What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40

In today’s episode, Hank asks you to consider all the ways people talk about justice and what we really mean when we use that word. We’ll explain various theories of justice, just distribution, and different approaches to punishment.
--
All other images and video either public domain or via VideoBlocks, or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons BY 4.0: creativecommon...
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@JC6659]

MY NOTES ON THE VIDEO (In case anyone needs notes FAST) JUSTICE [CRASH COURSE] JUSTICE [Greek] - Justice as Harmony - A just society is one in w/c everyone fulfills their roles so that society runs smoothly. - Violating your place in the social order-even if it’s a place you don’t want to hold-is considered unjust. [Utilitarian] - justice tries to increase the overall quality of life for citizens. [Politicall Libertarian] - allows its citizens to be maximumly free DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Justice as Equality - The belief that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff. Need-Based Justice - everyone shouldn’t get the same, cuz our needs aren’t the same. Merit-based Justice - means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves. JOHN RAWLS - “justice is fairness” - Any inequalities that exist in a social system should favor the least well-off, cuz this levels the playing field of society. (form of need-based justice) - Some argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to those who have gotten the most either via hardwork / cuz they happened to win life’s natural lottery. ROBERT NOZICK - disagreed with rawls - “we’re each entitled to the stuff we have provided we didn’t steal it / otherwise obtain it unjustly. Retributive Justice - the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the way he’s made others suffer. *kinda like Corrective Justice Welfare Maximizaton - there’s no good to be found vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers. But some form of punishment is still in order. Restorative Justice - the focus is on making amends rather than on making the wrongdoer suffer

[@terra2ban]

Brice Jale, THANKS SO MUCH!

[@TheObservingConstalation]

i think you just saved me

[@melchid8448]

Thank you

[@cristophermalonzo8794]

Justice is JUST ^_^

[@semenadonata4860]

i love u youre a lifesaver

[@Jotari]

In Germany it's not considered illegal to escape from prison because humans have the basic instinct to desire freedom.

[@liwendiamond9223]

But if a prisoner escapes before their time is due, you still have to catch them and put them back in jail for the crime that got them there in the first place, right?

[@Jotari]

LiwenDiamond Oh yeah. Of course. Not like it's squatters rights.

[@Grokford]

floooooooooooooooood I heard about that. That seems nice in theory and it may even be moral but that doesn't change the fact that you either have to make prison desirable, have extreme and expensive rises in security security or expect a lot more criminals on the loose. You need a carrot or a stick and prison's not about carrots.

[@Jotari]

Grokford Is that really the case though? Are more people trying to escape prison in Germany just because they won't be punished (at least offically) for doing so? I would honestly like to know because every phrase I try to search in google brings me to either a page about prison breaks in general or just a page to generally inform about Germany's law. I suspect it's not a big disparity as you might expect. I reckon the main thing keeping a lot of people in prison isn't the guards and gates, but the fact that even if you escape you don't get your liberty.You have to live life on the run with gaining money and travelling to other countries legitmately being near impossible. It's just wiser to wait out your sentence. Unless you're a career criminal who makes all your money off massive illegal operations and have either a very lengthy or downright endless sentence. And in that case, I think regardless of the law, we definitely should be putting as much money as possible into making sure those people stay behind bars.

[@Grokford]

floooooooooooooooood I don't have a source but that's generally how people work. When there's less punishment for a desirable course of action it's more likely to occur. Of course in Germany it would be relatively simple to leave the country given it's size and the Schengen area

[@Master_Therion]

I demand justice!!!!! I went to the store today to buy some chom choms and the employee said they were called bananas.

[@thewpbard]

+Master Therion LET'S RIOT!!!! THEY ARE CHOM CHOMS!!!!

[@Master_Therion]

Nathan Hawkes Yes!!! We'll go bananas... er, I mean we'll go Chom Choms!

[@Master_Therion]

Analogy Accepted Yummm... Chomp chomp the chom chom.

[@emoore29681]

Master Therion my life in a nutshell

[@samezeh4171]

Master Therion dude, I see you EVERYWHERE in the scishow and DNews comments

[@GregTom2]

So then is batman the hero Gotham deserves, or the hero Gotham needs?

[@meatrace]

If you listen to @mikeyface, he's the villain of the piece.

[@MataNuiOfficial]

depends

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

Let me put it this way, Gotham does not need batman.

[@crediblesalamander8056]

Legit Real Skeletor he's the hero gotham depends on

[@MataNuiOfficial]

Mhd. Yousef Attar and THAT is the correct answer

[@RitchieChavez]

"Justice is the polite way of saying 'revenge'."-Nietzsche

[@FidaAifiya]

that's punitive justice.

[@contessa4490]

I highly disagree, true Justice is given by the Law to the Violator, Vengeance is given by the Victim to the Violator.

[@ineffablebeing4276]

John Mark indeed, but at times the victim will cloak himself with the trappings of Justice in order to see that the vengeance they conceal is satiated. I think that is what Nietzsche meant.

[@FrankCastle-tq9bz]

He is more correct than most people want to admit.

[@gregoryerickson3575]

Where did he say that?

[@jeromefournier9667]

The trouble I have with a lot of people when they talk about Justice is 1) They don't seem to differentiate between Law and Justice 2) They don't get that Justice like its siblings Ethics and Aesthetics is full of individual cases and relativity. Some groups of people will push for restorative or rehabilitative approaches in all cases, but some people are beyond help. Others will push for punitive or deterrence ideals "For a safe society" but not understand that in some cases this will only help further push people into criminality. But on top of that is the trouble that systems of laws are not very good and differentiating, on the one side you can make laws broader and less defined to allow for individual cases, but that put more responsibility and power in the hands of judges, juries and lawyers. You can makes laws more precise and restrictive to reduce the interpretive power of the legal system but then you lose almost all of the ability to arbitrate on a case by case basis.

[@I_EAF_19882]

I'm 3 years late to the party, but I really like this comment. I think that people's beliefs typically aren't as fluid as they should be. Even myself, I find that I can get angry when discussing politics, but it's simply because I'm being too rigid with my beliefs. If someone has a valid contrary point the smart thing for me to do is to adopt it into my ideology instead of disregarding it. But damn is it hard to do sometimes lol.

[@irodolf7784]

late to the party, too, but if you are still alive, what do you think the differnece between law and justice is?

[@jeromefournier9667]

@@irodolf7784 The most basic "definition" i use for law vs justice is that justice is personal/relative while law is common, but even that is not a really complete definition.

