Is the Law like a Comic Book or D&D Game? Dworkin's "Law as Integrity" | Philosophy Tube

How is the Law and the job of judges like a comic book, or a tabletop game? Ronald Dworkin’s Law as Integrity:
Politics & Law Playlist: • POLITICS AND LAW
Subscribe! kzbin.info_c...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: www.audibletrial.com/Philosoph...
PBS Idea Channel - Are Comic Book Characters like D&D Players? tinyurl.com/nv3n4zb
FAQ: / 460163027465168
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire, 1986.
Patrons!
Intimidating Scones
D.J. MacIsaac
Rich Clarke
Jeffrey Peckham
Emiliano Heyns
Dominik
Ian George Walker
Kasey
Emil Jakobsen
Alec Chvirko
David Stewart
Eric Driussi
Troy R
Zorin Dobson
Steve Usher
TheLitCritGuy
André Rodrigues
Jason Cherry
Juho Laitalainen
Nathan Warre
Joshua Reaid
Lennart Krause
Christian Mertes
John Gietzen
Alistair Gilmour
Tom Saleeba
Dalton Bird
And all those who chose to donate anonymously! You know who you are!
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music:‘The Day I Die - Remastered,’ ‘My Little Medley,’ ‘Epic Chiptune Thunderdome,’ ‘Chiptune Anthem One,’ and ‘Digital Leapfrog’ by TechnoAxe - tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ by Kevin Macleod, incompetech.com
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - / dvdangor2011
Spiral Galaxy by Tryphon, licensed under Creative Commons: tinyurl.com/26a8bn
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@artemismeow]

Supreme court of the USA 2019: "Sooooo! were gonna start doing this event called crisis on infinite earths"

[@Pfhorrest]

A year later: “When will this awful plot arc end.”

[@rudybeavis]

This video was so useful- 3rd year LLB law student here trying to understand 'The Philosophy of Law' and the comic book analogy helped everything click in my head...

[@PhilosophyTube]

Awesome, glad it was helpful!

[@TheSpicySimon]

Definitely deserves more views; you put so much work into these.

[@jaredmillions7780]

I would like it if you would do one on Stoicism since I love ancient history and philosophy. I've been watching your channel for a bit now, after becoming a philosophy fan over the past year while studying my major in history and minor in political science, and I just wanted to say thank you for expanding my scope of the world and I also wanted to congratulate you on getting your master's degree a while ago. Keep up the great work, continue educating us in your passion, and all the best to you. Cheers

[@MrUtak]

Also, I really appretiate that you are actually being paid and have a sponsor. You are a great mediator of content, specifically of philosophy, and you talk very well, and clearly prepare and study for this topics discussions, which makes you a really god educator, the type we need on the internet. So thank you so much for being who you are and keeping this channel strong!

[@PhilosophyTube]

+MrUtak Uh, I have a sponsor, audible, but I don't get any money from them unless people sign up. My patrons do sponsor me, for which I am of course extremely grateful. All in all the money I make from the channel adds up to significantly less than minimum wage.

[@MrUtak]

Philosophy Tube I was thinking about that, in fact. I did the math and calculated that you actually don't get the amount that I thought. that's really bad. :(

[@PhilosophyTube]

On patreon? Yeah, you're right that the amount it displays on the page is the amount from which Patreon takes a noticeable cut. I'm told that they will soon be changing how they display it. And I get money from the advertising: every time someone clicks on or watches all of an advert I get something like 0.2 pence.

[@zimbelpower123]

Dear Olly and Friends, these are some thoughts that came up while watching: The pressure that I feel as a GM behind every ruling of the laws in the game are pretty much on the basis of "setting a precedent" and "integrity", though I think there are some differences. For instance is GM´ing (and Comic Writing - through fan Mail, though to a lesser extent, i presume) not a Solo-effort, so Players might suggest a way of handeling the situation that the GM might not have thought of. And by extension also reflect with those same players, that witnessed the precedents, on how those earlier rulings affected gameplay and possibly revise them as the situation deems necessary. That seems to me like a mayor difference to the role of a judge, as the players and the GM are all on the same team, wanting to tell a good and fullfilling story together, while the judge and the accused/defendants/etc. may not perceive themselves in the same way and have a very different power dynamic. Excuse my english, as a german-native-speaker I try, but might fail :) Greetings, love and thanks for the content you put out, old and new, B.

[@BorisLikesBeer13]

Thank you for the upload!

