LAW121 - Natural Law Theory

What constitutes law and why do most people, today, unconsciously obey it? In this lecture, we will examine natural law theory with a view to understanding the relationship between law and morality.

Natural law theorists assert that humans possess an intuitive understanding of what is moral and what is immoral, what is right and what is wrong. From a natural law perspective, this understanding is embodied in a universal code of moral principles to which all humans must abide. Formal laws, the kind that you and I deal with everyday, are merely meant to formalize the moral principles we already recognize. If the law champions these morals, then it must be obeyed; if not, then it must be ignored.

But morality is subjective, meaning that people might disagree over what is right or wrong. Should marijuana be illegal? What about homosexuality? Prostitution? How do we determine which laws are moral and which are not? Which to obey and which to ignore?

[tls]

This guy came to my high school and from his 20 min talk, I immediately wanted to pursue law. I graduated this year and I am now going to be admitted to the bar next March 2020. Thank you Mohsen for inspiring us all. Respect.

[aukalender]

The purpose of law is not only to protect society from harm but also protect individuals from harm from society.

[luglaw]

very clear explanation yet i find it hard to focus - this guy is an eye candy :)

[jonnyhan]

I am a big admirer of those who make natural law a subordinate to their morality. The concept of natural law is the core of American Constitution. The opponent of natural law is social justice.

[Bossonnnnn]

Came across this just looking at stuff for my A-Level law exam. This is actually really good and makes brilliant points about law and morality.

[joannallen]

After reading conventional law I remember how it does not recognise love and affection so as to keep emotions in check

[daniels]

The first weakness is his theory is that it increases the tax burden on us? How does coercive taxation fit into natural law? Humans are born free and act as they please without encroaching on person or property. Taxation violates this principle. Not the other way around.

[DoctorDreadINC]

7:00 Morality does not need imposing. No sane person who is raised in a nurting environment will see violence and theft as a effective medium to get what they want. It only identifies that which is true - therefore that which is universal - therefore that which needs to be protected. The question of what system that would be to protect people - or resolve conflicts of breaches of natural law is in question as well. If we are to have any integrity - we first must start with one basic principle: That this system would first have to be predicated on voluntary action. NOT coercion.

[Namaste]

Replace harm with consent and you're there. One can consent to be harmed (a boxing match) but one cannot consent to have their consent violated. It is the violation of consent that is the breach of natural law. Legislation violates natural law as it is backed by intimidation and force. Likewise it is not sex that is the criminal aspect of rape but the violation of consent, just as democracy violates the consent of the minority and those who don't wish to be ruled against their will.

[xianndreii]

Everyone loves how this guy explained well, but no one (except me) appreciates the cameraman who followed the guy all throughout the video.

[jakeneva]

Very well spoken. Very nice complementary to Mark Passios work on Natural Law and The Great Work

[MCPretzelM]

I have several questions. First, when he says society, he is ultimately speaking about a collection of individuals. What draws a differentiation between laws of an individual and laws of a society if they address the same thing? Also, we may agree that morality is subjective (I personally don't), but what we actually mean by that is that we subscribe to different moral codes, them being perhaps not consistent with moral truths. We account for this by inwardly or outwardly stating that their moral codes are morally truthful insofar as they don't harm you. This presupposes a fundamental natural law upon which all innate morals take root. Why do we insist that "morality" is subjective? What do we mean by that?

[aisyahrazak]

This video help me to understand better especially i'm a foundation of law student. Thank you 

[tntruther]

I claim veto power; I don't consent.
"Force without consent creates injustice".

[atrashfromsaturn]

My notes:
1:01
2:10 - Harm can mean different things
3:16
3:45
4:15 - Natural law defines what gives law validity
5:16 - Moral authority came from three sources (religion, intellectual, natural origin)

[TN-pjlk]

I personally believe that laws and morals should be separate entirely, a Mill said. Life, liberty and property are protected under the law, but morality is an individual concept.

[gloriasheen]

i actually think that he should be my future law professor lol

[preetalkumar]

I leanred alot from this thatnk you senpai san I love these vidzzz

[abigword]

God, I wish every video on YouTube was redacted so elegantly. Or at all for that matter. Well done on the lecture but especially well done on the production.

[trangwuong]

Who defines what is moral & immoral at this time? The rulers. You are ruled, have no illusions.

-> Laws should be obeyed if the law aligns with that particular morality.
Whose particular morality should the law be attempted to be aligned with? Your own? The state? Someone else? Law enforcement?

I found that what was taught in the law classes that I attended, had virtually no bearing on what goes on in reality. In reality, there are members of society that are _above_ the law, because they help to influence the law and are powerful. Right there, any theory of law is flipped on its head and is confusing.