true expertise is when you can discuss these topics in a way that is simple and clear to understand. ive been in a legal theory course for 4 months but have never understood the subjects as well as i did here. you are amazing! thank you so much.
Sir, you've just saved my grade in Philosophy of Law this year. I've been struggling for ages with Hart's article and comprehending his many, many thoughts on positivism. You've summed everything up so well and I truly owe you for the hours of frustration and fear you've saved me. I wish you nothing but happiness.
Roslyn Drayton ' Vidya' is not a person here, it literally mean 'knowledge' in Hindi( indian national Language) These video are uploaded as a program by Government of India, through Ministry of Human Resources Development, to provide education to those you can't afford college due to finance or any other problem.😃
My professor spent 6 hours on lectures to teach us the debate between Hard and Fuller and Im still confused. While this dude used 30min to explain what's going on and I understood it perfectly, amazing.
A very clear lecture, though you have misstated the meaning of “penumbral” in this context. The problem of the penumbral case is that of the meaning of a term in borderline- shadow- areas, that is, those that are disputed or undefined, not determined by the law as it is, in which judges must exercise discretion.
You can't have law without having ethics first and ethics is formalized morality. Law is just more formalized because it includes bureaucracy and scale, and less ethical because it includes entrenchment and cronyism.
Thanks for the kind words. In addition to the videos, you can see my books on diverse topics at my author page: amazon.com/author/aakash I will have 4 new books coming out this year, and lots of new videos!
Aakash Singh Rathore Hi Aakash, you phrase Hart's minimum content of natural law as a minimum content of morality, but is this not a conflation which Hart did not intend? Why (and how) must a common human desire for preservation of life infuse morality into law? Is it not a purely descriptive (not normative) statement?
Hi Connor. I'm not sure that Hart was too clear about that. But the word 'morality' is quite opaque here. This video gets a lot of views, but I have to tell you that it is problematic at several points. I like your analysis in this and other comments.
wow the debate between medieval morality grounded in the transcendent and the argument of enlightenment thinkers (of a morality grounded in the natural world).
what the main difference between H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller’s theoretical positions in respect of the distinction law/morality as applied to Nazi immoral laws.
how does the proceeding legal events to the holocaust compare to the legal events after the end of British rule in India, Africa and many other "colonized" countries in which millions and millions of people were killed?
true expertise is when you can discuss these topics in a way that is simple and clear to understand. ive been in a legal theory course for 4 months but have never understood the subjects as well as i did here.
you are amazing! thank you so much.
Sir, you've just saved my grade in Philosophy of Law this year. I've been struggling for ages with Hart's article and comprehending his many, many thoughts on positivism. You've summed everything up so well and I truly owe you for the hours of frustration and fear you've saved me. I wish you nothing but happiness.
I'm convinced that clarity is a gift with this lecture, much thanks.
0
Amazing master class. Thank you so much.! Greetings from Argentina!
This lecture is much clear and very much useful that everybody who wants to understand hart fuller debate should go into it. :)
Thank you, five-star presentation--excellent.
Thank you! Have a jurisprudence exam later this evening. This is sooo good to listen to.
What a great discourse. This clears up a lot for me, thanks👍👏
So glad I ran into this channel. This topic is on my mind everyday.
Vidya your presentation is very clear and concise. I will be dropping in more often to hear your presentations as I am a student. Thank you again
Roslyn Drayton ' Vidya' is not a person here, it literally mean 'knowledge' in Hindi( indian national Language)
These video are uploaded as a program by Government of India, through Ministry of Human Resources Development, to provide education to those you can't afford college due to finance or any other problem.😃
His name is A. Singh Rathore
Thank you for the video. Really helpful to further improve my understanding in Jurisprudence subject. I'm a law student from Malaysia anyway.
Wow, you made it so much easier to comprehend both sides of the debate! Thank you!
Clear and comprehensive explanation of Hart and Fuller's theories and debates. Appreciate your lecture Pro.
Hart did not justify the Austinian command theory, he rejected it
Thank you very much for the informative lessons!
Thank you. You're so clear and precise.
Very good presentation, the most clear and concise explanation of the Hart-Fuller debate I've seen.
