The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I find this difficult to understand.

I would like to invite you to a philosophy discord server. For teachers, students, and autodidacts.

The purpose of this discord chat is dedicated to the engagement of philosophical discourse and the exploration of ideas in the history of philosophy. Our main goal is to become more knowledgeable about historical thinkers and ideas from every philosophical domain through interpersonal dialogues. We are not a debate server. Argument is a method used by philosophy, but this isn’t to be confused with debate. The latter is competitive in nature, whereas the former is a cooperative endeavor. Philosophy is a group project that aims to determine what is true, and this server is a place for this activity. Here is the invite link for those who are interested in joining: https://discord.gg/BHzbXDVwHR

Invite link is hopefully permanent, so you won't have to worry whether the link is working if you're reading this sometime in the future.

See you all there!

(assuming insurance won't cover the cost for either)

How would one tackle such an essay question?

For example, are there contemporary debates like the fuller-hart debate? Or is it still a focus on positivism hart/Shapiro and dworkin?

I’m just wondering what current issues are in jurisprudence if that makes sense?

Can anyone recommend some philosophical texts or books about the right to explanation (of a decision or sentence) and understanding in court rooms etc.?

Hey guys, I am an undergraduate that wants to begin studying legal theory and jurisprudence. Where do I begin?

Essay on Why Liberalism Failed?

In this essay, I will explain how Deneen sets out the history of liberalism as a development from classical liberalism to progressive liberalism. I claim that Deneen outlined the hallmark signals of political-modernity in the form of three questions: first, in the Aristotelian sense, should the polity appeal to the high or the low; second, is human nature fixed or is it plastic to our touch; third, should we reach beyond nature and pursue Man’s conquest of human nature to the extent of reversing the Fall? I will now explore the extent to which those distinct questions illuminate our current political categories as a foray into ​Libertas.

According to Deneen, the founding thought of Western political civilization was focused on the control over the will to power. This focus gestured to a mutual understanding that the soul of the polity would not survive if the individual succumbed to vice. The only way to prevent arbitrary inequality, poverty, and oppression is through self-governance.

The political philosophy of Ancient Greece was to produce men with chests. The ethic of paideia stressed that intellect would govern the appetites for desire through the organ of virtue. This organ of virtue governed the souls of citizens and fostered correctives to tyranny. Citizenship itself was self-governance in wisdom, justice, temperance, and moderation to protect libertas​ through the ongoing habituation of tradition and law.

The political philosophy of Christian premodernity is continuous from the Greek emphasis on ​paideia​ by retaining teachings in virtue but changed by adding institutional structures of checks and balances on power and by rooting government in religion. Christian political philosophy accepts the Fall of man as fixed, and thus conquers nature through collective knowledge and systemic rationality.

The classical and Christian political philosophy appealed to themes of beauty, journey, and rest. The only way to achieve true freedom was to have a discerning mind that could perceive the proper order of things. In so doing, you could perceive what was real and meaningful and thus return to God. To both the Ancient Greeks and Medieval Christians, citizenship was preparation for death. They believed in a reverse ordering to life, so the achievement of true freedom was much like your return to God-it depended on self-governance and the dignified participation in the polity.

So, when Deneen questioned whether we should appeal to the ​high​ or the ​low​, he was demonstrating a split between premodernity and modernity. Ultimately, Deneen questioned the protoliberal conception of liberty derivative of Man’s acceptance of the Fall and reliance on collective knowledge and systemic rationality to self-govern. Thus, the first hallmark sign of modernity is that politics would be based on the low rather than the high.

According to Deneen, it was Machiavelli who first broke from the Classical and Christian teachings in virtue to limit tyranny. Machiavelli's, ​The New Prince​, instructed that the new-prince should appropriate God’s divinity to control public opinion and power all the while appearing virtuous. In this way, justice no longer belonged to God, it belonged at the convenience of the new-prince.

Henceforward, reliance on virtue was ineffectual because it had no stopping power. What is more predictable and reliable, and thus more stable, is man’s appeal to vice, checks and balances on power, and rule of law. According to Machiavelli, the future belongs to those who are ​willing​ to be wicked when the survival of the state necessitates wickedness. This, no doubt, is a critique of the reliance on virtue to safeguard armed and capable political leaders from falling into the temptation of tyranny.

Additionally, with the advent of Descartes and Hobbes, virtue as a precondition for liberty was challenged and rejected. Not only did they reject virtue as a realistic standard for behavior, but they also rejected the roots of virtue. Hobbes asserted that unexamined tradition is a source for arbitrary inequality. In fact, there is no intellect in collective knowledge because it is preanalytic, and thus based on preposition and prejudice. Thus, the structures of self-governance arranged throughout the political, religious, social, economic, and familial life are arbitrary forms of inequality.

So, when Deneen questioned whether human nature is fixed or plastic to our touch, he was demonstrating the second split between pre-modernity and modernity. Ultimately, Deneen was questioning whether we should accept the Fall of man and rely on collective knowledge that has undergone the evolutionary process of selective competition. Although systemic rationality is preanalytic, it has distilled preposition and prejudice throughout Generations A-W and is expressed in Generation X.

