What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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!

[@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

[@brandonhall6084]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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]

+

[@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.

[@antoniorodriguez5849]

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

[@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.

[@talishabland8605]

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

[@Wkumar07]

Justice is by far at the forefront of our political issues in the US. Look at the political division rendering our political system into various factions and ask yourself what else, besides the idea of justice, is causing this division. This was an excellent crash course video!

[@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? :)

[@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?

[@kaerblover]

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

[@TrivialPunk]

love the video! i take issue with the idea that need-based justice is "putting those who need less stuff at a disadvantage." in a market economy, where filling every need draws from the same very limited pool, having fewer needs is an inherent advantage. therefore, you aren't at a disavantage, because you already had a serious advantage. so, yes, you're getting fewer things, but you're using fewer things by default to achieve roughly the same ends.

[@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

[@forrester8318]

This was one of the best episodes for me.

[@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?

[@adamel-kadi5179]

I cannot believe that there are any dislikes on this video, honestly, this is the most informative video about philosophy on the web. And Hank Green, you have my respect truly amazing talking skills always keeps me interested, makes me even wonder if he even reads what he is saying... Amazing job, splendid...

[@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.

[@beataszczeblowska9164]

The only thing what is missing here for me is a lack of books which I can read to get deep into topic. On the other hand I love what's you doing! ❤️

[@TamimJamadar]

If interested read Justice by Michael J Sandel

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@richardlabracio8923]

Got introduced to this channel in college and still watching and learning after graduating. Love the content !

[@malcolmfoley9129]

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

[@dscecseprohitsil3rdsem949]

Am I the only science guy who subscribed CRASH COURSE for the science videos and now watching literally everything they upload?

[@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)

[@sinisternightmare]

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

[@무군]

Justice: Rains from above

[@Wineclaw]

"Rai--AGHHH"

[@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.

[@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.

[@MegaChickenfish]

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

[@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.

[@Davao420]

the intro music really gets me every time :) really well done

[@xTEETSx]

Its weird how I can watch this guy and in under 15 minutes learn more about a subject than I did at a college level course that covered the topic for 2 90 minute classes

[@corensam]

This was so well done. Good on you CrashCourse

[@seaorshore]

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

[@plewelly]

This episode should easily have been twice as long. Lots to unpack there, but very well delivered.

[@azdgariarada]

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

[@rodrigocarrion5264]

I must adress @CrashCourse for their effort in allowing us to obtiain an objective view of reality. Think about this, media, while granting us the capability of knowing world issues almost instantly, can bias us; despite of this, there are people who create chanels such as this one with the sole objective of permitting us a cleaner and wider perspective of the world. As an engineering student whom has worked with behavioral systems, I must say, you guys are making the world better in every aspect that you can reach. Thank you!

[@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."

[@IslandFenix]

Really looking forward to next week now...

[@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’.

[@SirPetterTheFirst]

These videos really help me for my philosophy classes, thanks

[@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

[@andrewjudge5108]

This video is terrific! Keep the videos coming PBS!

[@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 :)

[@aperson22222]

My rights are positive. So are yours. Positive freedom is what produces happiness and virtue.

[@boredspencer]

Individuals producing goods and services as well as individuals interacting within their own agency and without outside force is what produces happiness and virtue. But this is not a direct contradiction more more a different viewpoint. Your reply assumes the government responsibly for producing happiness and virtue for the people, I consider that the duty of individuals and not a force possible for the state to produce.

[@aozora7]

I personally think that equality of opportunity is extremely important for happiness and virtue, and I can't see any feasible ways to achieve it without a government redistributing wealth. Without positive rights a lot of talented people end up struggling to survive instead of nourishing their talents. And positive rights have other benefits for society as a whole, like alleviating poverty, which in turns decreases crime.

[@GuerillaBunny]

I don't think individuals, at least in the current human civilization, can produce happiness that extends beyond their in-groups, and while the current Western culture encourages expanding the in-groups, it isn't really dealing with the shrinking of certain in-groups, ie. nationalistic and some religious groups. I think there's also an inherent problem with the mirrored responsibilities of negative rights; we would be really good at seeing how others might infringe on our right to pursue happiness, but really bad at seeing how we might infringe those of others. For example, our luxurious way of life depends on goods that are produced practically with slave labor, and at the expense of future generations.

[@justindeltoro6825]

A right *is* an obligation, however, and you cannot force one to do anything. Therefore, your rights are neutral at best.

[@aperson22222]

Justin DelToro Can't force one to do _anything?_ Nonsense! Of course you can!

[@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)

[@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...

