Thank you. Regarding the case law, perhaps Bentham would have approved the actions of the two crewmen and affirmed the defence of necessity under those circumstances. It seems to me that Lord Coleridge while enunciating the principles in that case had chosen to ignore the utilaritarian concerns in view of the precedent it would have set out for the times to come.
Indeed, utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of the act, that is maximum happiness of the maximum number. But this can not be applied in all the circumstances. If applied, then we will be bound to accept heinous crimes as good by just looking into the good consequences that crime has created.
I have seen your almost 10 videos of jurisprudence.. and let me tell you.. what a job you have done..✨🤘🏻 I am pursuing llm final year, and 3 years in my LLB and 1 year of llm.. jurisprudence kabhi samjh nahi aya tha.. but now I am not just understand but actually liking the subject and it’s only because of you.. so big thankyou and a loud happy shoutout to your knowledge and hard work.💜🤘🏻
You're too good your expression, your teaching way, your smile , your knowledge, your kindness to explore this knowledge to my types of beginners who are searching this type of crucial knowledge. And all viewer should thankful to you for getting this your knowledge in only 39.05min. I think You recorded your all videos with your heart❤️ that's why all are amazing with informative 😊thank you Beauty with Brian 👸🏻🧠HARE KRISHNA 🙏
thanku so much for this lecture mam. this is very helpfull for me in understanding the contribution of JERMY BENTHAM in ANALYTICAL SCHOOL of jurisprudence ./ thanku so much .keep uploading these lectures mam ,it is very helpful for those who are unable to afford coaching .so keep uploading these mam.
Thanks a lot Sumalya. I am really happy to know that you found my videos helpful. Also, really appreciate all your feedback and rest assured, I will continue uploading more law lectures and keep sharing my knowledge for free. 😊
Thank You so much for this lecture mam. This is very help full for me to understanding JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIANISM..(POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT ALSO BENEFITED )
Hello Priya, this is one of your youtube video that I watched and I discovered that you have really taken a pain in making such a fantastic video in the theory of Jeremy Bentham. When I was a student of law jurisprudence was the subject which was a nightmare for me and I never opened a book on jurisprudence. I only relied on the notes and guide books, however now when I am preparing for Higher Judiciary I am compelled to go thorough all the major schools of jurisprudence. I can see from your videos playlist that you have developed many videos on Jurisprudence. Hope it will be helpful to all the lawyers who would be preparing for their Higher Judiciary because for lower judiciary they do not have jurisprudence as a syllabus inculcate in it. I would really appreciate that you have gathered such enormous information which will make us work less on the various literature written my legal intellectuals. Thank you once again and I wish you all the best. 👍
In this case law Nacessity is not the ground of murder.....adhiktam logon ke liye adhiktam sukh...is niyam ko follow nahi kiya gaya...aapka samjhane ka method badhiya hai...better then most of you tubers..
Thank you mam🥰 I see your videos from Bangladesh 🥰🥰 actually those all videos are really nice🥰🥰 I can learn everything from your videos😇... Those video can help me for good result 😇 when I didn’t understand any topic of jurisprudence at frist, I also find your video in RU-vid 🥰
Thank you so much for the feedback. Yes, the duration is quite long since I wanted to cover all the major aspects of Bentham's contribution. I will try to create shorter videos in future. Feel free to comment if you have any more suggestions!
R V Dudley and Stephen’s case is case about a kid was eaten by fellow shipmates(Cannibalism) ‘Neccessity not a defence to Murder’.. but how is related to Utilitarian theory?
Austin and Bentham, both belong to the Analytical School of Jurisprudence and the basic idea expressed by both are similar but there are differences also. Looking at the concept of law, the major differences are: 1. Austin has divided law into laws properly so called and laws improperly so called. Laws properly so called consists of divine law (laws set by God for the creatures and scriptures are known to be the source of divine law and the law of God is the subject of theology) and positive law- the appropriate matter of jurisprudence. Bentham was against the idea that scriptures were a source of law. 2. According to Austin, positive law is the result of a sovereign’s command and the components of command are duty and sanction. He talks about the negative aspect of sanction that is sanction as punishment. According to Bentham, an important feature of law is that it should be backed by sanctions. He focused on negative and positive side of sanctions. The positive side is reward. Rewards should be given to the people who follow the law and punishments should be imposed on those who breaks the law. 3. According to Austin, as far the features of sovereignty is concerned the power of the sovereign should be indivisible, unlimited and illimitable. According to Bentham, the power is not absolute. It can be limited as well as divided. You can check out my video on Austin's theory of law: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-comBFMFvf_M.html
For now, I am working on some other topics. Thank you for your suggestions, I will definitely try to cover Historical as well as other schools of Jurisprudence.
@@LegalFly ok mam thanks for taking my suggestion ,one more thing in wanna add that if you are starting one subject then conplete all important topic of that subject ,for judiciary ,.it will be really very helpful for those who are not able to afford coaching cost.....mam you teach well ,i mean you have covered every main heading of that particular topic so thats why i am saying ....i hope you will work on that thankuuuu mam;
Thank you Sumalya, I understand your point but since this channel is quite new, it will take some time for me to cover all the important topics. I will keep creating more content as always. 😊
We can adhere to this line that goodness and badness of the action depends upon the goodness and badness of their consequences and in case of rv dudely we can see that the consequence of the action lead to muder of that person so we can say that actions were bad ......this is another way to see this case ....end result was not good that's why whether the intension was not wrong it will not be taken into consideration only consequence will be taken into consideration...
@@prashantchauhan4368 yaa that's why I said that intension will be taken into consideration not the motive ...here motive is good but intent of the mind is not
