Great lectures until trying to fix the injustice from "nature" (God). Life is a gift from God. In Matthew 20:1 "The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" Jesus talks about the unfair gifts from God. May God bless American.
Rawls perspective really changed the way I thought about talent and merits .. the fact that society plays a huge role in determining the distribution of opportunities and wealth based on its requirements and can be variable to a large extent.. great lecture!
Rawls way is also highly hypocritical. How much money do you think he has given to the "less fortunate"? Big fat zero. It's easy arguing for fairness to take the moral high ground while actually doing none of it at all. Dangerous hypocrisy.
@@markarmage3776 if he hasn’t given some of his money to the poor then that’s not good, but let’s not use ad hominem here. His idea still may be a good one even if he doesn’t fully practice what he preaches. I don’t think that the argument of hypocrisy is enough to excuse his ideas. That’s like saying we should throw out the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, because they focus heavily on freedom and the founding fathers owned slaves.
@@markarmage3776 the hypocrisy of the person making a claim, doesn't make the claim any less true. There are some exception like if someone falsley claims to be a doctor and makes factual claims.
@@markarmage3776 Rawl's argument is also based on the presupposition that natural "unfairness" is inherently wrong and needs to be corrected. Why? Some people come from generational poverty. Some from generational wealth. It's a natural unfairness. But should we take generational wealth and redistribute it to those coming from generational poverty? What's "fair" about that? Why is it not better to establish a society where someone coming from generational poverty can begin establishing generational wealth knowing that it will be their great grandchildren who will truly get the benefits of their efforts? I think it's a commendable goal. The problem with equality of outcome is that it must be heavily regulated, it keeps anyone from being able to move ahead which is arguably a detriment to society as a whole, and is ultimately an unrealistic goal. Natural unfairness is natural, and the free market can create solutions to lessen that unfairness, but natural unfairness is not inherently "bad". It's just a natural outcome of a truly free society. I personally hold freedom at a higher importance than some unnatural, enforced "fairness", even though their are unfortunate outcomes in a free society.
In India Rawls' idea of justice scheme was employed by the Mandal commission much before they gained popularity in the west. It is fair to say that the experiment has not worked out as intended after 40 years of it's implementation. He raises interesting questions but his solutions assume too much and should not be seen as justified belief. Sadly they are too charming for the justice seeking younglings.
Absolutely brilliant that these lectures are freely available on line - if more Universities would do the same, the world would most certainly be a better place
Although I have a degree I most certainly was never exposed to such wonderful lectures. I have now watch professors from Princeton (Physics, Mathematics), Berkely (Biology & Biochemestry), MIT (Mathematics), Harvard (Phylosophy and debates) I so wish these videos were available when I attended school. I'm convinced that someone out there is getting a top notch education strictly by watching videos.
@@tayabaashfaq9540 My apologies I just saw your message. Most top universities have lectures posted on TH-cam. Simply do a search on TH-cam/university and courses will pop-up. Good luck!!!
Hey guys. Remember Michael Sandel made an entire book criticizing Rawls's theory of justice. So, the debate is not trying to indoctrinate anything as it may look like. Its get hotter because people often do not trust theories that say that they do not deserve the fruits of their efforts entirely. Sandel was simple showing Rawl's arguments over Mike.
@@kandalaambarish4341 you can check it out in his book " liberalism and limits of justice", i do not think i can sumarize it in a TH-cam coment. But he does not agree with Rawls "veil of ignorance" mental experiment. For Sandel moral and justice comes out with democratic debate and political open discussions, not from an atomic mental experiment. For deeper aproach you can see Rainer Forst book "context of justice". I hope i helped :)
Dnes 2020 budú podať všetci generáli štáty Neviem komu v hlave zas chce kupovať vojenské lietadla nad morne a komu sa chce plávať ktorým generálom mimo BA strato sféru
Bro respect for Gabriel for answering a comment after 2 years of his first post. I’m a conservative and I do like Sandel, just how there is diversity of thoughts and ideas I may have my own opinions and I have very contradictory ideas from John Rawls ideas
Incredible class. Mr. Sandel, your book on the moral limits of markets should be required reading in all economic and business degrees. I'm an economics grade student and I've recommended it to peers and professors.
Well. If you believe in the best value you can give someone is money, you need to check your moral and intellectual capacity. He is NOT the problem here.
The video is part of a series of lectures, it is not a debate. He is taking single theories, one at a time, and basing his answers on that theory to help the students develop their understanding. He does the same thing when discussing libertarianism, utilitarianism and such like. It is not his own opinion or bias.
Hope your last words for all of your students will be prophetic for them to become the best of these society! Congratulations Professor! You are a fantastic teacher!
