Chili Palmer Story Archive

[Dimple Belousson]

Thejoint UNAM, Sorbonne and IU webinar series brings together faculty and students from all three universities around interesting inventions that have truly changed the world. The series is hosted by IU's Mexico Gateway office located on the campus on UNAM in Mexico City and the IU Europe Gateway office located in Berlin, Germany.

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. I'm so happy to be able to have the opportunity to welcome you here with us this morning. My name is Christiana Ochoa and I'm the Academic Director of the IU Mexico gateway, which is as the great honor of getting organized this event. I just heard my email, so I'm going to close that right now. I before proceeding, I'd like to direct our multilingual audience to the interpretation button at the bottom of your screen. It looks like a small globe or a basketball. You can click on the button there and then you can choose your preferred language. So once you've found that, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you, to our audience and also to our esteemed panelists that this panel, the challenges of law and ethics in today's society is such an important topic, seems to be growing in importance daily. And it is part of a collaboration between Sorbonne University, National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Indiana University. This conference today is part of the second season of this wonderful and fruitful collaboration. It's the ninth of the conferences that we've had of this sort, which has attracted audiences from all over the world, including, including contents from the, from both the global north and the global south. And over the course of our sessions, we've had more than 600 audience members and I understand they're close to a 100 today as well, so welcome, welcome. It's, it is also my great pleasure to introduce our moderator of gravity. A lot of us. Dr. Rios is currently working as an academic secretary of the humanities ordination. Her experience includes more than 20 years of specialized research and tax and budget bond. She's currently a full-time researcher to let us say, of the Institute of legal research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where she is the coordinator of the tax lot area and also the government training school. And in addition as a member and Liaison of the Institute of institutional research line, bought and informal economy diagnosis causes an implementation proposals. The US has a Doctorate in Law from the University of Salamanca and Spain. She's a member of the national system of researchers, level 2. She's received the sort of Juana Ines de la Cruz 2016 award given by nom to the most outstanding academics. And she has also received the 2001 Ignacio in when I was coming down though, and it will research Prize awarded by the I j. As a practicing attorney, she has she also has experience in strategic litigation and has served as a special prosecutor in the former Attorney General's office. Before passing, you want to talk to us? Again, like to point our multilingual audience to the interpretation button at the bottom of your screen, which again looks like a small lobe or a basketball, and you can click on that button and then choose your preferred language. So welcome again. And I now leave you and Dr. Maria says capable. Yes. I hope you very much enjoyed this discussion. I knew I am planning to Dr. Rios. You are unmuted. Thank you very much. Thank you, Christian. I wouldn't just like those. Good morning, everyone. Well, as the assets, those are the last CMS or Navaho and his work journey. Excuse me. Do you think than yesterday app with colonial settlement of a family, SAS has a soluble carrier. A very interesting discussion about the principles of ethics and law today. Yes. Okay. And I have what a life skill welcomes all our panelists. We have great panelists from the Sorbonne, saline spike Burke and William Sherman. And as Christina mentioned a few seconds ago, this synergy that is, has been organized for a year and a half. I had about this collaboration between these three universities. Cell B1 and Indiana University, has been a very important tool for direct and rethink different topics in different areas. Especially in the humanities and social sciences. Today, we are talking about a subject that NFV, world context. It takes us to reflect about the challenges that law and ethics from different point of views. Therefore, we have great panelists. I will now read at their CV. Bees are in English. And later I will give the microphone to submarines and later to Dr. William Sherman who begin at this interesting discussion. Each one of them has a 35 minutes for their exposition. And then later we will have a dialogue and a Q and a session. And those who are interested in participating, please. You can yes. Write your questions in the chat section so we can read them to our panelists. So I will begin creating selling factors, biography, keeping. We'll see you soon. I have her presentation here, inferences in French. Associate did them on this to illustrate television history, at least 30 to illustrate the law through and write in the work of Montesquieu. Those of you that research includes impaired EF only pick that content. So every month I still Rousseau is so Legos, public SEO and SEM best inclusions, Aleppo and lately wholesaler hops. All these within CEQA called CDSS, yarn in Oxford, University Press. Enlightenment. No mammals. So the animal class, yeah, I'll upgrade path. Join me. Very much. Cilium. Okay. A, a a Now I read Bill shower means that biography. As you can see, I am shifting from one language to the other. And that's what's interesting about these conversations. Research and teaching interests are no. Germ and politicos thoughts, democratic theory, theory, theory. Most recent books. Breath for me. Well, this is the rule of law. In 1994. Blueprints you use for your 990. Leave it on democracy. 