[@ChloeFisheri]

As a law student I think this is a pretty decent analogy and quite helpful for explaining how the judicature functions! It isn't perfect, of course. Because judges are not always bound to be "consistent with what has come before" - precedent is often persuasive, however depending on the level of court, not always binding. Where the majority decision is inconsistent with precedent, the judiciary are (ideally) making a call which interprets the law in a way more appropriate for their case in its contemporary setting. This is called "equity" and allows something as rigid as law to be flexibly applied in order to result in a more just and morally suitable outcome (per natural law). So where writing a comic book or acting as a games master requires 1. continuity and 2. appropriateness, the Judiciary (in the UK and Australia at least) are built so as to allow 1. to be forfeited in order to ensure 2., where necessary. Furthermore, the Law is comprised of more than just the judiciary - the legislature and executive play equally important roles. Once you include these powers to create and administer law*, the analogy falls apart. It all becomes a bit more complex i'm afraid :P *due to the Constitutional separation of powers which exists in both the UK and Australian Constitutions, the Judiciary only _interpret_ law and cannot create it. Creation of law is a power reserved only by the legislature.

[@ChloeFisheri]

Also, Dworkins seems to hold a very idealistic view of law. I personally don't think the Herculean Judge exists. Justice and morality are far too complex and sometimes there is no single correct answer. My favourite example of this is the "Speluncean Explorers" - a fictional legal case in which the judges were divided on a morally heavy scenario involving murder and cannibalism out of necessity for survival. Their reasoning is _fantastic_ and thought provoking and I highly recommend it :D In light of Dworkins' rationale for saying that the Herculean judge can only have one correct answer.... well the law is imperfect and subjective. In cases such as the aforementioned, it is possible that the sentence can be equally flexible. So whilst the judges disagreed as to whether the extent resorted to in the case was legal or not, all acknowledged that special circumstances require a special response. The case ultimately made a statement about law and its right to 'coerce'. It asked the question of why we have the law - is it retributive: punishing the wrongdoer? A deterrent: preventing future wrongs? Or is it something more?

[@hideshiseyes2804]

Some tabletop games (like Apocalypse World and its offspring) do actually require the GM to make certain “moves” at certain times. Practically it doesn’t make much difference and the moves work like guidelines, but technically they are hard rules, implying the game designers have some idea of a “perfect GM” in mind, if not a perfect call for every situation.

[@MangaAiman]

5:00 lol that was too good, lost it for a sec ps: ur awesome

[@Knifesistaken]

Renaming suggestion "Liquid "U"s: the youtube channel" haha keep up the great work olly. Always look forward to your vids

[@saeedbaig4249]

The idea of the "ideal judge" reminds me of an interesting argument for moral realism called the Ideal Observer Theory. It basically asks you to imagine a similar being, with infinite time, patience and access to all necessary information (as opposed to just 'legal resources'). The argument goes that such a being would know what the best answer to any moral dilemma is, given their vast knowledge, and, thus, their ruling would represent the one "correct" answer.

[@johndoeanon445]

I would love to hear you talk about stoicism, you brilliant man.

[@Akumasama]

6:27 ....I just realized... yikes.

[@denisschulz3814]

Yikes indeed.

[@Hazel-xl8in]

NotGivingMy Nam yeouch

[@esobelisk3110]

What does this mean?

[@erikvale3194]

@@esobelisk3110 Later video's reveal that (Assuming this is the same GF since I haven't watched all of them) his GF abused him to the point he attempted suicide.

[@esobelisk3110]

@@erikvale3194 Oh. Also *her

[@NickCybert]

Olly speaking low and fast feels really intense. I don't know exactly how, but there's some money to be made there. Also, I like the framing in this video. Learning a bit of cinematography eh?

[@HannibalPoptart]

i would love videos on both subjects! if you had to do one first, I'd ask for the naturalism one.

[@johnke3945]

really helpful thanks a lot really really appreciate

[@Ugunark]

I'm super interested in Stoicism, and find natural philosophy and it's relation to god to be a kind of unpleasant rabbit hole. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Taleb's (Black Swan, Antifragile) works and he references Seneca and SToicism nearly constantly and it would amazing to see you dive into it a little bit. Also, I really enjoyed this video. Thank you!

[@AliceObscura]

A great video, and one that I actually almost 100% agree with. I know you wanted to avoid the "point" of the law, so I won't go too far into that here, maybe you can do another video about that some time? Anyhow, STOICISM! I love the Stoics...or put more stoically, I have positive emotions towards the Stoics which I acknowledge and allow to guide my Deontological obligations in day-to-day affairs.

[@tastech]

nice work

[@romaion4024]

Thanks!

[@DaBriceisRight]

In the US, judges do create new laws with their verdict because their judgements alter the interpretation and effect of the law when they set precedence. So the analogy holds up with many US law philosophers that like the way things work here.