[@TuesdaysArt]

What I learned from this video is why Wilt from Foster's Home of Imaginary Friends is named Wilt

[@lewisrichardson2114]

Cali Spaniel *head blown off

[@shotgunheist6536]

Cali Spaniel now I feel old

[@RusticKey]

Damn you made me feel old.

[@tychoazrephet3794]

Wilt was always an entertaining character, especially the episode where he had to maintain a ridiculously complex lie despite being a terrible liar.

[@Creepzza]

Mind explaining? :)

[@mavortius8388]

My rejection of retributive justice is why I rejected the idea of everlasting punishment. It doesn't reliably deter other people from particular behaviors, and it doesn't rehabilitate, so what could it possibly be good for?

[@kaiosama3846]

Absolutely nothing!!!!

[@sylviaodhner]

+

[@brandonhall6084]

+

[@elephantwarrior53]

Even retributive justice condemns eternal punishment. It would require you to be infinitely evil. The only way you could deserve it is causing infinite suffering, but there is a finite number of beings to suffer and a finite time you can make them suffer.

[@dylana.2011]

Elephant Warrior No, it doesn't require "infinite evil" because the person will eventually die. The "eternal" part is a bad name, because it isn't truly eternal -- it ends as soon as the person dies. If a person sets off a nuclear bomb that kills 1,000,000 people, it totally makes sense to lock them up for life.

[@antoniorodriguez5849]

I think Rawls deserved more time on this video, and an explanation of the veil of ignorance

[@yaumelepire6310]

I think wrongdoers should be rehabilitated because, like that, they can become once again productive members of society and, henceforth, work to better the lives of others and their own. Killing them serves no purpose at all; making sure that they change for good makes society more productive and better for everyone.

[@RubberDonky]

Yaume Lepire I ain't gona train no criminal, let's put them in your back yard

[@drakost8848]

Just look at the Swedish prison system as a decent example. Criminals are treated as people rather than animals during their incarceration, and they almost always return to a normal function in society.

[@lewisrichardson2114]

Yaume Lepire can't agree with this more wholeheartedly... just to inform anyone here, it actually costs less to keep prisoners alive in prison (hence, giving them a chance for spiritual rehabilitation at least) than it does to execute here in America.

[@KengCheong]

What about if the wrongdoer killed ur loved ones? And they put him in a nice prison and rehabilitate him and he moves on with his life like it never happened? How is this fair (or just) to you, your family and the dead? There are many level of wrongdoing, some personally I can agree with your approach, but murderers/rapist/pedophiles are the ones I can't see a way to deal with other than the most severe punishment has to offer. Society has no need for a flight risk figure within it, and if he/she has done it before, he will do it again. Just a matter of if he thinks he will get caught or not that deterred him.

[@thewpbard]

+Keng Cheong What if the wrongdoer that killed your wife, say, was your son? Would you rather he be rehabilitated or would you rather he be sentenced to death? Under what circumstances did the death murder come about? Was he high, drunk, under mental torture? Was she abusive, violent, had she molested him? Or do we dismiss each of those attributes and just say "To hell with it, let's just kill all the most dangerous people in the world?" And if we do that, to what extent do we define "dangerous"? Given last week's episode, Person A and B would be equally dangerous for driving drunk along the road, even if B was the only one to have killed someone. They were equally drunk, under equivalent mental state, from equivalent backgrounds ... they are both as dangerous as one another, so let's kill them both, right?

[@jimslickens2325]

"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was actually meant to say that the degree of punishment should not exceed the degree of wrongdoing.

[@maldoran9150]

"Next time we'll talk about discrimination." Oh boy...

[@Awrhiicddon]

*Pulls at shirt collar*

[@mrsmiley707]

mal doran what's wrong

[@wesphillips8058]

@@mrsmiley707 XDXD

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Oh boy

[@ilyaelric9539]

Waiting for a guy with nickname "Light Yagami" to comment " I AM JUSTICE"....

[@smileyface702]

Was he though?!

[@froilen13]

JUSTICE RAINS FROM ABo-UGHHH (dies)

[@tysonasaurus6392]

froilen13 this is the truth of justice that we know with certainty, it always rains from above

[@Jx-kj9fs]

froilen13 still gets play of the game

[@armokgodofblood2504]

Want to know the forecast?

[@tuskinekinase]

Or sometimes from behind the payload

[@Nova-op1ob]

Justice is killing bastions because their existence is unjust :)

[@bentoth9555]

For examples of retributive justice theory look at any social media comment section when anyone, anywhere, is accused of any crime whatsoever. Half the comments will be demanding we "string em up."

[@t850terminator]

My weather forecast told me its going to rain down from above.

[@seebasschipman293]

David Chang that is genuinely funny

[@TheMasonX23]

I believe in a combination of rehabilitation and restoration, as helping criminals get their life together both greatly reduces recidivism (education especially is proven to cut down on "repeat offenders") and often results in them returning as productive members of society. Apart from philosophical reasons, this also reduces the overall cost of our struggling criminal justice system. And giving them and their victims a chance at making things better only makes sense. Also, deterrence is a flawed mindset, as it relies on the idea that people committing crimes rationally weigh the risks/rewards, which is very rarely the case.

[@trevorallen3212]

The idea of deterrence is more about fear than just the risks which clearly in this country it fails to do.

[@smileyface702]

Completely agree! Boy oh boy does the United States have a long way to go in changing its criminal justice system for the better

[@tintun8918]

Poya Salehi If the basic need of common people are already fulfilled such as food, clothes, shelter, basic education and health care, there won't be an incentive for someone to commit crime because they already have what they need. Also there are other unspoken consequences of committing a crime such as not having basic freedom, being ostracized by family and friends, and being discriminated by employers. I believe those who commit crime usually don't do so on rational basis, weighing wether the risk is worth the reward. I think it is rather because they lack rational thinking (and empathy) necessary to decide how to act. Rehabilitation can provide the help for that.

[@elephantwarrior53]

I'd say Distributive Justice should be need based for essentials (healthcare, food, water, housing, cloths) and merit based for everything else (fancy clothes, unnecessary amounts of food, larger house, toys).

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Elephant Warrior People can be very entitled. You might believe that everyone is entitled to food, medicine, and shelter and only those three universal elements that human beings need to physically survive. Fair enough but then what do you say when someone claims that education-primary AND secondary AND tertiary-is a necessity that MUST be provided by the government? How about the internet? What's to stop someone from arguing that people need mental and/or cultural nourishment and then demand free theatres and museums? Where does it end? And who pays for all that? You know what they say: if you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna ask for a glass of milk...