100 workers. Low. Rutledge. He has she moved than very messy. The rule of law on their seats. Yeah. Well, we didn't know what race. I would say is Oh, night. And the Cambridge companion. Okay. I'm sorry. Numerous. He's a number of internal review. And then welcome. And we began with a formula with SLE. I first presentation. You have 35 minutes for your presentation. Go ahead and actually present Poincare locomotives. You Professor Southern University, I hope you can hear me. I am a professor at Harvard University and a specialist in the philosophy and contemporary promises. I am going to talk about motor skill is pre-delay, which is a flagship work which was published in 1848. Why did I choose to talk about this work? Because I think it's still echoes or analyses of political tensions and geopolitical tensions, as I've tried to show you this, Let's quintile What is unique. Work with a general analysis of legal structures in all the peoples of the world, ancient and modern peoples, western peoples and Eastern people. It is an immense work and he gave, the goal of this work is, the object is to analyze the institutions of the people and the end to come from there with their customs. Let's prevail what was interpreted in different ways. According to some, this piece of work that is foundation of historical science or law or of sociology of law. However, layoffs caused, amongst others, did not want to compromise between philosophy and sociology. Main SQR would be, according to them, a political philosopher who judges, evaluates and who not only explains a diversity of society is a legal order, but it goes beyond, is Montague skews ambition would be to deliberated about the true principles of freedom. Where he plays the role of a counselor to the legislator, whether the legislator be a prince or a people. Now, these contradictory judgments, so one tissue, being a sociologist or a philosopher are really symptomatic to me, they revealed the strategic place of this deal. Why in the philosophy of law not discriminated proposes a new reflection on justice, on the rationality of law in a famous formula he actually writes and hence the title of my presentation today. History must be enlightened by laws and laws by history. And that is on this enigmatic quote that I will focus during my analysis today, it is necessary to understand in what sense the law must be related to the Spirit, the mindset of each people, each society, which is the goal, or at least printed by the Spirit of Laws. And in this short lecture today, I would like to dwell on the decisive question of the relationship between law and morality in society. The question I'm going to ask you is the following. There is the rationality of light and it's adequacy to abstract principles of justice such as equality of freedom, as capacity. At all? Does it correspond to historical circumstances, to the general spirit of the people? And if so, should we say that some people are distinct or other scientists will have access to freedom or others doomed to servitude. I think it's appropriate to question the way in which teachers work in the 18th century rationality and justice community below. Now this question is not only a technical one, but also opens to a better understanding of the principles of political liberty. Indeed, one of the most shocking thesis for us in Montesquieu, montesquieu sparks as the one according to Welch and I quote, Not all peoples are ripe for freedom. Are ready for freedom was taken out by Rousseau and buy. A lot of philosophers of the Enlightenment. Offense, at least a universalist. And liberalism. Liberalism, which would like to be able to extend to the whole world into a universal notion, the principles of liberty and democracy. How can we understand this code? And this concept that not all peoples are ready are ripe for his liberty. How can we enlightened on those by history, and should we be content with Montesquieu trust, Craig, restrict the scope of the principles of liberty even if it means condemning a good part of the world, in particular, Asia, Africa, Russia, and Turkey, take political and civil slavery. Slavery. The first part of this conjugation of this presentation, I will allow us to establish the meaning of the concept that the spirit of laws and thus the titles mr. Montesquieu chose to give to his work. Then, during the second phase of my presentation, we will see that Montesquieu considers that there is a spirit of free peoples which in fact restricts the field of political freedom to European peoples, but also to Amerindian people's will benefit from another form of freedom. Finally, for our analysis, we will look at the notion of slavery, civil slavery, and colonial slave trade in order to see whether the Montesquieu deserves criticism of postcolonial studies can see hermit, hammer, Germanic and imperialist reason and the enlightenment. So first part of my presentation, the spirit of the law. According to Montesquieu, the government, quote, most, and keeping nature is not the one deduced from the universal nature of humanity, but rather a government that has the most in line with the particular nature of the people this July. It is therefore Montesquieu, the suitability of those, their adaptation to the circumstances which is deemed of primary importance. According to him, the Lord must be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that the loss of a people could not be appropriate to another people. So notice you keep whoever the hypotheses here of a perfectly rational code of a universally valid system of laws is rejected. The idea of a model of law or an archetype of law is replaced here by sort of a singular system. Each legislation according to him, must be thought in its relation to a set of characteristic factories of the life of the people. The laws must relate to the, to the political regime, but also to the side of the states, to the climate, to the kind of life, a lifestyle of the people, to the economy, democracy, to