[@Pfhorrest]

Ideally, the law should work like science works, in a Kuhnian sort of model: it should try as best as it can to give good results within the paradigm established by previous results, but when it cannot give a good result to a new case in a way consistent with that previous paradigm, it should carve out special exceptions (that will then be consistently applied to similar cases in the future), because it's more important to get the results correct than it is to be consistent with past results; and if too many exceptions keep piling up, then it may be time to scrap the whole paradigm that isn't working and switch to a different one. When you have to do that, you may have to revisit a lot of past results to see how well they really hold up under the new paradigm, which is a lot of work and might take a lot of time, but that's what need to be done if you actually care more about the law really being just, rather than (as Dworkin apparently does) presenting a possibly-false public image of the law being and always having been completely just.

[@felooosailing957]

Interesting idea. Have you read Imre Lakatos, who borrows from Kuhn as well as Popper and Bachelard? It might interest you in light of this interpretation.

[@Pfhorrest]

JOSE LUIS GOMEZ RAMIREZ I have not read that yet, but thank you for the recommendation.

[@payammasarrat8530]

Have you published (or do you intend to publish) anything in a philosophical journal? And any thoughts on doing a post-grad? Keep up the good work - thoroughly enjoy the material! (Vote for next week: Stoicism)

[@dacalasky]

this is so dope. I GM a LOT, and I the idea of the arbitration and coercive power of the GM and the game rules is pretty well aligned to law. If a GM is a Judge, are the game designers the legislature?

[@archivechong823]

as a political science major and a GM, this was my shit- this was a really interesting metaphor to explain precedent and judicial philosophies.

[@8wong9]

Great video (as always)! My vote for next time is STOICISM

[@ShawnRavenfire]

I think the purpose of legal precedent is to keep the law fair for everyone (or at least, as fair as possible) so that no one thinks they simply got a "bad judge." Judges can't make or change laws, but the law can be written to give judges some leeway for particular circumstances, which is a lot easier than trying to write a specific law for every possible situation which may come up. This has its pros and cons, because some "activist judges" abuse this privilege, while others are forced to make rulings which they consider unjust -- for example, non-violent drug-users serving life-sentences because of a law requiring judges to give minimum sentencing for drug-related crimes.

[@adamr5333]

Please do Stoicism, if you could give a nod to Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Zeno and Epictetus that would be great. Keep these up I really enjoy them, and run a college philosophy society which sometimes use your content to begin discussions

[@TheMjsanty]

I would love to see a video on Stoicism.

[@Pobafett]

I do enjoy Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. I think I only read it to be pretentious, but I found his musings on other philosophers amusing and insightful. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@antifasarkeesian1467]

"HONEY YOU MEAN HUNCULES!"

[@composingpenguin]

One of the commenters (Chloe Fisher (Heroic Shelf)) already touched on this: is Dworkin making an idealistic case for how the Law should be, a different view of how it is, something else. And what if there is no precedent, or the precedent has been done away with to some extent, as with America after the Revolutionary War, which set up a new and distinct system of government and law. One case I'm thinking of is Marbury v. Madison, in which, as far as I know, the Supreme Court both made law and set precedent by establishing judicial review, which had not been explicitly granted in the Constitution (scholars of these matters argue over the extent to which review had existed prior and how it had been used occasionally by lower courts and what the drafters of Constitution thought was implicit in what they had crafted, but this case explicitly made it so). Also, is the ideal judge necessarily a universal judge? Does Hercules get to make the same judgments applicable to all peoples? Aliens?

[@composingpenguin]

Also, Stoicism!

[@anabulatovic7306]

hey :) Thanks for doing a Philosophy of law video. I'm actually in the middle of my MA thesis on the subject, so I'm affraid to comment....I might not stop :) Could you explain why you chose Dworkin, though? From older interpretivist and hermeneutics philosophers?

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Ana Bulatovic I studied him recently and it fit into comic book analogies I guess?

[@anabulatovic7306]

+Philosophy Tube hehe, the obvious answer :) May I suggest giving Chaim Perelman, Betti and Arthur Kaufmann a glance?

[@ianderk6527]

Continuity in comic books might also help explain why the law struggles to deal with novel concepts. A comic book universe might struggle to add a new character to the overall continuity in a way that makes sense. A new character would need to have existed without any of the current characters knowing, which is problematic for the head of a large spy agency, the World's Greatest Detective, or someone with the ability to hear voices all around the world. The presence of a new character must fit within the existing universe without disrupting the continuity too much, or the internal logic falls apart. We can see the analogy in issues like copyright laws. Lawrence Lessig (I think) talked about the fact that copyright law had no concept of a linked item as part of a website, meaning the law struggles to deal with new technologies or behaviors quickly.