[@mitchellbloemker4750]

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

[@tribizz9252]

including concepts and ideas from non western philosophers would help these videos a lot. for example on the matter of justice and order Chinese philosphy is full of ideas alien to western philosophy. including non wester philosophy would make this channel even more awesome than it already is :)

[@Caldogz842]

Justice is the harmony of the three elements of the soul

[@heatheronthehill100]

I just finished a course at university called Economic Justice and, although I know that crash course by nature has to simplify everything, but seeing all the stuff they left out still hurt my soul a little bit.

[@t850terminator]

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

[@seebasschipman293]

David Chang that is genuinely funny

[@sophiacbosco]

thank you hank bestie i have lost my marbles and i immediately i knew i needed hank or john to explain big things to my small brain

[@newbooksmell4163]

I love CrashCoarse Philosophy! My favorite Series so far!

[@halfdangarder8782]

I find it somewhat interesting that the main focus of this video was Nozick. When I recently learned about this same topic in lectures, the main focus was on Rawls. Maybe it has something to do with what school of though best suits our respective current societies? Rawls idea of supporting the least well of fits the scandinavian model well, whereas Nozicks idea of personal freedom fits well with a general understanding of the american society. Or at least, that is what I though after watching this video...

[@rahulpatil20092010]

very helpful course. Appreciate John Green and his team ,for this course.

[@MrJr1976]

Thank you very much for not getting into politics (not that I don't like politics, but this is not the time for it). You were so close to defining democrats and republicans when you were talking about entitlements. Thank you for staying as impartial as possible when talking about most subjects. Even though the "How words can hurt" episode was HEAVILY biased, I still love this series as a whole. I even plan to use CC for my kids to learn. DFTBA

[@ilyaelric9539]

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

[@smileyface702]

Was he though?!

[@kristiangregory4860]

Studying Social Work next year. Could not have come at a better time. Thanks CC!

[@sahrinaha]

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

[@gianghaibara4576]

Amazing video. Thank you all for the hard work!

[@oscarfellows6709]

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

[@jasonb1854]

I don't comment on here really. But I appreciate this quality content.

[@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?

[@henry770]

Merit-based justice in the distributive category. On in the punishment category: restorative when possible in any case, and then also welfare maximization when it can be shown that the offender was ignorant or unable to control his actions or retributive in all other cases (i.e. the offender knew what he was doing and chose to do it anyway).

[@damofoluis]

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

[@grim_reaper977]

After 6 years i request for another season of crash course philosophy.

[@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?

[@tommyrosendahl7238]

I think Crash Course Sociology would be a really cool series!

[@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?

[@tdesq.2463]

Good nutshell summary. I appreciate your treatment of the "Luck" factor ... which logically brings the whole Free Will v. Necessity issue to csnter stage. Also, crimes come in a variety of flavors, primary distinctkon being that between Malem In Se (moral wrongs, evil in and of itself (ie, Murder)) v. Malem Prohibite (technical (bloodless) rule violations (ie, Tax Evasion)). Also, mental/emotional state of offender, especially relevant in the case of moral depravity (Malem In Se). Any acceptance of accountability? ... remorse? If no, major point of consideration. Excellent presentation! Your efforts are greatly appreciated. ~TD, Boston

[@robertbell6351]

I would say that justice is an aspect of goodness.

[@genericchannelname7000]

He’s really good at not showing his beliefs in a topic that’s very easy to be biased in.

[@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

[@Expertspecter]

I like you guys. Sometimes I see things that feel a little "social justicey", but that's fine. You guys clearly think about all the sides. I may not always agree with your opinion, I respect that you give it real thought. Great job guys.

[@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.

[@osamaabusanina7371]

Wait! this is not the series finale?!! oh Crash Course you're the best!

[@roseslikemusic]

I would have wanted to hear more about Rawls justice-as-fairness, and an argument against Nozick. Other than that, the episode was just as good as always.

[@MarcSiegert]

The problem of justice starts with such seemingly simple questions like what are just taxes? Is it the same amount of money for every person? The same percentage of income? The higher percentage the higher your income is? Everyone has different versions of that justice and therefore everything else must be injust.

[@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?

[@schaughtful]

Negative v Positive Rights is really about defining ones ingroup (descrimination). All humans have ingroups- that is groups they share with freely. Though people define that group differently, leading to putting others in the outgroup for various reasons.

[@maldoran9150]

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

[@kmcsniffles4326]

*Pulls at shirt collar*

[@mrsmiley707]

mal doran what's wrong

[@wesphillips8058]

@@mrsmiley707 XDXD

[@Gadget-Walkmen]

Oh boy

[@BackwardsAlphabet]

Justice has and always will be determined by the winner.

[@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.

[@cyvilleish13_12]

this show is just the coolest

[@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.

[@hufferou812]

Great video, keep up the great work!

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

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

[@gracebrown3733]

I never really thought about it in this way before. I've always thought justice was important for society. Now I have to work out what justice even is.

[@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.

[@MisterBrrown]

i'm twelve yet i still LOVE ur videos...