Mike smiled a victory smile at 15:15, before he knew his ass would be handed to him later on :) . Especially when prof Michael Sandel had a show of hands to see who were the first born. Mike raised his hand and realized that the so called individual effort he did to get to Harvard, although commendable, was not his sole responsibility. There are innumerable factors that contribute to your success and many are not your doing. Hence solely merit base societies failed to recognize that most people don't get the same starting point of support.
Sorry for being an archeologist, but the problem I see there is that a correlation is being shown between being first-born and getting to Harvard on that particular lecture. You would need to prove that this also shows a correlation to being able to put more effort, a correlation to be able to achieve success (maybe their younger brothers and sisters ended even better?), and that someone who puts more effort into his life and achieves success is actually happier, or otherwise rewarded better than someone who lived a simply life with simple, low rewards. So let's say I'm a younger brother of a Harvard graduate and somehow it made me not go to Harvard, not learn a lot, but I still had a lot of fun in my life, have a loving wife and children and I regret nothing and I wouldn't want to trade places with my brother. Or let's say I'm a younger child, so parents took more care into raising me. They didn't want to repeat any mistakes, they always protected me in an argument against my brother, because I'm younger and need more care etc. In the end I am spoiled, I have everything I want, I become lazy and careless. So I don't care a lot about education and at the point I could try to get to Harvard, even if I wanted to, it would already be too late, because I'm too stupid. So what I want to present here is, should a society tax a man of success, even if his head-start wasn't a genetic advantage, wasn't money, but paradoxically it was harsh circumstances that hardened him up and made him put a lot of effort into fulfilling his ambitions by sacrificing his youth, while someone who had great childhood, became spoiled, when being a teenage had a lot of fun, should be considered someone who had a bad start, because by actually giving him everything he wanted, he wasn't incentivized to put any effort to life, so he ended in a worse situation than a person that worked hard? Both situations don't present what's actually happening, it's just a thought experiment. I think meritocracy is cool, but once you start arguing that even those that put more effort into life in order to achieve something, put the effort because of the particular start they got, you're stepping into the slippery slope of determinism, where we don't have a free will, because everything we do is an effect of what happened before.
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes. If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
@@MikkoHaavisto1 that's actually not true... loads of people are born psychopaths and loads of people are born psychopaths into shitty environmental situations... and yet there are extremely few active serial killers every year... also not to mention that your running into a fundamental flaw in using a serial killer... your using a person who's mental status is typically extremely rare and that has a predisposition toward inability to control impulse... so yes with all those factors added in like the inability to control impulse along with the up bringing and the Gene's you are likely to achieve a similar result... however to apply that to someone without the predisposition to lack impulse control you run into the problem of free will and choice durring times of impulse
I many ways, I believe that what is fair is society coming together to share. Beside economics and sociocultural factors, some people are born with some physical disabilities that inhibit their abilities to progress. That is why the ultimate theory should be taking care of each other to be better off.
I was fortunate to have a similarly great professor, even more than one, but I have learned to appreciate what I had as I get I older. In fact I have gone back to my notes. Sandel is marvelous. What a joy this is.
This lecture should be highlighted for our country right now as we try to determine a way forward out of this global pandemic. An informed public is necessary for a solid solution forward. Education system has done our country harm by politicizing our education. We would’ve benefited far more from an educated population over an egotistical consumer driven society.
The quotation we find of John Rawis at 46:46 regarding entitlement vs. worthiness mimics King Solomon's observations, which reads I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children should raise their hand... this is actually below the average of first order and only children in America. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children.
I think the core of the debate around min 20 to 24 (shortly before the break) is that we value results more than effort. If we would really be able to assess effort regardless of results equally the starting point and therefore location of the finish line wouldn''t matter anymore, still it would maybe prevent us as a society to raise to the top, so I think Rawls school of thought is persuasive also the way of distribution opens up a vast range of questions regarding justice again
What impresses me the most about this lecture, is how the professor has a slide for every point brought up by students. For example, the meritocracy debate. It's as if the lecturer has done this for long enough that he's seen everything the students will possibly come up with.
Talk about "the veil of ignorance", effort != production... I could try really really hard to be a professional basketball player but not be good enough for people to pay to watch. Michael Jordan is a great example since he never really had to try as hard as everyone else to get good, so he says in his biography. He played because his brother liked it, and he was better at it naturally. He admits his fortune, being 6'6" from a family all under 6' tall. It should be noted that there's a huge difference between effort and product, and I would have liked to have seen the distinction made
@@hugomuller7332 one example is the big, strong carpenter putting up 4 walls in a few hours and doesn’t break a sweat- and the weak, small carpenter taking 3 days to put up the walls.