[@LittleBitVic]

Damn, Abigail's been voice-acting ready since time immemorial. :o

[@cshahbazi1220]

Substantively I feel that Dworkin's idea of what the law is, is very similar to Hobbes' social contract theory which I personally see as the basis for all laws. Also I vote for Stoicism.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

I think we can take Asimov's three laws of robotics, and apply them to government as follows:1. No law shall infringe upon freedom, or by inaction, allow freedom to be infringed upon. 2. Laws must respect the will of the voters, except where doing so would violate the first law. 3. Systems of maintaining and enforcing laws must sustain themselves, except where doing so would violate the first or second law.

[@ChloeFisheri]

+Shawn Ravenfire A really interesting concept! However there is always a problem regarding "freedoms". Usually the most controversial is when one individual's exercise of their freedom would impose on the freedom of another. Also, the law may have legitimate reasons for infringing upon a freedom. For example, the Australian Commonwealth has passed legislation in the past which infringes upon the freedom of political speech and communication. This was found to be Constitutional because it was determined "reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end". Examples include protecting trade interests from disruption by protestors, or protecting the State from malicious or disruptive speech in an inappropriate or threatening location. The second and third adaptations you suggested are pretty much already in place. But on a personal note - sometimes respecting the will of the voters _sucks_. Because too often people are bigots and referendums fail, and we end up stuck with things like the American gun laws. Here popular sovereignty renders the legal system powerless - the law cannot change itself because this imposes on the will of the voters, and hence there is a massive detriment to the voters themselves. I wish it could take a paternalistic stance here and remove the amendment, however...that's a very slippery slope.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Maybe there's some kind of algorithm for maximizing freedom. Maybe an artificial intelligence government would be the best option. (Then again, there's always the risk of hackers.)

[@ChloeFisheri]

Any AI established as government would need to have our morals and values installed (a very difficult and costly thing to do). Very simply, AI is programmed to find the most efficient way of reaching a goal or solving a problem. This can be problematic for example if an AI was programmed to make people smile. It would conclude that the most efficient solution would be to permanently electrically stimulate the faces of people, rather than to actually make them happy. You get to a point where AI will resort to unethical solutions such as eliminating minorities, rather than take less efficient routes to 'maximising' freedom/happiness/justice. Nick Bostrom presented an awesome TED talk on this (called "what happens when our computers get smarter than we are") if you're interested.

[@ChloeFisheri]

+Max Schneider There is a problem with that also though, as I meant when I said its a slippery slope. Paternalistic overruling of autonomy is not always beneficial. An issue i'm very passionate about is something regarding Australia's Indigenous peoples. in 2007, the Government initiated the "Northern Territory Emergency Response" which aimed to reduce alcoholism and child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. They restricted the movement, purchases, and consumptions of the Aboriginal peoples living there, introduced permanent police presence and higher punitive measures. They in no way consulted with any Aboriginal peoples, but introduced it with the semblance and intention of solving a perceived problem. But in the mean time suicide rates doubled, alcohol related violence didn't drop and children are forced into invasive compulsory medical examinations. The Aboriginal peoples are singled out based on race and are completely controlled by the government. it continues to this day. Here the ends and values of all people (most notably that children be safe from abuse) was used to justify a paternalistic action which overruled the sovereignty of the people. I just think we have to be very careful with making undemocratic decisions. Its a tough position though - I would love to be able to paternalistically ban guns, or at the very least automatic weapons. But from a legal perspective this is unjust and allows precedent for some dangerous things.

[@brauliosalcedo5418]

Stoicism plz! good video as always

[@MrFrezke]

I would be very happy if the next episode is about scientific naturalism and god. I like your videos! keep the good work up :)

[@Czxvkq]

Could you explain why the comic book analogy is better than a novel? Don't they both equally need continuity? What difference does the medium make, exactly?

[@PhilosophyTube]

+shoegazefan I just thought it would be better because comic books do exist and are well known, whereas "chain novels" are less easy idea to grasp rightaway.

[@bassem500]

What a sensible body of law, in my mind, is expected to produce and sustain, is peace within the realm in which the law is applied. It is therefore laws need to be perceived as just and equitable within the community it is applies to. Otherwise the community, or parts of it, rise up against authority.

[@Aellef]

.... I secretly wanted this to be about Rules As Written (RAW) vs Rules As Intended (RAI) approaches in a legal setting... This was still cool, though

[@McZoth]

I vote for Stoicism. Great video!