If we reject the Fall of man, then we deracinate a government rooted in religion. We also reject social forms of governance on the ground that they are arbitrary forms of inequality, and we redefine the purpose of government from protecting the good-life to protecting unalienable rights. The danger is that if we don’t rely on collective knowledge, then we must rely on the consolidated power of a few cultivated minds and their articulated rationality; and if we reject a government rooted in religion, then what should replace such common ground as originating from a creator?

With the advent of Locke and Baconian philosophy, Liberalism began to enter modernity. According to Bacon, we can provide “relief [to] the human estate” by projecting our desires onto the world. Individualistic rationality is a more predictable guide for action because vice is a more reliable standard for behavior than virtue.

Since Bacon and Hobbes reconceptualized the Classic and Christian ‘acceptance’ of the moral limits of man, required a new relationship between man and nature. Human potential, they believed, was plastic to our touch. We no longer need to rely on the correctives of social norms, rather a social contract. According to Locke, authority and power are only made legitimate through consent.

So, when Deneen questioned whether we should reach beyond nature and pursue Man’s conquest of human-nature to the extent of reversing the Fall, he was demonstrating the third split between premodernity and modernity. Ultimately, Deneen was questioning whether we should build a society predicated on greed, pride, conquest for glory, and selfishness. Should we accept Bacon’s reconception of natural philosophy and political science?

If we do accept, then the purpose of government is being redefined from the protector of ‘right’ to the protector of individuality. Consequently, the definition of liberty must change from self-governance to absolute autonomy, and justice evolves from society to the state. So, I must ask, in what society is a citizen most free-one predicated on vice or virtue?

Your answer to my question is the ultimate foundation of Progressivism and Conservatism in our current political categories. In a word, should we be socially virtuous and economically wicked, or should we be socially wicked and economically virtuous?

Our new type of liberalism rejects the ancient notion of a learned capacity for self-limitation to control base desires. Rather, we rely on human knowledge to separate ourselves from nature and legitimize power through individualistic consent. Today, it would appear that Liberalism is triumphant. Man’s self-interest and reliance on science have led to a never before seen acceptance of all types of ideologies and removal of prejudicial, sexist, and racist spheres of interaction that divide, discriminate, and segregate.

However, Deneen believes that the triumphs of liberalism are illusory and “even a self-inflicted decline” (pp.29). Our self-interest has gone too far, and absolute freedom pursued absolutely requires an increasingly pervasive government to protect our notion of liberty in a liberal society. In the context of our current political categories, Deneen would assert that progressivism in a liberal society has consequently allowed for a pluralism that is eroding the very foundation of liberalism. Liberalism thus requires a virtuous society. Otherwise, our reliance on judicial legislation and positive law will lead to increasing levels of authoritarianism.

In conclusion, it is imperative that political leaders discern the succession of possible consequences when deciding the type of liberty the government should protect. Even more important is how liberty is protected and furthered. Before subscribing to these revolutions in thought, first, ask what type of life you wish to lead. Second, understand the moral ramifications of your actions. Third, recognize the gap between perceived freedom and actual freedom.

Hello, I have a question, is it possible to dismiss a teacher for a relationship with a student(the difference is 9 years(18 and 27))?

I don't live in the USA.

Thank you in advance

Thoughts on whether that sentence is compelling enough? Need some ideas for my assignment and thought this would be the perfect place for a think tank.

Hi guys i was hoping you could help me out with dworkin, has he contributed anything significant to the law or has most of it been a waste?

Hello! My name is Danya, I'm a law-student in Russia.

We have the subject "Theory of state and law" in Russian universities. One of the main themes of that subject is the types of states (parliamentary republic, presidential Republic or mixed type). Russian professors use the soviet approach to determine that classification. I think this method is needlessly dogmatic because they say that all countries belong to one of that types.

Could you tell what lawyers in your country think about that problem and what kind of classification are they using?

Thank you for your answers and sorry for mistakes in that text (write me about them, thank you).

My professor asked us to identify the legal theories of jurisprudence and write an essay and I don't understand or know how to go about philosophy because I have never studied it before. I'm reproducing the question below, please tell me your thoughts on the topic or which philosopher do you think answers these issues best:

There exists a piece of a land – Nomos. The people living in the geographical territory of Nomos come from different cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. They do not share a common political history as different parts of Nomos were governed by different rulers and political regimes. The first ruler to ever govern the entire territory of Nomos was Queen Nuri.

Queen Nuri managed to take over the several fragmented parts of Nomos and during her rule, she was consistent, just and even caring in most of her policies for the people of Nomos. The people were happy with Queen Nuri as she represented a stark contrast to the brutal rulers they had been ruled by in the past.

