Why Do We Obey the Law? Hart & Dworkin

Must we obey the law? I suspect the answer for most is yes. This makes sense since the alternative -- a society where people pick and choose which laws they wish to be bound by -- sounds somewhat chaotic. Yet, not all agree as instances of civil disobedience the world over demonstrate on a daily basis.

The following clip is PART III in a series on obedience (and disobedience) to the law. Hart, a positivist, and Dworkin, a natural law theorists approach legal theory from distinct, possibly competing, perspectives. In this clip, I attempt to highlight some of the key features of their respective theories.

[bruceclark]

THanks for this - very good - have been trying to understand this stuff and most of what is written is impenetrable - you've made it understandable - can't understand the criticism - you're just explaining the concepts, without advocating anything in particular and you do this very well - congratulations and keep up the good work-

[BEsteban]

Great explanation, thanks for taking the time to make these topics understandable for us non-philosophers .

[shabbyken]

Thanks mate, i've dozens of pages from both Dworkin and Hart but couldn't really understand until i found this.

[ColinCreates]

This is an incredible video and description. Thank you for your diligence and explanation of these legal philosophers.

[DrivenMind]

This video was very helpful. But for future reference, you might want to try and equalize your audio levels before you upload these things.

[muhaiman]

You're a deadset legend, Mohsen. May God reward you!

[aukalender]

You could argue Parliament members are both commanders in their duties, and commanded when off-duty

[dessysenpai]

This was my last two lectures condensed!! Lovely :)

[onisimionut]

Very interesting way of explaining through figures!

[RetroResearch]

It may be that there are two forms of mortality: specific and transcendental. The former would align with customs or norms and would tend to exert a kind of steadying effect. The latter would imply universal principles which exist but which may not be thoroughly understood or not yet acknowledged. The beauty of law is that it permits one a kind of option of either preferring to reinforce or fine-tune existing moral precepts or to discard them in appealing to a higher mode which perhaps may transform society for the better. Genghis Khan, for instance, had no issue with throwing aside a time-worn custom if it became clear to him that a better option existed. In so doing, he was acknowledging that a higher truth existed over and above what was customary.

[williamtell]

It should be noted that Hart and Dworkin have slightly different projects, Harts work is more descriptive, Dworkin tends toward the more aspirational. Many would argue and I would agree that some differences between their views can be explained in that way.

[apocryph]

You are an archangel from the heavens. Many thanks

[chalaka]

The best video ever. which helped in the exam. Tnanks

[jacquesghysbrecht]

what a clear explanation. Who’s giving us that lecture?

[_free]

I fucking love dworkin dude. He’s probably my favorite philosopher.

[shaunwong]

Dear Prof, I find your lecture very insightful. where can I find the fourth part? Or is this the fourth part?

[TaYLoRBReaKouT]

Thanks for the video, i mostly came along french and spanish videos😂

[cliffordhodge]

Further explication of the artistic/scientific distinction might have been useful, especially since the holding the door example seemed a bit tangential.  More than one artistic analysis is possible, since a door-holder will often say it doesn't involve presumptions of weakness, but is merely a show of respect.   With the driving-on-the-right-side example, the distinction between the psychological/behavioral interpretation (artistic) and the moral/analytic (scientific) interpretation would point out that the arbitrary choice of the right side entails a moral duty to follow the convention which has created a universal expectation, the violation of which will put people in danger.

[aussiedrifter]

This sounds just as simple & easy to understand as traffic laws or highway patrol cops

[princesssapphire]

Kudos on this vid.... it helped a lot with my revision.