[@GoshemGarble]

Have you watched Psycho-pass? It has a wobbly first few episodes but get better and better as it goes along... except for the second season which was written by another writer(though it did have an interesting concept but it doesn't really flow from the concepts of the first season). While it's central concept is misused and turned into a metaphor for law instead of being its own interesting thing its depiction of law seems very applicable to the concept outlined in this video. I would be interested in hearing, or reading, your thoughts on its depiction of law and would describe it here but I don't really want to give spoilers as it was quite an enjoyable show. So sorry if this comment doesn't have much content beyond a recommendation. (oh, and don't worry. It doesn't have those off-putting anime-isms) PS: I think would be a bit more enjoyable if you start doing the same thing as Idea channel and do comments separately from the content video. Thanks! EDIT: Scratch that. Rewatched the video and it's not so applicable. It's applicable to what he said is the point of law but is on shaky ground for the first part.

[@JD-wf2hu]

+Goshm Garble I'd second this motion; Psycho pass is actually interesting. In a slightly on video topic nod I'm actually running (am the GM for) a roleplaying campaign set in the psycho pass universe although with the modification that well connected people can have their pass adjusted.

[@GoshemGarble]

+Jon Durrant ... sliding it further towards dystopia. Perhaps a better spin would be that the individual in question is more beneficial to the society than the danger of their psychopass? It doesn't really need corruption to be interesting (and if there was I think that would have been "solved" by the second season). I find the show kind of annoying because it touches on a lot of themes i'm interested in but the depiction of enlightenment side philosophy is... not quite coherent. But god dam it gets close to excellence. The writer needed to something to balance Foucault out.

[@Grayhome]

+Goshm Garble I'm very interested to hear why you think the central concept in Psycho Pass is misused as a metaphor for law. Could you possibly elaborate with a *SPOILERS* disclaimer to dissuade anyone who might be interested in the show?

[@GoshemGarble]

+Jon Durrant While we're here may I also recommend "From the New World". It's similar to psychopass in its initial structure and main character but goes in a different thematic direction and nails it. It's main theme is (the following could be considered spoilers) human cruelty, but it is alot less bloody than psychopass.

[@Pangolinz]

+Goshm Garble +Philosophy Tube I'd third this motion Psycho Pass is one of the top tem animes you must watch, the concept is so holy shit awesome that I believe it should be show in every law, psychology and philosophy university, nedless to say that pass would be like of those that are kept from society. Just a little adendo, I don't think anime-isms are off-putting it's a interesting culture like pretty much anything else.

[@phatlaluke]

The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror. ~Peter Kropotkin

[@terratorment2940]

That's all well and good to imagine Judge Hercules but in practice every appellate Judge is a political actor. They don't like to think of themselves that way but they are quite beholden to political reality as anyone else. That is how we've got notorious bad calls like the Dred Scott decision, Buck v. Bell, Plessy v. Ferguson or the Bush v. Gore decision. All reflected the political pressures and realities of their times.

[@Nippip1]

Is it just chance that you referenced Mike in this video and he referenced you in the last idechannel episode?

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Nippip1 Yeah, I wrote the first draft of the script for this one the same day the episode I mentioned came out.

[@Nippip1]

I just love it when my favourite KZbin channels gen entangled :)

[@KaSousek58]

Problem with Dworkin's theory is that it makes no sense outside of common law system :/ I would really like to hear your opinion on the postivist/natural law debate :)

[@PlanckRelic]

I think lots of people would be on board with the hilarity of a d100 for 'exterminated by Daleks' rule

[@YeoYeo]

In response to the abortion comments, I think a few definitions were a little unclear in your video. You said that gestaters don't accept full solo responsibility, because their decision to go through with the pregnancy could be influenced by religion or the unavailability of a clinic. To me, this doesn't really count as having a choice or wanting the baby. I think most people would agree that the gestater doesn't have full responsibility in these circumstances. I think what people are imagining when you say "the gestater wants the baby" is that they are not influenced by unavailability or the idea that it's morally wrong and they're doing it purely because they want the baby. I know in the real world this is very rare and impractical, but this is philosophy and we can talk about things theoretically.

[@JJ.McCorley]

In a game of D&D, you can feature a mountain in a flashback but then not have a mountain in present day

[@emperorjustinianIII4403]

Scientific naturalism & God, That I vote for.

[@lanesanders6698]

Scientific Naturalism and God should definitely be the next episode.

[@zszechuan]

Stoicism, although the other idea is really cool.

[@FromRussiaWithLuv007]

So, Laws function as society's voice. Like if everyone felt slavery was not wrong, laws would reflect this. I'm reminded of the Weltgeist. In both the law and weltgeist, we are picturing society as like a single organism.

[@ducttapeanddreams]

Scientific Naturalism and God sounds super interesting.

[@SSNewberry]

The comic book style may be the case in Ronald Dworkin's mind but the SCOTUS has other very different ideas. The law is political first and needs to form a chain at the municipality, state, and federal levels, regardless of the actual meaning. Call it "post-Roe" judiciary. It does not need to make sense and only be chains.

[@elliottmcollins]

Scientific Naturalism and God!!!