I love 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel , for taking the bell of ignorance , his teaching is brilliant, even those who are mentally challenged, can understand his teaching, he explained so clear and simple, i wish every teacher was like him, is true that loving law helps, we all are like that , if we like the subject matter we pay attention, because we find pasión on learning, thank you 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel, you are my hero who took the bell of ignorance away from me and help me be in the real world
crying girl at 43:26 . hearing wisdom so great it makes you emotional!! lets be honest, If i was lucky enough to be in professor Sandel's lectures i would be crying too.
For Opportunity,converted into a Fact,is the taking hold on the simplest task at hand - and doing it to a finish in the best way you know how. It's picking up the pins of priceless Minutes that the other fellow passes heedlessly over. It's doing your work BETTER than you are paid for, and tackling bigger jobs than you may think you are capable of handling. Great is the rise of the man who makes an early friend of Opportunity and takes her with him through the paths of the common everyday?)❤❤❤❤
9:03 Guy thinks he is only in Harvard based on merit and intelligence. Then these kind of people goes on to be part of the ruling/executive minority... sad.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:02 *The video discusses distributive justice, focusing on John Rawls' principles for the distribution of income, wealth, power, and opportunities.* 01:18 *Rawls' principles are derived from a hypothetical contract made in an original position of equality behind a veil of ignorance, which ensures fairness.* 03:02 *Rawls argues that people would reject utilitarianism behind the veil of ignorance in favor of equal basic liberties to avoid potential oppression of minorities.* 05:17 *Rawls' second principle, the difference principle, allows social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least well-off.* 07:15 *A student challenges Rawls' principles by advocating for a merit-based system where rewards are based on effort, citing Harvard as an example.* 10:26 *Statistic reveals only 3% of students at selective colleges come from poor backgrounds, highlighting inequality in opportunities.* 17:28 *Rawls suggests that even a meritocratic system, which assumes equal starting points, is unfair as it still depends on natural talents, which are arbitrary from a moral perspective.* 21:52 *Rawls argues that even effort is influenced by birth order, which questions whether individuals truly deserve rewards for their efforts.* 27:12 *Rawls proposes a system where people can benefit from their talents but only if it benefits the least well-off, challenging pure meritocracy.* 30:58 *Income examples of school teachers versus celebrities like Judge Judy are used to question fairness without applying Rawls' difference principle.* 34:17 *Rawls' difference principle argues for balancing incentives to protect well-being of the least well-off while considering necessary pay differentials.* 34:39 *Incentives for the naturally advantaged should only cover costs related to education and using talents to help the less fortunate.* 35:31 *Meritocratic objection addresses effort and deserving earnings based on hard work, contrasting with Rawls's views.* 36:09 *Libertarian objection emphasizes self-ownership against the redistribution of wealth for public benefit.* 37:05 *Milton Friedman's argument critiques forced equality of outcomes as impractical, addressed by Rawls through the justice of dealing with natural inequalities.* 38:10 *Nozick's libertarian view contests Rawls, questioning taxation as coercion and theft.* 40:43 *Rawls argues the state shouldn't completely override self-ownership, but questions exclusive claim to market benefits.* 42:17 *Rawls connects effort to family and social conditions, not solely individual merit.* 44:13 *Distributive justice focuses on entitlements, not moral desert, distinguished between chance (lottery) and skill (sports) outcomes.* 47:05 *Rawls differentiates entitlements from moral worth, critiquing the meritocratic view.* 49:09 *Contribution and market rewards are morally arbitrary, dependent on societal values.* 50:57 *Rawls's distinction suggests entitlement to societal rewards doesn't equate to moral desert.* 52:22 *Question posed on educational opportunities: are they societal entitlements or rewards for individual merit?* Made with HARPA AI
There was always a thought in the back of my mind that Sandel looked disturbingly familiar. I just now realized why: he looks like a younger Tywin Lannister!
It's not about what works, it's about figuring out - what's just. And "THIS GUY" is helping YOU to understand what the greatest philosophers had come by, he never says they were right. So unless you have a better or more understandable way of exploring and explaining this material to the audience - please do, or send your CV to Harvard to apply for lecturing about justice.
Nothing happens naturally gifted, it’s your abilities, and your capability, your knowledge, experience, philosophy, morality, and lots more , to make it huge success
@@RashidMBey its neither an argument nor counterargument... for it to be a counter there would have to be one made in the first place... there isnt... for it to be an argument it would have to be me attempting to prove or disprove a point. I did neither. What I did was a statement.