[@elephantwarrior53]

Marlon Moncrieffe The more education there is for the population, the better a society, especially a democracy, functions. I'd say providing college tuition free to those who prove they can handle it and use their newly acquired skills for the betterment of society is fine. What people deserve will be determined democratically, with different ideas of what is deserved competing for influence. You should also notice that we have free public libraries, with internet access. As for who pays for it, all production and economics is a social effort. All members of society contribute by working, raising labourers, managing, educating, etc. It is the reason society exists. Society has a right to determine how that wealth is to be spent, and spending it to raise the living standards of all is a noble cause. These would be paid for the same way primary education, inefficient healthcare subsides, defense (or offense), and infrastructure are paid for.

[@Stephen5000]

That what I would say as well. But it seems like a lot of people strongly disagree with that, or are at least unwilling to give up some of their own luxury to provide those essentials to those in need.

[@ppsarrakis]

althought the argument is absurd i heard it can get pretty cold/humid at night in tropical areas.

[@KookiesNolly]

That's true. African people wear clothes not for fashion but because even in Sahara at night, the temperatures can be very low.

[@guazzolin]

I just discovered your channel, I'm a student of electrical engineering so I found many of your videos very useful on my course. But I always liked philosophy and I hope to be in touch with this subject more often now with these awesome videos. Keep the good work. From a brazillian fan.

[@snowpunk116]

+

[@timpieper5293]

Gustavo Azzolin if you want more philosophy videos, look up PhilosophyTube. He's pretty informative and enjoyable. Peace.

[@OliveiraGames86]

Gustavo Azzolin BR too

[@courtneycanchari5161]

+

[@brandonhall6084]

Wow. That 10 minutes went by fast. This is why I love CrashCourse!

[@kaerblover]

"Everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to decide what it means." ~Crash Course #40

[@forrester8318]

I think that by paying taxes to help those who can't afford things, like medical care, you are helping society, as a whole, to function better

[@luisestevam4330]

Forrester Agreed, but I) we know that's not where most of our taxes go and II) even if it was 100% for help, it shouldn't be mandatory to pay them.

[@forrester8318]

Luís Antônio Estevam Filho Why do you think it shouldn't be mandatory? And are you brazilian? I'm asking because of your name

[@luisestevam4330]

Forrester yes, I am :). And shouldn't be mandatory because I) it's just not right that someone takes what is yours, stuff that you worked for to get, threatening incarceration or violence. This is called theft, and it doesn't become right just because the gov. does it or because there's a piece of paper saying it is right; and II) it also solves the problem of "where do my taxes go to". If it's mandatory, it's not on you to better spend it. If it goes to aid poor ppl get healthcare or if goes to politicians pockets or simply stuff you don't find valuable, you don't get to say anything. But, if it's voluntary, you can make sure to pay it only if you know your money is going to the right places and things you find important (also known as charity)

[@forrester8318]

Luís Estevam That basically only benefits the wealthy and creates an even more unsafe, unjust and unhealthy society, since only those who can will pay for security, medical care, government and etc will. I am brazilian also

[@luisestevam4330]

Well, everything has a cost. If you want something, you must be able to pay for it somehow. But what you said would not be the case for three main reasons: 1) Not everybody is a greedy pig, people would help each other just like they do today, it just wouldn't be at a gun point. And 2) In an unregulated scenario, there would be plenty of market space to provide cheaper services than today. When the government takes around half you earn to provide crappy services, you don't get much left to spend on what you need. But if you had this extra double available money, there would be companies willing to provide health insurance or security for a lower cost for poorer ppl. They might not get a brain transplant or a personal guard covered, but they would be able to get the basics affordably. And 3) When the market is free, technology gets cheaper. Take for example smartphones, about less than 10 years ago there was iPhone and only rich people could afford it. Nowadays, there are several options of smartphones for ll different types off incomes and most people have a smartphone today. There's no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen with basic services as well. We would get better quality services, that would be available for everyone soon and a plus that nobody got their salary stolen for that to happen. And remembering, Charity wouldn't vanish (it would probably be more frequent since people would have more money to spend on it)

[@marvinedwards737]

Justice is about the proper balancing of rights. All practical rights arise from agreements. We come to agree to respect and protect certain rights for each other.“To secure these rights, governments are instituted”, said Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. And we, the people, constituted the United States of America by a written agreement amongst ourselves. We agreed to create a legislature, consisting of our elected representatives, that acts on our behalf to reach further agreements on the details of specific rights. Behavior that infringes or violates these rights is defined and prohibited by laws. Every law implies one or more rights.Courts hear cases of illegal acts committed by individuals and, if found guilty, the offender is subject to a penalty, often carried out in a correctional facility.The point of the penalty is to (a) restore the rights of the victim by repairing the harm done, (b) correct the future behavior of the offender, (c) protect the rights of society against further harm until the offender’s behavior is corrected, and (d) assure the offender’s right to a just penalty by doing no more than is reasonably necessary to restore, correct, and protect.The rights of the victim, society, and the offender must all be taken into account if the penalty is to be called ‘just’.

[@damofoluis]

I think Justice is just ice... hahah... anybody? I'll be here all night folks

[@LoveSasukeKai]

Oh man, I love this subject, even if it makes me so angry. To me, giving everyone what they individually need to reach a point where they can freely pursue their desired career and life, is a given. This also includes education regarding drugs, no judgement towards mental health issues, and to talk more about the consequences of hurting others. Because many people in crime got off to a bad start in life, and education and support could easily prevent it. Of course this also means to judge every person by their actions in a society where they are educated and given a honest chance to do good. No racism, sexism or phobia of any kind should stand in the way of that. Because who doesn't want to work/do something? And if they are aware of the consequences of actions, on top of protected from having to resort to them by good healthcare, a chance to a work that fulfills their needs, and no judgement caused by things they can't choose. If someone, after all that, chooses to hurt others? Well, then punishment is a-okay, or whatever. Of course, people with disorders would already be taken care of, so. I'm not educated enough about punishment systems to have an opinion about what would happen afterwards, but those are my five cents. And in case anyone wonders, I'm Swedish, taken for a woman, and if I and so many others would get the help we need we'd gladly work, regardless of our mental illnesses. Not sure where Asperger's fall, but that too. People want to work and be productive, ffs.