the religion. So integral to all elements related to culture, secure, restores the architecture of his back. His intention is to direct the political art by the principle of suitability to the singular situation of a people. And here appears the founding project, the printed one, which is the setting in relation of the geopolitical sphere, whether it's exteriority, the refusal of a pure and abstract science alone. What can we conclude at this from the point of view of the relations between low Ethics and Society. The rationality of law according to Montesquieu as possible, due to its conformity, suitability to the constitutive relations of the nature of things. Geographical, economic, social, moral, political, and religious relations which constitute the general spirit of the people in relation with the Spirit. And I would like to give you just one example among many others. At this figure, rationality as a relationship of convenience between the general spirit and the spirit of the law. It's example of the Adalja are the traditional combat and the Middle Ages. The Odin II, or judgment of God, was a form of trial, religious trial, which consisted in subjecting a suspect to a painful or even deadly. Do. The outcome of which, in theory was determined by God itself. Allowing one to conclude the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Against a large scale. Here wants to reveal the rationality, internal rationality of this practice of our dahlia, which is described by everyone as absurd and barbarians. The spirit of the laws makes emerged from the darkness, quote unquote, image from the darkness, the cellularity of the rules that govern the judges shall comeback. Or Dahlia. Now it's not about saying that the practice itself is rational and make sense, but actually that it comes from a double rationality. On the one hand, practice is not fundamentally contrary to liberty according to obscure. But on top of that, it is aligned with the spirit of the people. And for freedom, notice skew. It compiles all the provisions of judicial combat that make it possible to avoid slender accusations. I quite got 28. The spirit of the law, as there are an infinite number of ways, things that are conducted in a very foolish manner. There are also finish things that are conducted in a very wise man and so there's some sort of rationality assure, aiming for freedom. Secondly, the rationality of law does not come from it's conformity to a two. Rational universal principles, but more from conformity to the spirit of the people they use, other judicial combat. All of this or Dahlia can actually be understood in the light of the general spirit of the Germanic peoples. The spirit is Marshall, very military spirit in his constant contexts, the judicial come back constitutes a form of law. The rationality of letters. What can seem like the most irrational of customs lies in the coherence of a value system and in a warlike nation cavities, according to Montesquieu indeed of blinds, other vices. And it proves that one has been sensitive to honor. So winning in a combat does not mean that you're not guilty. And when you are defeated, it does not prove one's guilt at the victory. This victory does the combination of strength and courage, and otherwise the possession of virtues that are in the indispensable to the survival, real and symbolic of the community. Above all, the victories manifests the subjective importance of the belief and honor. I believe that has lead men to exercise themselves or their lives in order to accomplish. Great. It's indeed that will allow them to obtain glory in battle there for rationality comes from customs twice or the law in so far as they correspond to the conditions of conservation of a community, in particular circumstances, to its principle, as much as to its nature. The definition of good and evil. Virtue, advice is at the origin of the definition of the just and unjust or unfair. It's the social ethics. There are certainly Stripe, as Hegel would've said, which gives reason for the formation that rules of law and there a man and rationality. Now, second part of my presentation, right, for freedom, what does it mean? So this theory of law also includes another aspect not as interesting for us. It seems that according to Montesquieu, freedom is a privilege that should only be reserved for certain people AT world european peoples and not yet Asian, African or African peoples. Montesquieu share relies on an abandoned and travel literature on China and Japan, Persia, or the Ottoman Empire. We must remember the climate theory, which yeah, montesquieu borrowed from Aristotle. Amongst others, follow this. Hippocratic. According to him and his cure, human nature is diversified and can be distinguished by climate is cold, temperate or towards Sebastian. And B-form of this cube, Pascal had stated there's nothing right or wrong which does not change quality. Database pool. If the climate changes three degrees of elevation of the poles overturn or jurisprudence and adequate. This was coined by Pascal. Now here, this does not draw any skeptical conclusion from the indexation or lose on the climate. According to him, on the contrary, is a positive knowledge for signs of long. As Montesquieu and the structures a lot today naturalized as freedom. Freedom is not accessible to all of that. It is out of reach for some people's. Indeed, the political consequences of any of his theory of climate is a crucial. According to Montesquieu, the peoples of the North are pathetic. While the peoples of the South are asked in the first, go to, Northern peoples are hardworking. They don't take much pleasure. They don't show much pain, which is why according to Monte Montesquieu, it is necessary to, failure must commit to give him feelings, to make him feel anything the second, so the southern peoples are on the contrary, central and voluptuous were reluctant to any morality. As a consequence, despotism, which is the worst regime, the