Rawls ideas are appealing, but those of us who grew up in Eastern Europe have first hand experience of what that looks like in practice. Prof SandeI brushes off the concern about incentives, with kind of "it is just a technical detail" response, but if you look at human history as an experimental ground you will find evidence that doesn't match that easiness. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a very often used motto in USSR, but the reality was that economy productiveness was extremely low and everyone was very poor by any reasonable standard except for bureaucratic elites. There are many other examples of failures and none of successful implementation of those principles at least to my knowledge. I would be grateful if someone named a prosperous society based on Rawls principles.
I don't think they strictly adhered to this principle in USSR. Soviet Union declared a lot of good principles but rarely sticked to them. Maybe it was a poor implementation of good ideas(or at least ideas which seem good) or in principle those ideas were not viable though the mere failure of Soviet Union doesn't prove it. Moreover I don't see that Rawls suggests to take everything away and divide it(soviet style). What he is saying seems to be very similar to social inclined systems in Western European countries like Germany or Sweden. They have a progressive tax scale and the taxes then redistributed to benefit those less fortunate. The incentive to be productive is still there because the taxation won't take away all the increase(a significant portion though). That could be an example of [at least partial] implementation of these ideas.
0:35 How income and wealth be distributed according to what principles 1:40 Following veil of ignorance what Principles can be choosen Options Utilitarinism, but when after contract veil of ignorance is removed everyone has dignity so utilitarianism cant be applied. 4:02 social and economic inequalities only those are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of the society 6:12 Example of taxation of Micheal Jordan and Bill Gates , progressive tax system 9:00 Distribution factors should not be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view 13:02 Feudal aristocracy
Penicillin is one of the earliest discovered and widely used antibiotic agents. It is derived from the penicillium mold. Antibiotics are natural substances that are released by bacteria and fungi into the environment. Penicillin was discovered by bacteriologist, Alexander FIROZ Fleming, while he was working at St. Mary's FIROZ Hospital in London in 1928.)❤❤❤❤❤.
I don't know if it's just me, but I think this is the best lecture so far of the first 8 episodes I've seen. My mind was blown! I look forward to episode 9. Question...what is it about being first born that gives people that edge, gives them that Type A personality? Is it a genetic thing, or an environmental thing, where the first born is naturally pushed harder by parents than the younger ones?
This classes can only be possible in a materialistic society. We brainwashed ourselves to produce, produce, and produce. Merit and and effort are just some of the mental mechanisms that allow this to keep going on.
The problem that occurs when someone makes 25 million dollars in a year is that this can be used for political power. Just living in a 25 million dollar mansion harms no one but the power that comes from this wealth empowers one to assert their political power over others.
Luck definitely has a lot to do with success - being born in the upper quartile, first born, healthy, athletic, smart, and so on. But I would argue that its not only luck or accident that people find success. A lot of people are born with all the advantages in life and yet they do not seize the opportunities of those gifts, and there are those that didn't have great backgrounds who were able to improve their station in life by hard work and some smarts. A corollary of this deterministic view point is that criminals in prison are not responsible for their actions that led them to that situation - it's my parents fault, we were poor, I got in with the wrong crowd, my teachers didn't care, nobody helped me, so on and so forth. In a way it is in conflict with Kant's philosophy of freedom - we have the freedom to choose our morality and our principles. Those correct morals and principles when lived with consistency do have consequences that enable people to achieve their goals. There are lazy talented rich kids who squander their lives, and there are average hardworking poor kids who carve their own path to success. The capacity for self-determination and inward drive are not arbitrarily assigned, it exist within each and every one of us. It's a choice.
The problem is, for affluent/rich kids who do have the correct morals and principles.. their chances of failure are next to none. Given a sample size of the poor and underprivileged kids with a decent head on their shoulders and excellent morals and principles, there are certain limiting factors that will undoubtedly prevent them from achieving any real success, for example: insufficient family income for basic necessities, living in a less developed nation (remember, we're speaking on a global scale), deficient education systems, lack of healthcare etc etc.. I'm sure you understand.
In my humble points of view, Rawls has made him clear that Justice is only about the design of system and administration. And the basis for Justice are clear: 1, we should be guaranteed to have the equal basic human rights; 2, difference principle. So criminals have impaired people's basic rights, which violates the first principle of Justice. Therefore, criminals are entitled to be punished. But, they are not moral desert to be criminals, as the fact that all the inner or outer environments are contingencies that are not decided by themselves. And I do not think it goes agains Kant's idea of freedom. We do have the freedom to choose to perform moral duty or our own desires. Still, those criminals who, apparently chose to perform their desires, are entitled to be punished, but not morally desert.