[@nolitimeremessorem]

"TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." - Death in Hogfather

[@Haveawildguess]

I love Hank. I love all the subjects you've covered, and watched most of the videos. I hope you will make more on Philosophy and/or neuroscience.

[@zeromailss]

They teach sociology ,biology,geography ,math,science etc etc in my highschool but not philosophy like crash course do and I think that was a mistake EVERYONE NEED TO LEARN THIS! if not for my teacher sometimes showing crashcourse in middle school I might never learn this stuff as im planning to go to art college ,tho idk if different country might have philosophy class in highschool,if so I'm envious

[@GuerillaBunny]

We had one mandatory course of philosophy in "high school" (ages 13-15), with the option of taking two more if interested. But I think it's kind of too early. I didn't develop real interest in philosophy until after I was done with school. If other people did develop an interest at the time it was offered, I'm envious of those people.

[@npSylarpp]

MeowAlien にゃあエイリアン we do have mandatory philosophy in portugal in high school in 10th , 11th and 12th(optional) grades

[@tarad4162]

MeowAlien にゃあエイリアン I wish my high school offered a philosophy class! But I do think that if it was a requirement many students would not be interested yet.

[@danielmathews9101]

I have watched plenty of CrashCourse and I can honestly say that, in my humble opinion, this is the best video made so far. Bringing clarity to a subject matter so desperately required for society today. Bravo!

[@무군]

Justice: Rains from above

[@Wineclaw]

"Rai--AGHHH"

[@C0deH0wler]

Why should the people with more have an obligation to assist the people with less when necessary? Because the more depend on the less. If the less become angry and rebel then the more are screwed. If the less no longer have any money the more's business is screwed. If the less lose good health, the productivity the more runs on will take a hit. The more should think of it as an investment to sustain there goals long-term. They may be able to not care in the short term, but would you risk it?

[@C0deH0wler]

Wait, I forgot. I'm a proponent of Mixture. It shouldn't be an obligation. But just encouraged by society and it's benefits shown. It shouldn't be an obligation because it would become stagnant. The general message should just be encouraged so that different approaches can be tested without the stagnation of obligation. There may be cheaper but much more effective ways to assist the people with less. And the experimentation of many people could reveal economic benefits and encourage more people on board.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

C0deH0wler Just because you believe in merit-based justice, it doesn't mean greed and gluttony don't exist. And merit-based justice proponents DO find greed and gluttony to be vices while they also find abnegation to be a virtue and required of especially the wealthy. They just feel charity should be a CHOICE. Government-enforced obligations are both condescending, unfair, harmful to the people it is supposed to help, and even unnecessary. I mean, the welfare state wasn't needed for Andrew Carnegie to pen 'Wealth' and 'The Gospel of Wealth' condemning not giving to charity-all in the Gilded Age I might add-and become one of history's greatest philanthropists. And you're advocating for welfare as a bribe for the lower classes to stave off bloody reprisals the upper classes like what happened in the bloody French Revolution. This is shortsighted. Late 18th century France didn't have democratic representation and also had an established aristocracy. Merit-based justice wasn't achievable to begin with unlike today's western civilization, particularly in America.

[@C0deH0wler]

Marlon. I do not 'believe'. I am a devil's advocate, just to clarify :) Also, I am more for a less obligate version of the Justice is Fair system. Also, I would argue this isn't a bribe. You are not keeping angry people in check. You are giving people the basics to grow and bring economic growth. And I argue this will will bring the standard of living and stability. That is my core principle. I don't want to see the whole economy explode in everyone's face with everyone's lives being ruined in the process. Until everyone can sustain and achieve basic economic growth with little as resources as possible, like with 3D printing and other technologies, and with services that encourage freelancing, I think this is necessary in the meantime. These alternatives are still a bit too expensive and inaccessible for the working-class.

[@boredspencer]

There are a lot of assumptions being made to align the more's interests with those of the less. That is not a universal theme, the rich may very well be unaligned with the poor in circumstances and an objective justice should not assume otherwise.

[@marvinedwards737]

The rules are only as real as the consensus. If you want others to respect your right to your property, you must make sure the rules insure that there is a way to survive if you follow the rules. This means the society must assure that their are enough jobs for everyone to earn their bread or provide welfare assistance to provide the bread. If the rules mean I must starve to death to protect your property, then why would I agree to them?

[@lisadebow2462]

Eye for an eye is not a Christian tenant actually like he says in this video. Matthew (5:38-42) in the New Testament, Jesus repudiates that notion. "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall hit you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[@Horiks]

What is love?

[@jgg3080]

Baby don't hurt me

[@johnhugon67]

don't hurt, me no more

[@elephantwarrior53]

Love is death, and death is love.

[@Niom_Music]

Horiks Baby don't hurt me

[@Zeuts85]

Everyone who quoted lyrics after the first 2 replies (which were a natural continuation of the song) should receive 0 upvotes for lack of originality. That's justice!

[@johnaarson]

One important thing Hank failed to mention is that the person who is better can hold a debt to society and should help out those in need. Nobody becomes wealthy alone. Wilt Chamberlain became the best basketball player because society game him the possibility for him to become a very rich guy. Every single wealthy person becomes wealthy because society allowed them to be. Society gave them the means to build their fortune. Even if they had to work really hard and had lots of problems, they would not be successful if they had no contact with other people. So yes, those who are better off should help those in need. I'm sorry, Libertarians, you should pay your taxes.

[@thesorrow1521]

I don't think that Nozick argument was "taxation is theft" as he was a minarchist, and if by society you were meaning "public servants", i guess his view only works if there weren't public services such as public schools, hospitals etc..., otherwise, yeah, you do have to pay for those services through taxes.

[@ExPwner]

Lounis Mansouri I'm sure Nozick didn't make that argument. I will. Forced monopolization of things by the state isn't a valid justification for being forced to pay for them. That's circular logic. You can't use state ownership to justify taxation and taxation to justify ownership.

[@luisestevam4330]

John Aarson Charbelain have paid it's "debt" to society. As he was getting paid good money, he played the basketball that the people responsable for his salary wanted. He made his money and he delivered what he was paid to deliver. (Unlike, let's say, government). That's your trade right there, no need for further robbery on any sides.

