too...thank God I found this yt channel
Thank you so much for producing this video; you explained everything in such an eloquent fashion. You are the best!
I am a law student and one of my modules for this semester is Jurisprudence. I find this video very helpful to say the least. Thanks Sir.
Thank you for an excellent video that has simplified all the tonnes of materials I've read. It has brought a lot of clarity to me. Thank you once again
Writing another comment... well explained, well researched and anybody from any field can understand this video easily ❤
Thank you very much Sir. This video has very well explained information.I will be writing my jurisprudence exam tomorrow. You have really helped me.
Thank you for this, it really helps to clearly distinguish the difference between the two types of laws. Examples are helpful too.
Please make more videos on jurisprudence... India need Professor like you .. its a shame how underrated jurisprudence is just because we dont have somebody like you to teach us the real beauty of jurisprudence ❤
Great video! And great presentation! I really enjoyed this a lot. Very informative.
Im so happy i found this video!! Thank you so much!!
really understandable and made me able to read the articles efffectively
well done Professor, thank you so much for your videos!
Amazing video man, very thorough! Thanks.
Thanks for the video.
such good explanations 💕 thank you, i definitely feel more ready for my tests
Superb. Am a Doctor. Just wanted to understand the concept. Absorbing. Thanks.
Thank you!!! I wish my lecturer could explain this way...Glad I came across your yt. Was really feeling dumb at least now I know am not lol
Very informative, thank u!
Your videos are excellent.
Easy to understand ... Thank You Sir 🙏
Thank you so much❤
Easy explanation of jurisprudence’s difficult subject 👏🏻
great video... very easy to understand
Very helpful.thank you sir
Anyone know what the bicycle case meant? What is and what ought to be? Should the bicycle be included in vehicles?
As written, it is semantically unclear whether the bicycle is a vehicle. "What is" is not enough. One must appeal to the intention of the law, or "what ought to be". Forbidding vehicles in the park is a law that ought to preserve the peace and beauty of the park. Bringing a motor vehicle in to the park clearly violates what is and what ought to be. Bringing a bicycle in to the park does not.
Legal positivism is a religion and belief system. It is as prejudiced and biased as many other religions and should be treated in the same manner.
Superb
Amazinggg
Great video
Far be it for me to weigh on this or that side of the debate between Hart and Fuller, but I can opine that Hart's position is a bit too extreme for me, while I don't at all like the notion of "Morality," as a guiding principle in law or otherwise. Here's an example: Let's assume that Roe vs Wade is still the law in the US. The Fullerists, I presume, would say that it violates the principle that murder or intentional killing of a human being is wrong, and thus abortion laws of any kind violate Natural Law. Hartists, I presume, would introduce refinements, such as (1) Allowing proscribed abortions is a public policy (to enable, for example, people to decide when they want to have children; for example, to prevent kids from ending up destitute in orphanages; to allow, for example, saving the mother's life under certain circumstances; to allow, for example, a woman who had been raped not to carry the child of the rapist. and several more exceptions). Who is right? clearly, if one is NOT "Pro-Life," Hart's position prevails (and I agree), but Fuller would say that the governing principle is the 'Thou shall not intentionally kill another human being" (except in war, in an execution [yes, and I don't agree, but for a completely different reasons]. Who is right? In other word, neither one seems to have 100% of the Truth on their side, so why the argument? Could we not say that, in real life, competing ideas and ideologies often clash, but must they? I suppose that's called Utopia, which the place I prefer to exist. As usual, legal & philosophical questions may be CLARIFIED by many, many examples --back & forth. Well presented Professor Singh Rathore. Thanks.
very useful
Nicely comprehended thank you very much...
What is morality , the root of the word ?
can yo plz share ppt
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.
Cramming for my Jurisprudence class...
Gl
Me right now