one where one governance without lobe that are imposing his domination through fear. Also certain nations that are incapable of having of the mind strong enough to govern themselves. And according to kill, the possibility of men that makes despotism tolerable. In some climates, the spite of your love for freedom and hatred for violence. And Montesquieu argued that freedom finds its natural home either in temperate climates such as Europe, or in the mountains and Islands, wherever men are willing to fight for their freedom. However, consent to salvage, which can also compromise one small from geography, but from history. From the conjunction between the size of the state, the presence or absence of trade, and possibly from some sort of lading religion. Let's take the example of Russia, which is at the heart of not excuse analysis. Why is Russia locked in despotism? Why candidate? She freedom? According to motor skills, the cause or the inertia of despotic morals in Russia as not so much related to the climate, which is a cold climate, nor to the gigantic side of the empire, but rather in the absence of trade, a free movement of people, of goods and capitals, and the institution of serfdom in Russia. And I quote Montesquieu in Russia, that people are composed only of slaves, attached to the limits of slaves. We'll call this Ecclesiastes text, or gentlemen. Because there are loads of these slaves, there's nobody left for the Thursday, which must form and train the workers and the merchants. And this is the conclusion of Montesquieu. Not all people are ripe for freedom. Freedom is like breathing in the face of the swamp of servitude which suffocates and craftsmen and leads them to stagnation by preventing them from turning themselves away from the nature and our politics. And I quote again, freedom itself has seemed unbearable to peoples who were not accustomed to enjoy. It does, but sometimes harmful, harmful to those who have lived in swampy countries. Enter the final element. Degree zip attack. This illusion you progresses. Nietzsche. Illusion of progressivism when we learned the lessons, of course colonial times. Montesquieu's work is deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, Montesquieu is the first philosopher and the history of the West in condemning slavery so firmly. And based on book 15, he explains that civil slavery is never a good thing, but it's useful neither to the master nor to the slave, that it makes men survive. Or cruel, vicious, and imperious. The time when the slave trade was developing as never before in Europe in the 18th century, particularly in Bordeaux. Wine Montesquieu was born. Let's PD-L1 took a courageous stand group. Montesquieu condemns slavery by virtue of a self-evident principle. Slavery's always unjust if it makes one man the property of another and annihilates freedom, which is the most precious of all goods. I will quote again Montesquieu, slavery is contract contrary to the fundamental principle of all societies. End of the quote. It's Montesquieu even insists on the hypocrisy of Christianity. As the Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru did not want to agree to let the mirroring Amerindians be damned and thus became as Catholics. And he calls them very devout brigands, the worst destroyers and enslavers of history. Of course, he brought in the 18th century for Montesquieu. No packed by virtue of which a man consents to a lineage is freedom. Don't know. Willing servitude can be just such an act of giving or selling one's liberty without any real counterpart is iniquitous. And North, he writes, liberty is priceless to the one who sells it. And from this perspective, there are many texts they cannot go into detail that show how Montesquieu, montesquieu defends freedom against all forms of slavery. However, and that's what I will focus on now. Condemning slavery is not the last word of Montesquieu. The rejection of the origin of slavery gives room to the real origins of slavery. Based on the nature of things. Physical cause, especially climate, can indeed explain and slavery. The heat can indeed make the body nervous and renders men unfit for any kind of work if they are not spurred on by the fear of punishment. He tells, he says that climate to therefore sharps reason less 6. And moral or political causes also explain that in despotic regimes, one can finally want to sell oneself to the Lord. Escape a greater tyranny. He therefore supports that in certain, despite the countries where the condition of man is to be subject or slaves, like Russia, for instance, freedom is, and I quote, worth nothing. Rousseau. Montesquieu actually relies on an interesting source, Perry, who said exactly the same thing in Muskogee as they used to say. One sees men willingly accepting to sell themselves. The reason is simple, where men are already slaves of bizarre. They still prefer to join the domain of the Lord in order to benefit from a form of protection. Then his that child and Feeney, the ambiguity strong as all men are born equal and must be said that slavery is against nature. Although in some countries it is founded on a natural reason. We stop there and denounced the ethnocentric reason of the Enlightenment, the chiaroscuro of a narrow even danger, dangerous rationalism. I don't think so. As Montesquieu himself amended himself in a later edition of PD-L1. I would like to insist on this to conclude. In an addition introduced in 757, following the objections formulated by one of his interlocutors, Zhong Guo Li, a historian and man of letters, Montesquieu, underlines henceforth that the interests of a small number cannot be a criteria to justify slavery. To go leg. Who asks if he should not have examined if it was easier to undertake great constructions with slaves than with day laborers. Montesquieu answers by a new principles. To know if slavery is used for two all, we need to examine a system of random pick, drawing lots where 1 tenth of the population in each