[@soonny002]

That's a good point, John. Except the very attitude that made people rich, is also the same attitude that made others poor, especially in a resource finite environment. Just like how one bacteria can outgrow another in a petri dish, or how taller trees get all the sunlight while blocking it out for smaller shrubs. Note, it is not in the interest of the rich to 'kill' the poor, because they would lose their wealth, but it is entirely in their interest to keep the poor poor, otherwise, they'd stop being rich. As far as I can tell, this seems to be the natural order of things. We can hate it all we want but... An entirely 'just' society will never be anything but a dystopia.

[@ExPwner]

soonny002 wealth isn't zero sum. Rich people don't get rich by making others poor but by providing something to someone else that the other person values more than what was traded.

[@Ancor3]

Justice is what Steven Seagal always fought for in his movies.

[@Darth_Zamiel]

justice does not exist. it's merely a pretty concept constructed to make us feel better about the harsh reality we either want or can't avoid.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Should have been an image of Ayn Rand when "Negative Right" appeared on the screen.

[@martinebonita2658]

reminds me of Orwell, animal farm. "all men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others"

[@macdougdoug]

We "incur an obligation to help" others because we're all living in a closed system; we form a whole (society, ecosystem, planet etc)

[@abracadabra2395]

Merit-based justice is flawed af. Who gets to decide what folks deserve?

[@LeRouxBel]

Nice topic. I'd recommend keeping in mind there's no right or wrong here, it's all about what others or yourself approve or dissaproves of. See you next time, Crash Course.

[@dopplesoddner2899]

Kira is real justice

[@syedzaid5771]

DoppleSoddner I was surprised no talked about death note yet and yes KIRA IS JUSTICE.

[@jackgude3969]

Nozick's assertion that we're entitled to stuff we have as long as we didn't obtain it unjustly is troubling to me. It's like he's saying "things are just because they are." Is it just to profit from privilege? Maybe not in the case of Wilt Chamberlain. Maybe so. Maybe he's profiting from the privilege of his anatomy. Maybe he's profiting from the privilege of his birth place, or even from the privilege of the time period into which he was born. I don't know anything about Chamberlain's life. My point is that Nozick makes a terrible argument for people who have more than they need, probably because having vast success and demanding more is pretty much indefensible. If you have the opportunity to help is there any point at which you have the obligation to help? If it affects you in a completely inconsequential way are you entitled to keep that money or is it unjust for you to even have? Nozick says "of course it's just for me to have this big ol' pile o' money because it's not unjust" That's the whole question Nozick!!

[@soonny002]

Justice is always going to be a mostly academic pursuit but rarely practical. In fact, to overemphasise it can be toxic. Justice is synonymous with 'fairness', and 'fairness' is a human concept, an illusion. It doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in the minds of humans and that is the problem. The universe is blatantly indifferent and unjust to everything. Like when a lion eats a gazelle or when a star goes supernova (aw... poor star). Is there justice? Yes, but not absolute justice, just relative and contextual justice. One action could be more just than other depending on the social context, but all actions are both just and unjust to somebody or some things in any given context.

[@Benioff1]

Interesting. It is something to consider.

[@Ladifour]

Avatar: ... Xander, what do we-? Xander: I know. I don't like this plan any more than you do. But we must stay strong. If we falter now, the whole world will pay the price. Avatar... Camilla told me you once asked her where justice lies. Avatar: Yes. She didn't have any more answers than I do. Xander: Little prince/princess... The sad truth is that *justice* *is* *an* *illusion*. A child's fairy tale. There is no light path that always leads to good, nor dark path that leads to evil. To believe that-to see the world in black and white-is missing half the picture. All that matters are the choices we make-especially the hard ones. Avatar: But this? It's too much... Xander: Letting innocents die is a tragedy, but so is letting the chance for peace slip away. This is war. There is no such thing as a clean win when lives are on the line. Instead of clinging to a false sense of justice, hold strong to something true... The desire to do what you know is right and to protect the ones you love... And the ambition to see your vision of a peaceful future through to the end. If we allow evil men to let their vision take precedence over our own, we all lose. Remember that, and find solace in it.

[@sahrinaha]

I literally learned more in 10 minutes than i did in a 1 h 30m class.

[@Alverant]

Deterrence doesn't work. We lock up millions of people and they still commit crimes. Punishment as a form of revenge is not fair because different people get punished different amounts for the same crime. Rehabilitation is the best solution and those who can't be rehabilitated need to be isolated in such a way to prevent further crimes.

[@Alverant]

"those who can't be rehabilitated need to be isolated in such a way to prevent further crimes"

[@Alverant]

And if we got the wrong person, what then? Can you un-remove someone from your justice? Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for setting a fire that killed his children. Except we know now (and knew then) that the fire was an accident, not a crime. The DA hid evidence and then-governor Perry (now part of Trump's cabinet) shut down the investigation committee into the case. Where is the justice there?

[@elephantwarrior53]

Ash Kitt Who is your enemies? Is it the Jews? JK. I know, not funny. I just couldn't resist.

[@Alverant]

Seriously? You have no problems with executing an innocent person? What if it was someone you cared about and your own government knowingly had him/her put to death for something they didn't do?

[@vlobben1]

You can't claim deterrence doesn't work simply because people are still committing crimes.

[@PhilNEvo]

How does Justice relate to morality? Because he said that justice will shape how I vote and behave, but I use my morality to try and dictate what I vote for and how I behave. Similarly with how I view punishment and so on. So they must be intertwined, but how? I haven't thought a lot about justice, but I've spent a lot of years discovering morality and shaping my view on it. Are they synonymous? They almost have to be, because I doubt I'd call something just, if it was immoral? And if I did think something which was just, was immoral, I wouldn't want to use justice as a guideline ever.

[@matthewcupelli5901]

GUYS DO AN ETYMOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE COURSE

[@cloudkitt]

Ooh, that'd be a good one.

[@rob45311]

All this talk about justice and not one mention of Plato and Socrates!

[@Naijiri.]

The first description of justice was from Plato I believe, but like you said, he didn't quote him

[@warrioroflight8329]

Bartender: What will you be having to drink? Harambe: I'll have a beer Me: No, he'll have just ice. Bartender: Just ice? Me: Yes.... ... justice for Harambe

[@oberstul1941]

Bring back public flogging instead of death penalty or small time incarceration.