[@asmrsleepbubble]

Awesome lecture, but the background music is distracting

[@robertnett9793]

Yeah. This was way back in the day when Philosophy Tube still was figuring out where the journey would go. An Oh Boy, let me tell you, what a wild ride it became :D

[@Ganondorf525]

I don't like that Dworkin's seems to be saying there can only be one right answer to a legal because it would be bad if it were otherwise. That is wishful thinking. It seems completely possible that there good be 2 or more equally good judgements on an issue. Does Dworkin's have some way to prove there can only be one best judgement? If not his position seems pretty bad.

[@paranor001]

Loving your vids. Keep it up! Irrelevant side note, your ceramics on the bookshelf with what I believe are pomegranates, appear very male\female representations. Are you trying to tell us something? lol

[@Grayhome]

I think I might fall pretty close to that black hole in this comment, but here we go. In Dworkin's line of thinking, what would happen if a judge DID make a rulings that was not in line with past rulings. If, in the analogy, the judge is a bad author when writing their comic book, and doesn't pay full attention to past continuity. Let's say a judge makes this bad ruling and gets away with it. Then what happens to the law in the future? Is it broken forever? All future judges now have to take the bad judge's ruling into consideration, even though that judge was not upholding Dworkin's purpose of law. And if a future judge recognizes that the bad judge's ruling was unjust, does that future judge still have to take the bad judge's ruling into consideration? Annnnd... legal realism. I'm sorry.

[@Grayhome]

And I vote Scientific Naturalism and God.

[@ChloeFisheri]

+Tyler Graham It happens (the ideal, Herculean judge doesn't exist). The judiciary make bad calls and it forms a legal precedent (see especially cases arising from our changing values regarding race and gender). But this doesn't mean that the law is now "broken" - future cases are not totally bound by precedent. The level of court (Local, Magistrate, State, High etc) determines the level of persuasiveness. When a State court makes a decision, it will be persuasive to fellow States but not binding. However if the High court makes a decision this is binding to all courts below it. Nevertheless, if a matter is rejected in the State Courts because of High Court precedent, it can then be brought before the High Court, which then has the jurisdiction to overturn the previous decision. Furthermore, the Legislature and Executive have power above that of Courts: common law must bow before statute. So bad precedent can be trumped by good legislation. (This is more of a legal than philosophical answer, sorry)

[@eltic3]

i would say that yes he dose need to take the ruleing into consideration but he dose not NECESSARILY need to rule the same way. if 9 judges rule X in a particular instance and one jidge rule Y and the 11th juge realizes that Y was a bad ruleing then he can still vote X while keeping with this line of thinking

[@robertsparks1692]

+Tyler Graham "Let's say a judge makes this bad ruling and gets away with it. Then what happens to the law in the future?" Great question. Man can do something different from this integrity (law) but natural laws, laws of math/logic/language and laws of God can't be broken. In the case of the judge, is he breaking a law that can be broken? If 2+2=5 then we have haven't broken any laws of math but we have ignored them which doesn't create president. We just made a mistake. Can the same be said of this judge? I think it can be argued. The judge can't break the laws and when he ignores or bypasses them he's just in error. If this creates precedent then that's just repeating the same error but it's not creating new law even if we continue on the path of error. The law of precedent doesn't change. The law of continuity doesn't change. They are just dropped and ignored and then picked up again on the other side of the mistake.

[@cruelangel7737]

You recommend Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy as a primer in philosophy, right? LessWrong says the book is polemical and suggests the Oxford textbook instead, while Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy they say, is too deep for the beginner, another blog by a scientist recommends Flew's book. Well, less wrong is polemical so, go figure... And anyhow, a book written for general readers is going to be a primer than a textbook obviously. And flew's book is a textbook renowned for not dumbing down...

[@natbarmore]

Oh, oof-watching this from the future, and the 2021-present US SCOTUS decisions are really honoring Dworkin in the breach.

[@iggypopshot]

He also looks like Bill Gates Dad... Stoicism!!! For the win.... I also am not disappointed in the slightest should it not be... See what I did?

[@iggypopshot]

.... And good choice with the book, read but never listened to it, Olly.. Hope bobcat goldthwaite does the audio. ;) ...

[@PhilosophyTube]

+iggypopshot Haha! Very good.

[@deltax930]

I would like to see the video on scientific naturalism & God

[@rougenaxela]

So this is an old video by this point but I just really wanted to comment that Dworkin's 'One Right Answer' thesis seems like one of the most questionable things about all this to me, at least if one is speaking in terms of law as constructed by people. The law as it exists in practice is a construct created by humans, and it is a rather complicated construct at that. It might well be a desirable property for this construct to have "one right answer" in any given scenario, but that's just as much a fantasy as complex software with zero bugs. Even with a perfect ideal judge, human factors in the construction of the law means that contradictions and ambiguities are near certain to exist. Now... if you're talking about a particular idealized notion of law, not as constructed by people fair enough, but I think one could just as easily state that there is some some notion of a "Perfect Comic Book Author" for whom there is only one right path forward in writing a story from any given state.

