One Piece Nation: Word games and semantics. You get the point of "flaunting", or "disregarding" or "breaking" the law of gravity and one pays the consequences of such action. Keep your feet on solid ground and one abides as a reasonable person would and one is safe, as it were.
"REASONING" , this is why they used to tell the people"Ignorance is no excuse". Otherwise everyone would have to know all of the law's and this is what is happening in the Court's today. This is why they we make them take a oath. If it is not constitutional " Natural law" if is not lawful. This is what we will stand and answer for before God in His Court. Not all sin's are criminal act's and that's a important distinction to make.
Question: Does it mean that the natural law theory then, supposes within itself a recognition that there already exists a presumed, and universally-accepted existance of morality in humans? How can the theory agree on what that thing is that "we" as humans supposedly somehow "already know"? Also, how can it be that law supposedly comes from something so unreliable? I think that the concept of moral values is already abstract enough by itself, that no one person can thoroughly agree upon what's morally right or wrong. I would appreciate it if someone can explain better to me, thanks.
Great question.. My view is that law comes from our morality (what we perceive right or wrong). As long as the majority of people can agree that something is right or wrong, then the minorities' view is basically irrelevant. For example, if we all agree that killing of someone is immoral, then we have to scrutinize the situation to prove whether the action was reasonable or not. Unlike positivist law that is likely to just convict the person of murder than to actually scrutinize the situation.
Jet Does: The title of the video allows for such a consideration. Break the natural law of gravity by jumping off a tall building and the legal coroner will legally declare that person dead and in a very legal sense if such a person had a life insurance policy then the insurance company might be legally made to pay out such a policy. Laws both man made and God made have consequences for breaking such a law.
The comparison should be legal positivism to black letter law. The comparison to natural law is apples to oranges.Like comparing tyranny to anarchy. Just because you are against anarchy doesn't make you for tyranny.
I’m sorry but this is highly misleading at best, please do not use this as a guide to either positivism or natural law theory, devastatingly oversimplified, distorted and useless.
This isn't true at all. The fact that we write down law derived from natural law is just a technological advancement due to the spread of literacy. NATURAL LAW (Science) Natural Law = Science of cooperation that we discover empirically during tests of the resolution of conflicts by tests of costs imposed upon demonstrated interests. it is one of the laws of nature: the formal(logical), physical, natural(behavioral), and evolutionary laws. Natural Laws tell us only what NOT to do because it violates the natural laws of cooperation (reciprocity within the limit of externality and proportionality). Natural Law = Rule of Law. The people OWN the government, but are sovereign in and of themselves, and those outside the law are declared outlaws, and as such outside the protection of the people and their laws. Rule of Law forces the community to adapt to the laws of nature, and prohibits corruption whether private or public. Rule of law was eugenic and hyper evolutionary, which is why western civilization evolved faster than all the rest combined. POSITIVE LAW (theology, philosophy, ideology) Positive law = Positive law consists of hypotheses either philosophical or ideological. it's Man-Made law vs Man-Discovered law. Positive law movement sought to 'do good' not just eradicate bad. Positive Law = Rule By Man. The people are OWNED by the government. The Government is sovereign. Rule of man doesn't force the community to adapt to the laws of nature, and encourages corruption both private and public. Rule of man has so far been dysgenic and devolutionary, which is why we're in this position today. LEGISLATION THAT IS IN FACT LAW. The only positive law that is 'law', is that which is constructed from natural law. The government only constructs contracts of the commons. Period. "No More Pseudoscience In Law." The 19th-20th centuries of social pseudoscience are over. "No more lies"
Awfully wrong!!! It is plainly obvious that you have not read a book of jurisprudence and you should be ashamed of spreading false and wrong knowledge. Positivism does not established that only what is written can be called law. Legal positivism only states that whatever is law can be identified by means of a social source. Go on and read Herbert Hart o Joseph Raz
you just taught me in 3 minutes what my law professor couldn't teach me in a week. i have a law exam tomorrow on this, bless you!
Did it help?
So, did you pass?
@@Knez_Pavle 🤣
@@Knez_Pavle Based on the contents of this video, probably not.
I READ THIS TOPIC FOR 6 HOURS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT WHEN I WATCHED THIS VID FOR 3 MINUTES, EVERYTHING WAS CLEAR TO ME. THANK YOU
That's probably because it's wrong. And amateurishly so. Possibly criminally so. Writing it down has nothing to do with it
Thank you so much for this. I learned more from three minutes than my three hour classes.
simple, and straight to the point! Thank you.
Brilliant, literally simplified these concepts way better than 3 weeks of uni material could. Thank you sir!
Such a great quick, yet very explanatory and informative video.
Amazing! Thank you for the straight to the point video!
Thank you so much for sharing this knowledge. You are a credit to jurisprudence.
This was simple clear and Great! Thank you Dr.
Outstanding. Very simple and detailed.
Thank you sir for the additional knowledge😊
You are amazing and so helpful and I hope you know how many law students you have helped!!!!
