Welcome to /r/philosophyoflaw

I put out a weekly podcast and this week we are discussing Nietzsche's essay on the use and misuse of history. Nietzsche makes an interesting point that without history there would be neither war nor justice and in order to be happy, you must forget.

This is an interesting point as it somewhat flies in the face of some concepts of social justice that involve remembrance - but it seems that according to Nietzsche, there would be no happiness to be found in a project like that.

I tend to agree that happiness and forgetting (or at least letting go) seem pretty strongly tied.

What do you think?

If you're interested, here are links to the podcast:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-6-4-let-the-dead-bury-the-living/id1691736489?i=1000645249410
Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/3isSLzjKoCjXNUuzUQsOVa?si=fV6oXKP9T1-fYCNjzpDfjA

Disclaimer: Yes this is promotional, but I also am very interested in discussion surrounding this topic and essay.

In our podcast (Plausible Deniability AMX) this week, we discuss Plato's Republic - Book 1 - where Socrates and his buds are discussing the meaning of justice. After a lot of back and forth, they don't have much of a conclusion other than it does not mean: giving to people what is owed to them, helping your friends and harming your enemies, or the benefit of the stronger.

In my opinion, justice is not a word with much of a definition of its own. I think it's related to fairness and moral good. But I don't think that the term serves much function other than to add moral weight to a discussion of fairness or virtue.

What do you think it means and do you find it to be an important concept?

If you're interested, here are links to the full episode:Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-11-2-justice-for-the-unicells/id1691736489?i=1000637001067Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/6XQ8m3CUawMn7XiDMfSUym?si=6A-3W4a-RHO0dEsZYzoLEgYoutube - https://youtu.be/iXi0HClH1uE?si=oihSxA5VrLmNGJzZ

Hello all,

I remember reading this idiom long time ago. I am trying to find more on this, but google is not turning up anything. Has anyone every come across it and can direct me to some legal discussions on this? Thank you.

Hey all,

I (non-law) am looking for an introductory podcast on Normative Jurisprudence. Does anyone have any recommendations? Thanks!

Hello everyone,

I'll try to be specific and focus on a concrete example. For instance, say it is against the law to drink at the park in X city.

The people in X city start having certain beliefs about drinking. Most likely negative beliefs. For instance, "Drinking is for losers," "Anyone who drinks is wasting time." Whenever or not there's some truth to these claims is up for debate. However, this create a "culture against drinking."

Moreover, say the media starts making fun of people who drink since it is understanble for the majority of the population. The media will make fun of people who go drinking..etc. Hence the people who grow up in that community will vote against people wanting to legalize drinking at the park. The law might remain and even tougher laws might be enacted.

Reading Pierre Schlag's 'Laying down the Law' (1996) this rainy Wednesday and came across the paragraph below. Wondering, in the last 26 years, if the legal academy has actually taken note of the 'crash' or if the situation has only exacerbated with social media and proliferation of rhetoric.

​

"The normative jurisprudential world, built of arguments upon arguments upon arguments -- just hanging there on the threads of normative structures marked out with concepts like fairness, consent, oppression, neutrality, and policed by aesthetic criteria like coherence, consistency, certainty, elegance -- is about to crash. More accurately, it has already crashed, and it is a matter of time before the entire legal academy takes notice...

...the rise in the exchange value of such normative words typically yields an inflationary spiral. Sooner or later everybody is using the 'freedom' word. For a while, the political charm of the 'freedom' world can survive accelerated circulation. The word remains important. It remains important because it remains performatively effective. It is perceived as a tool, a rhetorical lever. But precisely because the 'freedom' word remains performatively effective, it is immediately pressed further diffusing its constative significance. After a while, the 'freedom' work doesn't mean much. It isn't even a reliable rhetorical tool...this linguistic metamorphosis is hardly limited to the 'freedom' word. Rather, the linguistic devaluation affects the entire normative legal thought."

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7189096867932342703/5004078709482360398

I posted this at r/legalphilosophy, but it probably fits better here: I'm prepping for a legal philosophy disciplinary exam, a section of which is on legal positivism (specifically, the separation of law and morals), and I can't make heads nor tails of the fifth section of Hart's essay (I'm using his version of the lecture published in the Harvard Law Review). I understand that he's trying to dispel two possible objections to the idea that a legal system can be fundamentally separate from moral justifications, but I don't understand the structure of the argument. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

Two reasons that the U.S. form of government fails to qualify as a democracy are the U.S. Senate's use of the filibuster and the presidential election's dependence on the Electoral College. Four more reasons are discussed in the following link: https://houlgatebooks.blogspot.com/

View Poll

“Is something pious because God says it is pious, or does God say something is pious because it is pious?

Question being posed after reading Euthyphro (dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates by Plato)

pls help ! i want other peoples perspective, not just my own.

I would like you to participate in this interdisciplinary research project from the University of Amsterdam. The link below will take you to an online survey platform. All I need is 5 to 10 minutes of your time.

Theme: Punishment

https://nlpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5nVF3L7OVnlbUQl

All data collection is anonymous and treated confidentially.

​

Thank you for your help!

Hello all, I am really struggling to understand jurisprudence.... What it means, what every different theorist/idea is about from Hobbes to Rousseau, to social contracts to Kelsen to whoever the heck else, obey vs obedience OMG HELP....

I am in my second year of law school in New Zealand and Juris is a compulsory paper I need to take.

I diligently follow the lectures, read all the readings, make notes, read all the text books but it's just not sinking in and frankly I think I'm refusing to let it sink in because I couldn't understand it from day 1 of lectures.

Any YouTubers or articles or books or ANYTHING that really cemented it for you?

Please be kind, I know it may seem like a very simple subject to understand for some. 🙏

I'm reading cult books separately, v.g. Pure Theory of Law, On Law and Justice, now i'm about to read Institutions of Law and The concept of Law, but i think i need a book that explains the whole picture to better understand.

1 One of the most ancient bits of legal wisdom is the saying that a man may break the letter of the law without breaking the law itself. Every proposition of positive law, whether contained in a statute or a judicial precedent, is to be interpreted reasonably, in the light of its evident purpose.”

2. “Every law, really conferring a right, is, therefore, imperative: as imperative, as if its only purpose were the creation of a duty, or as if the relative duty, which it inevitably imposes, were merely absolute.”

3. “When lawyers reason or dispute about legal rights and obligations...they make use of standards that do not function as rules, but operate differently as principles, policies, and other sorts of standards. Positivism...is a model of and for a system of rules, and its central notion of a single fundamental test for law forces us to miss the important roles of these standards that are not rules.”

Hello!! I am a law student and I will be graduating from law school this summer, I want to work in the academic field and I am really interested in philosophy, I am between a master’s degree in philosophy or one in legal sciences, and I am really confused between those two, the one on philosophy is in Spain and the legal sciences one is in my home town in Mexico. Any advices on how to choose?