seating could draw white tickets and would be free. Some of the masters and the nine tenths that would have black tickets would still be subjected to slavery in that case. And I will quote Montesquieu. Those who speak most in favor of slavery would be those who would most aborts. And the most reached would abort. It still holds. The cry for slavery, he says, is therefore the cry of wealth and pleasure and not that of the general good of men or that particular societies. In the final analysis for Montesquieu, slavery is always unjust. And Montesquieu even adds that the argument in its favor comes from the fact that people refuse to improve working conditions in order to employ free men because they wanted to make profit. They found men to be lazy, and they invented ideological arguments to reduce them to slavery. Conclusion. Even if Montesquieu and I'm trying to show this always wants to particular, like to particularized the law to adapted to geography and history, to culture. He does not renounce to the universal and the criteria of justice. On the same, however, 30 years later made this accusation. And the seventh 1780 condos say, reproach to Montesquieu to be neglecting the issue of legitimacy of the laws. He says he prefers the art of governing to the science of the law to be cautious rather than favoring justice. And I will quote him, a good law. What he says must be good for all men. As a true proposal that is true for all end of the quotes. And unlike Montesquieu, who considers the legislature based on his knowledge of what is singular on the UFC sees him as a geometers who can reason based on universal laws, the natural law. And to make true proposals that comply with the rights of humanity conduct, say who admires the American Declaration of Independence goes further than multi-skilled slavery. Starting in 1781, he says that slavery is, and I quote, a crime against humanity by radicalizing the arguments of moisture. Later. As part of the society of the friends of the blacks, he will defend the gradual end of trade and political equality. And in the end, for multiscale as well. The legislative reason includes certain universal principles. Society, he must be based. In its usefulness for all, it can only tolerate practices that may be chosen by those who, in the end don't know what position they will have in society. Which for Montesquieu, includes a radical criticism of slavery, which is always unjust. This is my last word. Enlightening laws by history and history by laws implies learning what we can from the diversity of richness of cultures, of circumstances, but without giving up on justice or human rights, which must remain our compass. Condorcet wrote, and I quote, that those rights of humanity are the same everywhere and that there is no state. Despite the difference in climates, habits, and constitutions where man cannot enjoy it fully. End of the quote. So this principle throughout the 19th century will be at the heart of the brights extension processes, which include more and more citizens, the poor, protestants, Jew, Jewish, slaves, and women who were first excluded from brights of Humanity. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Is received good. Thank you so much saline for your conclusions with this app. Next session about monsters, you, especially when you talk about Russia and his thoughts about it. If the very current topic and how this idea of justice develop into it. Regardless of how law as adapted to each region. Now, I will give the microphone to William Sherman. Thank you so much. Bail. And once we're done with your words, we have a questions for saline which will take place at the end. Please. Go ahead. Can you can you all hear me? I hope so. Well, thank you so much for the invitation. I'm thank you for the gracious introduction, Gabriele and isoline. Thank you so much for that fascinating talk book you've been talking about. Steward of the law is one of my favorite books in graduate school. So that led me just to pose a very personal and perhaps selfish question is there's some relationship between them I'm going to be talking about in a moment. And that book. And I actually think there might be even know that there's not an obvious connection between our topics. Much a skew is just such a wonderful analyst and brilliant critic of political cruelty. This of course, is why e was revised again in the mid 20th century. A century filled with horrible cruelties as our, as our century well appears to be political cruelly critique acrylic is not the same thing as non-violence principle of nonviolence. But I do think one can interpret the tradition of political non-violence, which I would say some more recent tradition as building on that sort of legacy that we can see and modesty, so modest use, the combination of slavery you talked about so powerfully, all of these things I do, do you think are the basis for the tradition that I want to explore with everybody today. Alright, so if you listen to both popular and scholarly discourse about recent political protest movements, you may have heard that for better or for worse. Typically for worse, depends on where you sit politically. The days of nonviolent protests are coming to an end. At the very least, this is a now commonplace political narratives from Portland, Oregon to Hong Kong and many other places we could talk about. We indeed are seeing a growing number of protests that include acts of politically motivated law-breaking that no longer are nonviolent in strict sense of the term. And by that I mean nonviolence gets understood as prohibiting harm to persons and also damage to or destruction of property. The crux of my argument today is going to focus on the limitations of this conventional, I think, very commonplace understanding of non-violent political protests, as I'm going to try to argue. And I hope I can convince you this broad understand, the broad understanding of violence that is implicit in that few gets in the w