Legend. Thank you brother!
All genius is simple. Thank you !
Well explained
Thank you
Excellent, Thank you ever so much.
Great, this saved me three hours of trying to understand my professor
Dankjewel Bart
Very helpful and simple
Best explanation ever 🙌🏾⭐️
Beautifully explained! Thank you so much!
One Piece Nation: Word games and semantics. You get the point of "flaunting", or "disregarding" or "breaking" the law of gravity and one pays the consequences of such action. Keep your feet on solid ground and one abides as a reasonable person would and one is safe, as it were.
Thank you a lot for such a wonderful explanation!
This really helped. Great explanation!! thank you
thank you for best clarification !!
what is the relationship between natural law and moral realism?
Great
Thank you very much.❤️👏
"REASONING" , this is why they used to tell the people"Ignorance is no excuse". Otherwise everyone would have to know all of the law's and this is what is happening in the Court's today. This is why they we make them take a oath. If it is not constitutional " Natural law" if is not lawful. This is what we will stand and answer for before God in His Court. Not all sin's are criminal act's and that's a important distinction to make.
dr wernaart
more like
dr werCANT explain Legal positivism versus natural law
Very helpful!
You are an angel
Thank you
Thank you!
Thank you so much sir
Question: Does it mean that the natural law theory then, supposes within itself a recognition that there already exists a presumed, and universally-accepted existance of morality in humans? How can the theory agree on what that thing is that "we" as humans supposedly somehow "already know"?
Also, how can it be that law supposedly comes from something so unreliable? I think that the concept of moral values is already abstract enough by itself, that no one person can thoroughly agree upon what's morally right or wrong.
I would appreciate it if someone can explain better to me, thanks.
Great question.. My view is that law comes from our morality (what we perceive right or wrong). As long as the majority of people can agree that something is right or wrong, then the minorities' view is basically irrelevant.
For example, if we all agree that killing of someone is immoral, then we have to scrutinize the situation to prove whether the action was reasonable or not.
Unlike positivist law that is likely to just convict the person of murder than to actually scrutinize the situation.
The US Constitution versus Natural Law.
Nice
What about morality?
legal positivism is a religion and belief system. It should be interpreted in the same way as other religions.
Thank youuu 😭😭😭😭
If you are watching this video give it a like and also i.
Jet Does: The title of the video allows for such a consideration. Break the natural law of gravity by jumping off a tall building and the legal coroner will legally declare that person dead and in a very legal sense if such a person had a life insurance policy then the insurance company might be legally made to pay out such a policy. Laws both man made and God made have consequences for breaking such a law.
except, you cannot break the laws of gravity. The fact that you fell and hit the ground means that you were abiding by them.
The comparison should be legal positivism to black letter law. The comparison to natural law is apples to oranges.Like comparing tyranny to anarchy. Just because you are against anarchy doesn't make you for tyranny.
this is my covid university
I’m sorry but this is highly misleading at best, please do not use this as a guide to either positivism or natural law theory, devastatingly oversimplified, distorted and useless.
This isn't true at all. The fact that we write down law derived from natural law is just a technological advancement due to the spread of literacy.
NATURAL LAW (Science)
Natural Law = Science of cooperation that we discover empirically during tests of the resolution of conflicts by tests of costs imposed upon demonstrated interests. it is one of the laws of nature: the formal(logical), physical, natural(behavioral), and evolutionary laws.
Natural Laws tell us only what NOT to do because it violates the natural laws of cooperation (reciprocity within the limit of externality and proportionality).
Natural Law = Rule of Law. The people OWN the government, but are sovereign in and of themselves, and those outside the law are declared outlaws, and as such outside the protection of the people and their laws.
Rule of Law forces the community to adapt to the laws of nature, and prohibits corruption whether private or public.
Rule of law was eugenic and hyper evolutionary, which is why western civilization evolved faster than all the rest combined.
POSITIVE LAW (theology, philosophy, ideology)
Positive law = Positive law consists of hypotheses either philosophical or ideological. it's Man-Made law vs Man-Discovered law. Positive law movement sought to 'do good' not just eradicate bad.
Positive Law = Rule By Man. The people are OWNED by the government. The Government is sovereign.
Rule of man doesn't force the community to adapt to the laws of nature, and encourages corruption both private and public.
Rule of man has so far been dysgenic and devolutionary, which is why we're in this position today.
LEGISLATION THAT IS IN FACT LAW.
The only positive law that is 'law', is that which is constructed from natural law. The government only constructs contracts of the commons.
Period.
"No More Pseudoscience In Law."
The 19th-20th centuries of social pseudoscience are over.
"No more lies"
Awfully wrong!!! It is plainly obvious that you have not read a book of jurisprudence and you should be ashamed of spreading false and wrong knowledge. Positivism does not established that only what is written can be called law. Legal positivism only states that whatever is law can be identified by means of a social source. Go on and read Herbert Hart o Joseph Raz
Wrong on so many levels, please do not listen to this guy and go read a book. This is how you become a lawyer, not on youtube