[@poorplayer9249]

I've read through the comments sections on a bunch of videos from this channel, SciShow, and a few other unrelated science/humanities channels, and I've noticed that even when posters disagree in venues like the above, e.g., informative videos without a stated bias, the general tone rarely if ever devolves into puerile name calling and insults. That is so very refreshing compared to other channels that concentrate on sociopolitical topics. Huge mohunkin' props to the Crash Course team and their commitment to an atmosphere of open minded learning and discourse. Thanks you guys!

[@timothystephens3909]

First Chom Chom

[@SpartaSpartan117]

Last time I was this early the host had fewer children

[@seaorshore]

Thank you! This video really helped me for my environmental ethics essay :D

[@Fealox]

Thank you so much for putting out these videos!!! I really wish I had these videos to get a clear overall understanding of the topics I covered so many years ago in my philosophy and ethics classes.

[@malcolmfoley9129]

This was amazingly interesting!!! sooo using this with my class, ty guys!!!!! Thanks Hank. You and your team Rock!

[@allenyang5697]

Justice is only in favor of one group of people. Hence, Just-us

[@asneakychicken322]

Allen Yang because giving out a deserved sentence for say homicide or fraud or whatever else only serves one group? And then there's also social justice which in its most basic form is more or less about equality, mainly economic, with the goal of benefitting the most people

[@sansamman4619]

Allen Yang why is everyone saying what justice is after watching a video that showed everyone what justice is we all know he just told us !

[@Ayo22210]

Its the jealous ones that are calling for economic justice. "Jealousy is the shadow of greed" - Yoda

[@asneakychicken322]

John Adams No, it's the sensible ones, as you need to decide what you think economic justice is from an original point of ignorance as it were, assume that you don't know whether you're rich or poor, how do you want the system to be set up, you would naturally choose the most equal system that benefits the poor the most (this doesn't mean they will be better of than the rich as the rich will always have advantage) as you don't know whether you might end up being one of the rich few or the many poor.

[@Ayo22210]

+Aaron Brougham Liberals and their hypothetical abstract theory.

[@MedicEne]

Everyone knows that it rains from above

[@michaelmaage]

“The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.”

[@jujube7429]

Hello CrashCourse makers and Hank, I assume that this is impossible, but it would be a dream for this course to continue indefinitely. I really enjoy it and look forward to every new episode. It's almost like a crash course on everything, because everything we do, be it physics or poetry, is viewed through the lens of human thought. Anyway, just my way of saying I love crash course, thank you all so much for making it.

[@samranuppal6544]

Chom choms is JUSTICE!

[@bensjammin9]

Eye-for-an-eye retributive justice is NOT Biblical

[@alackofcaring9662]

Whovian_BenK depends. the concept of heaven and hell could be seen as at least an eye for an eye (some believe we commit infinite sins, and thus will recieve infinite punishment) while others (mainstream mormons, likely others) dont believe in a hell, rather increasing increments of a perfect afterlife while others still believe that limited mistakes do result in an infinite punishment. he should have used hammurabi instead of the bible, but perhaps he mistakenly referred to hamurabi as a jew?

[@Carltoncurtis1]

Yeah it is. Especially in the old testament. It his time, it was the _correct_ way to think of justice, Jesus _said_ turn the other cheek but mere mortal men never were and never will be that merciful.

[@taxiarch]

Whovian_BenK It is according to old testament law, a biblical command for how the nation of Israel was to govern itself. according to Jesus, however, this is not how His followers are to view justice. Moses gives the command to take eye for eye in Exodus 21:24, and Jesus (as he comes to fulfill what the law was meant to do) ends this retributive approach for his followers in his sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:38. Not popular words of Jesus for his followers or for others, other than Quakers, Anabaptists, followers of Gandhi, or followrs of Martin Luther King Jr.

[@MarcSiegert]

An eye for an eye is the most famous rule of the Hammurabi code in the old Bayblonic kingdom and regarded as the oldest written law of mankind. It is not written in the Bible but one can assume that is a widely adopted rule in the ancient world.

[@MarcSiegert]

One should add that jewish law soon became very different from other cultures of that time as it refrained from capital and bodily punishment and mostly had fines and prison time.

[@paulharris3000]

Justice, personally, is every individual's desire to have all matters as s/he would have them. In the public sphere, justice is the aggregate concatenation of this individuated desire...

[@forrester8318]

Baby, what is justice?

[@themagichatter1054]

Forrester it's just us that's why we call it justice

[@azdgariarada]

Haven't watched the video yet. I swear to god if they reference the band Justice in this episode I'll be thrilled.

[@arooobine]

Why all the disagreement about the meaning of justice? It's just ice!

[@Cloud_Seeker]

how can ice be righteous?

[@arooobine]

Good point. I guess I was making a slippery slope argument. My bad.

[@heather-qv4wu]

*casually watching this before politics degree exam lol*

[@katrinashitundeni2238]

heather Same😂

[@heather-qv4wu]

Katrina Shitundeni this helped so much omg. had my exam the other day and lowkey smashed it after watching this video. coincidence? i think not

[@lam-ben-yam4015]

Harmony justice sounds pretty good. We know what justice is when we've had an injustice done to us or someone else. If everyone resists injustice on the individual level then society will function justly. The role of government should, therefore, be to correct any injustices the majority agree upon as being unjust and be run by representatives who's views align with the majority.

[@juliamccoey7496]

As a non-American, the incredulity at 6:18 is so weird. "How can I have an obligation to help those less fortunate just because I can?" like it's an absurd suggestion? It's so strange. Especially when the US is so Christian, and that was kind of Jesus whole thing right?

[@Lucid_Night]

Did you mean to post this on the day electoral college voted or is that just great timing?

[@MFMegaZeroX7]

Why is there so much Trump spam on this video? Did they Google "I had Social Justice Warriors" or something and Google picked up on Justice and brought them here?

[@Caldogz842]

Justice is the harmony of the three elements of the soul

[@spanishinquisition5032]

I'm curious but does equality exist?

[@zeromailss]

Dildo Swaggins interesting, next episode maybe?

[@obrigaah]

Nope.

[@leaphiline7565]

Today I have to hand in a philosophy essay on law and justice. Now it's too late to include the contents of this video. whyyyyyyy?

[@Scorch428]

What system I think is FAIR, and what system I think would be the best for society are two different things. While everyone getting stuff in proportion to their hard work is FAIR, it isnt the best for society, because in society, not everyone is on an equal playing field. For example, someone who has to deal with crippling anxiety, cant get a job, and stuggle through life vs someone who is handed money, a job, everything form their parents....should they each get the same help form the government? In fairness, they should, but in reality, I believe they shouldn't. One person obv needs more help, and if the situations were reversed - I would want that help. Thats why, even if I were the well-off guy, I would understand that the other person COULD EASILY BE ME, and would want him helped more than myself.