Queen Nuri was the head of all three wings of Nomos’s government. She selected the legislature, the executive and the judiciary from a set of well-trained, educated and sensitive officials. In the peak of her rule, she appointed the Constituent Assembly of Nomos to draft Nomos’s Constitution. When the Constitution came into force, it did not declare Nomos to be a democratic state. Instead, Article 12 of Nomos’s constitution stated:

“When the monarch dies, the monarch will be succeeded by the eldest child of the monarch (adopted or biological) that is left behind. This offspring of the deceased ruler will be declared the sovereign of Nomos. This rule is to be applied without any exceptions, except as specifically codified in the Constitution.”[1]

(There are only two codified exceptions to this rule: first, if the eldest child declines the throne or second, if the eldest child renounces citizenship of Nomos the next in line will be declared the sovereign.)

People of Nomos accepted the Constitution and abided by the rules it laid down because of their belief in Queen Nuri. They complied with all the rules that Queen Nuri enacted, and the Constitution was an extension of this habit for them.

Queen Nuri’s policies particularly supported the religious minorities and the poor in Nomos. While the religious majority was also largely satisfied with her rule (particularly because of the economic progress they experienced), certain majoritarian fringe groups were increasingly gaining traction for their claims that Queen Nuri was ignoring the majority’s economic and religious interests.

Queen Nuri’s eldest son, Prince Ruin, disagreed with Queen Nuri’s governance methods and supported these fringe groups. He thought his mother pandered to the interests of Nomos’s religious minorities at the cost of the religious majority’s interests. He was also eager to become the monarch himself – a dream that he had long harboured. These interests led him to murder Queen Nuri one night in their royal residence.

There was major political turmoil in Nomos following Queen Nuri’s murder. In the midst of this turmoil, Prince Ruin took over as the ruler of Nomos and enacted a series of new rules and amendments. These rules changed the character of Nomos’s constitution from secular theological, denied citizenship de facto to Nomos’s religious minorities through a new citizenship regime, decreased the taxation of the rich to the bare minimum, repealed progressive laws made in favour of sexual and gender minorities and revoked all labour laws that were in force in Nomos indefinitely. These new rules were often not publicised and changed very frequently, they were normally worded using ambiguous language, and they were very often retrospective.

Although some officials in Nomos (who still upheld the rules in force during Queen Nuri’s rule) did not abide by the new rules enacted by Prince Ruin, most of the officials in Nomos abided by and endorsed Prince Ruin’s rules. This latter group of officials were from Nomos’s dominant religious group. Increasingly, common people from Nomos’s dominant religious group were also accepting Prince Ruin as their ruler and began to habitually obey any rules he enacted.

In the midst of this, an interesting development takes place. Dissatisfied by Prince Ruin’s amendments to Nomos’s Constitution and the changes he has made, a group of activists and scholars called Fight-Against-Ruin, bring a case to Nomos’s Supreme Court.

The petitioners argue their case on the following three grounds:

i. Prince Ruin is not the rightful ruler of Nomos as the people had signified allegiance only to the deceased queen.

ii. The system put into force by Prince Ruin is not a valid legal system.

iii. The Prince is not the rightful sovereign of Nomos as he murdered Queen Nuri.

In sum, the petitioners argue that none of the rules enacted by Prince Ruin are “laws” and that the new system cannot correctly be called a legal system that imposes legal rights and obligations on its people. The respondent, the state of Nomos representing Prince Ruin, opposes each of these contentions.

A ‘Commission of Legal Theorists’ has been consulted for their expert opinion this case. There is widespread disagreement amongst these theorists on whether Nomos has a legal system or not and compelling arguments are made from both sides.

The lawyers are left to argue this matter before the Supreme Court of Nomos. Argue for the side chosen by you relying on theories that you have discussed in your jurisprudence course.

Can anyone give a few pointers on how to critically discuss the statement in relation to Kelsen's pure Theory of law, "The basic norm refers only to a coercive social order which is by and large effective."? All ideas would be much appreciated thank you.

Bonjour à tous,

Cela fait maintenant un mois et demi que j'ai signalé à mon agence de location, mon syndic de copro et mon assurance, un fuite donc je suis victime sans les toilettes de mon logement.

Cette fuite à été diagnostiquée par le plombier diligenté par le Syndic 1 semaine après mon signalement. Elle provient des parties communes, plus précisément d'un tuyau d'évacuation des sanitaires, deux étages plus haut ! Jusqu'à présent, quelques maigres réponses m'ont été faites par le syndic dont la dernière en date je cite "J’ai fait une déclaration de sinistre auprès de l’assurance dommage-ouvrage. J’attends l’expertise pour réaliser les travaux sauf si le cabinet d’expert m’y autorise"

Les murs des seuls WC de l'appartement que j'occupe sont en partie littéralement imbibés d'eau.

Quels recours me conseillez vous d'enclencher?

Merci à tous pour votre contribution.

Nelita

Best books to start learning Jurisprudence

Public order offences (such as begging) is something I think Critcal Legal Studies helps us understand. Are there any other topics you believe it helps? Do you think it can be applied to mental health and crime?

I am writing a paper for an applied ethics class in which I discuss the mental states of criminals as they are committing crimes. I know the legal term for this is “mens rea” when talking about an individual’s state of mind, but what if I am exploring the different kinds of mental states in an abstract context? As a placeholder, I currently have the words “Mentes Reae” which I believe is the proper pluralization of mens rea. Is this an appropriate way of discussing these ideas, or am I missing something here?