My professor spent 6 hours on lectures to teach us the debate between Hard and Fuller and Im still confused. While this dude used 30min to explain what's going on and I understood it perfectly, amazing.
I LOVE THIS LECTURE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PENUMBRA AND YOUR INSPIRATION.....THANKYOU!!!Scooter Goldwing
Finally English explanation, thank you so much!
yes. You have given a wonderful explanation interpretretion of law and morality
A very clear lecture, though you have misstated the meaning of “penumbral” in this context. The problem of the penumbral case is that of the meaning of a term in borderline- shadow- areas, that is, those that are disputed or undefined, not determined by the law as it is, in which judges must exercise discretion.
Clear and concise. Correction: HLA Hart actually rejected Austin's command theory.
Thank you sir, for the clarification
You can't have law without having ethics first and ethics is formalized morality. Law is just more formalized because it includes bureaucracy and scale, and less ethical because it includes entrenchment and cronyism.
Thanks for the kind words. In addition to the videos, you can see my books on diverse topics at my author page: amazon.com/author/aakash
I will have 4 new books coming out this year, and lots of new videos!
Aakash Singh Rathore Hi Aakash, you phrase Hart's minimum content of natural law as a minimum content of morality, but is this not a conflation which Hart did not intend? Why (and how) must a common human desire for preservation of life infuse morality into law? Is it not a purely descriptive (not normative) statement?
Hi Connor. I'm not sure that Hart was too clear about that. But the word 'morality' is quite opaque here. This video gets a lot of views, but I have to tell you that it is problematic at several points. I like your analysis in this and other comments.
Very well done! This thread was a godsend (no pun intended) ... was havign some trouble understanding
Excellent and clearly worded lecture!
This Professor, the Law of Jurisprudence flows in his blood. aman with the smartest brain of Law.
Great stuff. More please. 😁👍
Thank you
Thanks for throwing more light on this
Thanks a lot.
God bless you!
I love this lecture. Thank you very Sir.
Thanks a lot... a nice presentation with very clear explanation. Found useful.
wow the debate between medieval morality grounded in the transcendent and the argument of enlightenment thinkers (of a morality grounded in the natural world).
32:50 the text is wrong I think. It says would not, instead of would.
You are right.
Its a typo, listen to what was said by the lecturer
Thank you, you are the best. This helped me so much for my exam YOU ARE AMAZING
I am with Fuller
what the main difference between H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller’s theoretical positions in respect of the distinction law/morality as applied to Nazi immoral laws.
I found this while writing a semester project about this. Soooo helpful.
Hi, on what topic did you do your project
So good. Cheers!
Is there a transcript for this I could have?
Excellent! Just about to do an exam on legal philosophy, really helped , Thanks!!
SAME
Thank you!
Very very enlightening.
Excellent
The grudge informer case- No the husband did not face death in the end! incorrect information
Make.This.Guy.Famous
Why we are dependent on western theory more for Indian jurisdiction except that is international law.
Thank you.
Thankyou very much
Fantastic video!
it is nice one and helpful to my side...
Why won't all lectures be this simple?
Where can i find all his lectures on Philosophy of law? His RUclips channel has some videos, but not all that i'm seeking
Well done man! Great content
perfect presentation...
Brilliant explanation
Great Video
Best exposition
Great lecture thanks
Plz provide notes of ur lecture
Thank you.very helpful
This was fantastic. Philosophy is panned for being esoteric, but here it is as accessible as arithmetic.
very nice presentation.
Good discussion and relatively clear
also
how does the proceeding legal events to the holocaust compare to the legal events after the end of British rule in India, Africa and many other "colonized" countries in which millions and millions of people were killed?
At 19:29 he calls Nazi SS officers , Stormtroopers lol. May be the force be with you sir
Thank you this was helpful
Theoretically very beneficial. However, more practical examples would be kindly appreciated.
Thank you. :)
Firstly, Fuller talks about morality is something outside the legal system... Next he says there is inner morality... Clarify Anyone
Amazing
superb
SUPERB LECTURE
I thought it was the Hart/Devlin debate
Insightful
Hart could rather be termed as ‘Soft Positivist’.
what happened to your accent?
nice , i like it
Lol legal positivism makes no sense, what a dumb concept
Waow!!!! Fake accent