[@Scorch428]

A lot of Americans on the right simply cannot put themselves in other's shoes. They assume everyone in life is on the same exact playing field that they are. For example: Since they dont have to deal with racism, nobody has to deal with it. And many other issues....if it isnt hapening to THEM, then it isnt worth fixing.

[@alishainc]

I was just having these thoughts on Friday! I live in Toronto so health care is partly taken care of and I wish that 'free health care' was an international thing. No one asks to be born and I feel like access to sustenance of health should be a birth right.

[@jacobcline6892]

Exactly. Well said.

[@vantarinitel]

D Rageway I'd believe that one far harder if firefighting and soldiers were also paid per-use not prepaid. What's the difference between Bob Firefighter rescuing IdiotJaneMethHead from a burning building, or Bob Doctor rescuing Responsible-but-poor-Fred from cholera?

[@brianrandolph2501]

Because you are justifying the debt of one person with the theft from another. The fact is that most of the liability placed on the claim to productivity is not paid for with that claim. Most of your services are paid for with property taxes or a separate bill, which is appropriate, since in order to have property you NEED most of these services, and if you don't own property in a certain area, you don't need the services and therefore don't have to pay for them (fire, police, road access, utility infrastructure.) Property owners benefit from these services, so a tax on the ownership of property that directly funds these services is justified. The duty is placed on property owners for services rendered, not the idea that someone else provided it for you. The very reason that direct taxation was omitted from the Constitution was the belief that you should only be taxed for services you directly receive, and that productivity was best allocated to the community and to those services you DIRECTLY benefit from. Direct taxation wasn't even a thing before 1943 except to repay public debt incurred by war, which is one of the most effective ways to destroy an economy. Nothing is produced in war that generates profit - everything is meant to either be destroyed, or destroy something that will need to be rebuilt (hence why our foreign policy includes "nation building.") Why do you think they had to pass a law to justify it? Because you don't directly benefit from what taxes generally go to fund.

[@brianrandolph2501]

And Thomas - do you pay a water bill? That's how you get that clean water - not by taxation, but by paying directly for services rendered.

[@brianrandolph2501]

I would generally believe that basic needs should be within the means of reasonable access, and in that there is the ability to prevent those services necessary to the sustaining life from being unobtainable. I don't think you should be able to deny life because of your need to obtain property, which is to say that things like food, or medicine, should not be so ridiculously priced that only the super well off can obtain them, but is this not possible without the expectation that those who are better off should provide for those who are not, legally? And does a MORAL obligation really translate to a legal one? Are we to say that the moral majority gets to dictate the lifestyles and obligations of the minority? Is this not the sole purpose of a separation of church and state, to prevent the possibility of the majority dictating morality?

[@Diplomastronaut]

Restorative justice for the criminal justice system. That philosopher didn't want to be obligated to do more for others even though that is a key trait in European religion and intellectual thought. It just never translates into reality, but instead into hypocrisy as that philosopher had shown. He can admit that there is a problem and it should be solved, but he won't be the one involved in solving said problem because he feels it is a waste of time or beneath him. In reality and history, it shows that life is more rewarding when we empathize and care for one another even if we are not obligated to do so instead of constantly delaying that inevitable truth with excuses like how we feel on the issue. It should not matter what you feel on the subject. If it is for the betterment of mankind, then it is a necessary obligation for you to undertake by default. That is what being a citizen of society is about. Contributing to society and the other people that live in it. When you say you have no obligation to do that, then there is a flaw in your logic. Just like how Thomas Jefferson realized there was a slave problem in America, but chose to leave that burden onto future generations to solve. A delayed solution is a non-solution. And by delaying that solution, you are denying the inevitable. An inevitable fate that will come to fruition regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

[@talishabland8605]

This guy is actually really pleasant to listen to for an educational video, I liked it.

[@murraybeachtel8585]

Something I like about restorative justice is that the focus isn't on the offender, but the offended. It's about "restoring" the victim to their pre-crime state. Of course for a lot of offenses, there is no perfect fix, but victims involved in restorative justice typically rate their experience more positively than those going through the usual justice system.

[@robertbell6351]

I would say that justice is an aspect of goodness.

[@ride_ai1615]

Justice is defined by the hand that claims it

[@Restryouis]

sooo, a question to those who think justice is purely giving people what they worked for, what if someone plans a heist for lets say 1 billion dollars for one month? they worked hard for the heist, so whats up with that?

[@illdie314]

The reason people are rewarded for hard work is because of its contribution to the society. That work harms others, so they would be punished for it instead, and (supposing a full idea of justice was enacted) the possessions stolen would be returned to their rightful owners. Also, seeing your profile picture, you should already know that justice is what rains from above!

[@David61891]

That is, more than likely, one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. Congrats

[@Arrakiz666]

Who determines what "contributes to society"? Because historically that has always been synonymous with "what benefits the people running the state".

[@elephantwarrior53]

bcat124 But why should the law determine what is just? Can laws not be unjust?

[@bestpseudonym1693]

@Arrakiz666The economic definition, Obviously.

[@isaacliu896]

for all those people that though hank was biased liberal... in this one if biased at all he was biased towards inequality and such because it was the thought bubble and more of the conversation

[@Betta66]

"What you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote" A little late for that, isn't it?

[@vitamindubya]

I feel like justice makes no sense. Most versions of it sound just like revenge. I believe in safety,but not justice.

[@vitamindubya]

Ash Kitt That's a very internetty answer

[@Asha2820]

Living in a country with the rule of law is vastly safer than living in a country where the rule of law has broken down. Justice provides safety.

[@mitchellbloemker4750]

These are awesome. Keep making them!!!!!!

[@MegaChickenfish]

0:46 By that definition of justice, Brave New World is an ideal society. Everyone is doing their role AND happy with it.

[@anilatarannum]

I did not think that a discussion on Justice could be had without talking about lottery of birth. It was merely mentioned here. But I always felt that it was one of the most compelling factors behind Rawlsian notion (Need-based) form of justice. So many people never get the OPPORTUNITY to make a living that others do simply because of their birth. How can people argue that a say a lawyer puts in more hard work than a construction worker and is thus entitled to his entire earnings? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Anila Tarannum Do you have any idea how hard law is? You're doing that foolish thing where you're equating physical labor alone with hard work. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are. Everyone is born an equally innocent human being and is subject to the forces of fate. If you want to move past your station, work hard to do so. The innocent child born to upper class parents isn't responsible for your party or entitled to help you.