[@nimi8538]

That outha grant guild membership. Like family guy. Bet they can convince court not bias being more qualified as presented.

[@natefialkoff8258]

I find that giving precedent enough value to where it affects a judges decisions on the basis of continuity may be the most asinine assertion i've heard. What if the first interpretation of the law was both morally wrong and inconsistent? Would one then have to continue along the same path with this inconsistent law? Even if this is a marginal case, which I doubt, the fact that it exists means that the comic book / author analogy should never be applied to judges. If it were, then we'd be assuming that literally every judge was hercules. As this is obviously not the case (*cough* plessy v ferguson), we can't let past judges have that kind of power.

[@somewony]

Wouldn't a more precise analogy be mathematics? Nothing can contradict any previous part, because then the whole system would collapse, and no one creates anything new. All of mathematics already exists (it follows from the axioms), and we (humans) are merely "discovering" it. (Note that there is debate about this. Some people believe mathematics is actually created.)

[@somewony]

Yes, but ought they have those grey areas?*****

[@daniellanctot6548]

1:42 - Too bad for Dworkin that the 2022 edition of the SCOTUS came along and defecated on his vision of what judges should do or be...!

[@Brian0033]

So Dworkin is saying that a ruling by a judge needs to both be just in its context and maintain continuity with precedent, but what happens when these two criteria contradict each other? For example, lets say that a certain law had not been broken for 200 years but has remained on the books. The punishment for the law, which has never been changed because the government has never seen it to be worth the effort to change a punishment that hasn't had to be used in generations, is now frowned upon by society at large. Legal scholars have written about why the punishment is a breech of fundamental human rights. Should the judge sacrifice keeping in continuity with precedent to maintain the ruling being just in the eyes of the people, or vice versa?

[@thiagocorreiabraga]

I would really appreciate a video about scientific naturalism & God

[@imanolsenderos9427]

Stoicism please ! :)

[@fdafsdfasgs]

Stoicism!

[@HamzaKhaleel]

where did Dworkin state that judges should be like authors...? Can you please give a reference :)

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Hamza Khaleel The citations are in the description.

[@HamzaKhaleel]

Apologies I realised it later as well and thank u for these videos :)

[@TheManifoldCuriosity]

Stoicism would be very welcome indeed!

[@devinpepls]

The stoics would be nice

[@theogreiner9604]

Stoicism!!!1 I mean, not that I'd be surprised if you don't pick that of course....

[@LOGICZOMBIE]

the apophatic phaneron

[@Kram1032]

The idea of one single correct answer is iffy to me. I don't think that's the case at all. The coercion of law doesn't come from it - even merely ideally - being the single best way to structure society. It's the legitimacy debate all over again. Ultimately, the power of law is something the people grant society. They may be well aware that parts of the law are far from ideal, either to them personally, or to some abstract concept they hold to be valuable. But most of the time they will comply with it anyway. In part because there might be repercussions otherwise, in part because it's, in a sense, "the easy thing to do" (at least most laws aren't gonna be particularly hard to follow), in part because much of it is gonna happen to align with their ideas of morality and/or common-sense, and in part because actually effectively revolting against any law perceived as unjust is going to take at least moderately large scale civil disobedience which only works if a sufficient number of people is sufficiently sure that a sufficient number of people thinks sufficiently similar to them to make this plausibly effective. It also takes a certain activist mind to kickstart a movement like that. Most people are gonna be fine with swimming with the flow, even if they see some injustice. People generally don't like standing out. But anyway, there can be several equally good solutions to problems, and some decisions are gonna depend on personal ideals and philosophies. And there are some problems that simply have no clearly correct answer. Even if you were to rely on perfect, complete information and infinite time and energy (neither of which could ever be counted on, obviously), the answer to some questions is gonna end up being "undecidable" rather than "true" or "false". What would a perfect judge do in a situation like that? Say, you have two candidate laws that The Ideal Judge has narrowed down the possibilities to. Say the laws are entirely incompatible. Nor is there a middle ground that somehow picks parts of one or the other. One of these two laws are IT. The ultimate winner. But what if this judge finds that the superiority of one over the other is undecidable? Which one should the judge pick?

[@ornleifs]

Stoicism would do quite nicely.

[@poetics231]

stoics!