[@anilatarannum]

Marlon Moncrieffe Umm yeah, I have all the idea. My parents are lawyers. Going by the tone of your comment I don't think you're one to discuss things amicably, but I'll still try to put forth what I think. I live in New Delhi, India. I went to one of the most prestigious universities of the country. It is funded by the govt. Due to strong student activism there, the tuition fees was extremely low (about 2 dollars per semester), however the quality of the faculty and infrastructure was top notch, meaning obviously the university is subsidised by taxes. In my class, I met many who were first generation learners, in that they would be the 1st in their entire family history to be able to even go to school, and beyond. They all had to obviously clear the entrance exam to be a part of the university. Now tell me. These students clearly had the merit and hard word to be in that university. Just due to lottery of birth they weren't born in a family which could afford very high education expenditures. Is it not justice for the state (being the arbiter of inter-generational justice) to ensure a redistribution which allows these students to access education?

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Anila Tarannum I was arguing against your point that lawyers don't work hard or don't work as hard as blue collar laborers and that their money should be taken by a paternalistic government for well-intended welfare schemes.

[@kellyloganme]

I found this an excellent examination of the idea of justice and I wholey agree that determining your own personal definition of justice and the appropriate actions to create and maintain it are critical mental actions we all should take. One note I would make regarding capital punishment - while it is popular for individuals to justify this as a retributive punishment, another more official line of justification is that some crimes characterize a person so dangerous that they must be removed from society; i.e., foward-thinking safety concerns rather than backward-looking punishment. From that standpoint it seems more like a qualification of the reformist line of thinking.

[@oscarfellows6709]

The last time I was this early, I wasn't alone.

[@mr.belowaverage4651]

“Eye for an eye” was actually a way of ensuring that only you were punished for your wrong doing instead of others such as your family. It was unfortunately common for punishments in bible times to be directly exacted on innocent people to indirectly punish the guilty one. For example: if you murder someone’s daughter, under eye for an eye philosophy you are the one who is executed for the crime instead of your daughter being executed. It was a law of mercy to promote greater justice.

[@RubberDonky]

I NEED an Asian gf

[@illdie314]

great input

[@BlackPhillip-sw8xf]

What it has to do with the video?

[@CaptmagiKono]

They have this wonderful thing called body pillows, just remember to wash it every once in a while.

[@spindash64]

Carlos Almeida It's w jab that the idea that Justice is meeting needs

[@justinward3679]

Don't we all?

[@etzhaim]

Nice, but you need a brief mention of Rawls' principles of justice to add some depth.

[@TheMan83554]

In my opinion, everyone gets what they need, be it food, shelter, or healthcare. They get help if they can't get it themselves. Anything more than what they strictly need is on them to achieve.

[@caliph20]

That's asking alot of society. depending on what you classify as shelter. is a home shelter? or is a homelesss shelter shelter? is a proper diet food? or is a pound a rice a day food?

[@TheMan83554]

***** Basic needs to live, anything more is on you. Is there an obvious problem that I'm not seeing? Aside from implementation on this wholly theoretical "plan".

[@schweiz1983]

basic needs to live is still an incredibly gray area. does that then mean we have to keep people in brain death alive in hospitals because removing that from them would be taking their needs? what if two people need the same thing, like a drug you can only get a limited amount of? how do you decide who gets the only neurosurgeon when a bus crashes if more than one person needs them. the entrepreneur who has created 100 jobs or the homeless person on the way to a job interview?

[@RyanMWilliams]

You are probably thinking along the lines of the poverty threshold and absolute poverty. Unfortunately the definition of poverty has changed many times, the U.N. even considers someone without access to the Internet to be in poverty though people got along just fine using libraries for quite a while. As quality of life improves the perspective of what is essential changes.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

[@mikegordon697]

Basic needs of self-determination theory(psychology) is education, relativness, autority. Don't think that its possible that everyone, at least adult get their own apartments and how education topic can be put on goverment if for example in russia only 2 universities in top-500?

[@sairidimutukulla7304]

Once again, Great job, CrashCourse. Restorative Justice sounds good. For me, I believe that when someone does something that is harmful or a form of wrongdoing, I think you should give them the right to explain their actions. During their explanation, I believe they recognise their wrongdoing and then they should be encouraged to do better, to do good, to right the wrong, to avoid doing the wrong and to encourage others do the same. But I like some of each of the types of justice, though physical punishment doesn't quit appeal to me. But anyway, I have a question. If you take the life of Person A because they took the life of Person B doesn't that make you a lifetaker and thus aren't you subject to the same punishment? Thanks again CrashCourse for the wonderful videos that you share with the world.

[@nea0496]

I want trail by combat

[@alackofcaring9662]

Ashwin Acharya ive heard of trailblazing but never trailfighting

[@Shadowrunner1210]

I was sure you would get to the veil of ignorance here. oh well, probably not enough time

[@DPGrupa]

Negative justice also requires obligations from others. For example, if a person has a right to not be enslaved, other members of society are obliged to prevent enslavement. Any right for a person can be expressed as duty for others to guarantee that right.

[@ronpaulrevered]

A right to retaliation is not an obligation on anyone to prevent coercion.

[@DPGrupa]

Not sure what you mean with “prevent coercion”.

[@DPGrupa]

RonPaul Revered thanks for the explanation. It seems that in obligation-free society, the “right to retaliate” is at best a moral right. Say, a slave rebels against his owner and for that the owner kill the slave. Since there is no external body that will stop him, why shouldn't the slave owner do as he pleases? In practical terms, how is this any different from a situation where save has no rights of retaliation?

[@ronpaulrevered]

Rūdolfs Mazurs I don't mean to say that no one else but the victim can retaliate, but that no one is required to retaliate. As many people as possible should adhere to a rational legal framework to maximize peaceful interaction. To what extent retaliation should be exercised is up for discussion.

[@DPGrupa]

RonPaul Revered Consider this scenario: A has a right to retaliate against B and C is preventing A from retaliation. It is clear that C is infringing on the rights of A. How should this situation be resolved? A and others get a permission to retaliate against C?

[@sinisternightmare]

Oh boy, I can already tell, that I'm gonna loooove the NEXT episode! -.-