[@paddington13]

Stoicism next

[@doombybbr]

10:30 sorry but preventing the child from existing can be argued as an even higher consequence to the child than lack of child support, thus the argument you were makeing falls due to the fact that it is based entirely on consequence to the child.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+doombybbr But if it doesn't exist it can't be impacted by any consequence?

[@doombybbr]

Philosophy Tube nah, consequence is that there isn't a baby later, or that there is a baby later - 1 extra life vs 0 extra lives

[@TylerJTube]

+Philosophy Tube Please do a video justifying and explaining the position that an unborn child doesn't exist. There is some twisted logic and re-defining of words such as "existence", and "child" going on in this 'argument/point'. If the child is not existing when it is aborted what exactly is being aborted then? You must be giving the word "child" and "unborn" some hidden meanings because in reality the unborn child is existing because even by pro-choice logic a "wanted' unborn child exists. Indeed, according to this version of pro-choice logic a woman has through an act of her own will the magical power to mysteriously bring human beings into and out of existence!! (head spin) Is this really philosophy or just an explanation of how wishful thinking works?

[@TylerJTube]

+Philosophy Tube Did you leave out the word "anymore"? For example, should I read your above rhetorical question as saying, "But if it doesn't exist ANYMORE it can't be impacted by any consequence?" If you add that one word your rhetorical question would make more sense - albeit the rhetorical question would still reflect a very callous attitude towards the experience of the unborn child.

[@TylerJTube]

+Philosophy Tube Also, even if I grant that you meant to say "doesn't exist ANYMORE" you or the person who made this argument have not given any weight to Marquis' famous prolife argument which says the following: “A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.” In other words, it is precisely because an abortion deprives the unborn child of all consequences (good and bad) that it is morally wrong. And to tie this argument back in with the arguments of your previous video - this argument shows that an actual abortion is worse than a financial abortion because a financial abortion only deprives the unborn child of a subset of all the possible consequences that the child will face while an actual abortion deprives the unborn child of all possible consequences. Please be kind and remember that every unborn child has a future like ours.

[@AGB-]

I think laws should be more flexible. A lot of laws are old and irrelevant or outdated. If we stay consistent with how things were done in the past then the law has failed, because times have changed, but the law hasn't. If we keep the comic book analogy then we need to "reboot" the law every now and then just like comics are rebooted. You reboot a comic to make an old character work in the present day, and you "reboot" a law so that it works in the present day.

[@sicktoaster]

+Nicholas Butterly A reasonable person would only use violence in self-defense or as a function of state-sanctioned law enforcement (example, arresting people for tax evasion isn't self-defense but it is a part of a police officer's job so it's rational for him to use force in this case and in this particular example rational for the state to command the use of force since taxation is necessary to the very functioning of the state and the funding of many things which improve the general welfare). Anything else is illogical and so unreasonable.

[@GDrocksXX]

Scientific naturalism pls

[@scoldingMime]

Stoicism, please!

[@Idiosyncfilms]

I agree with Dworkin but might have called the principle Justice as Consistency As Well As Integrity - I would link the need for consistency with foreseeability: If the public are proven to be wrong in their understanding of the law by way of an altering/amending interpretation by a judge then both the original and new interpretations are put in doubt. It is important that the public understand the law as accurately as possible (given that it's interpreted by intermediaries and advocates) and that it is made as understandable for them as possible (enter Emperor Nero anecdote) to avoid doubt, loopholes and chilling effects. You must know for certain the consequences of your actions before making a rational decision, if the consequences were never made clear then (eg.) you could not be said to be "paying" for your crimes if imprisoned based on inconsistent precedents. Scientific naturalism please! Stoics are boring (even by definition lulz).

[@abielmiller6562]

Dworkin more like DORKin am i right ladies

[@GaidexVillerX13]

when did I sub?

[@GaidexVillerX13]

+Gaidex Viller because North Korea asked for Ayn Rand back

[@PatrickStaight]

I find this episode rather Euro centric. It focuses on Common Law as the de facto truest and best form of law without addressing Civil Law or Sharia Law. Which are popular in other parts of the world.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Patrick Staight This is an excellent point and I'm going to be talking about it in the comment reply section of the next episode.

[@masygunner]

+Patrick Staight How is talking about Common law Eurocentric? I would rather think that talking about common law is Anglocentric, since civil law is a way more common system in Europe.

[@perfsev]

@@PhilosophyTube No, it was not an excellent point. Civil code is practiced literally everywhere in Continental Europe.

[@francispena2818]

I wonder if your subbed to the school of life...

[@chaosPneumatic]

I vote for stoicism!

[@sonicpsycho13]

Stoicism, please.

[@TimothyNelson]

Stoicism, please

[@nelord7000]

Stoicism

[@zacharygriffith8300]

Textualism marches on.

[@stefanklisarov4053]

stoicism pls