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes. If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
Also, when the criminals do wrong doings to others, they are not respecting the victims freedom, which is in congruence with Kant's moral view (categorically wrong).
You didn't understand Rawl's point of view. Being lazy is not a real choice, but more a natural inclination. And nobody proved Kant's autonomy prejudice.
Even AS a consequentialist, I'm cool with this moral system because it's basically just him proposing exactly the consequentialist moral system I use but just saying that it's the one we'd all agree on if we weren't idiots.
Some interesting aspects, but In considering justice - Why focus on winning races? Races are, by definition, one winner. Existence isn't like that. We do all exist. There does not need to be, one winner. Existence does not need to be a competition. The very notion of "winning" is anathema to justice in this sense. We can all freely enter into various sorts of races. Many of us do so in the full knowledge that we will never "win". It is our own personal performance, our out there doing it, and our personal improvement that interests us. In a world of infinite possibility, and finite people, we can all find things that interest us, are meaningful to us. What seems most important in terms of justice is having the resources, tools, and freedom to invest our existence in whatever way we responsibly choose. We are now in an age of exponentially expanding computation and automation. We are not short of energy - there is ample sunlight for every person on the planet to have what any westerner would consider a high basic standard of living. Beyond that basic, there need be no hard limit. Certainly limits on how much energy we can use on the planet, and if we go into space, the sun has enough energy for very person to have as much as humanity as a whole currently uses. That is not a practical limit at this time. We are not short of matter. We live on a massive ball of it, and another one orbits nearby. Most people only need a few tens of tons of mass to do all they reasonable want to do. Our current economic system does not deliver that sort of justice. We have the technology to easily deliver that sort of justice. Automation allows us to produce all that most people reasonably want, with no need to involve anyone else. That sort of production was never an option in our past. Our economic system cannot deal with that sort of universal abundance. Sandel's thinking is trapped inside a market capitalist box. Markets cannot give a positive value to universal abundance. Most people strongly value universal abundance (think of air - vital to all of us, universally abundant, zero market value). Automation allows us to produce a vast set of goods and services in the same sort of abundance as air. But markets will always work against such universal abundance, as it destroys market value. Hence we see an explosion of Intellectual Property (IP) laws - that serve no real purpose other than to maintain scarcity for the masses, and thereby deliver value to the few. Markets undoubtedly had utility in an age when most things were genuinely scarce. Automation and universal abundance changes everything.
Kinda - I think we have the ability to influence our development through the exercise of free will, and at the same time I acknowledge the profound complexity (on many levels) of both our genetic and cultural heritages, and the vast array of subconscious processes required for consciousness to exist. So yes - choice and free will are important, and all human beings exist in complex realities with many different aspects, physical, biological, social, cultural, conceptual, strategic, .... Individuals are important, and no individual will survive for long without a social and technological context. So I don't really fit neatly in the existentialist camp, and I am perhaps closer to that camp than any other.
Winning is like existing. Biologically speaking, the more we are alive, the more we are the winners. The more offspring we have who in turn have their offspring, the more, the winners we are. I do not think we can automate everything and then redistribute wealth so that everyone has what they can possibly need. Factories will just shutdown. CEOs might want to stop working. Society should reward those whose natural talents serve the society and in turn those who have those natural talents should help others. That is the right way to do things. I agree with John Rawls. You are right though. A society that which rewards all types of talents would be good as well. I think we do more or less that. And might be a good idea to improve on that.
- Actually the real trick is to avoid dilemma's this great guys is talking about. - This is not always possible, but often it is. - The monetary system we live in with greedy bankers and corrupt politicians is are examples of situations we must avoid. - -0-
Effort - if you have a family who support you while you're unemployed you can choose to attend a university to further your occupation. Therefore, you are not starting at 0 someone help you get ahead. I call that the opportunity advantage -
Rawls' description of markets reminds me of neural networks. Neural networks describe patterns extremely accurately, but they base a lot of outposts on factors that really shouldn't matter (e.g being born first as a factor)
It might also be because of a self-sustaining society. A society where people care more about others than themselves might not be sustainable (since being selfish naturally gives the most rewards and people will inevitably start trying being selfish).
I've already addressed this point in some of my original comments. I see no significant distinction between entitlement and desert. You still deserve to reap the benefits of your work, as long as it doesn't harm or take away from others. The idea that any inequality that results from natural disadvantages needs to be fixed is just an assumption, and any attempt by society to act on that assumption alone will cause more problems than it will solve.
heh... I'm watching the eighth episode of this "show" today, and I realised they're all about an hour long. I've been watching these for roughly 7 hours in one sitting. cool.
@xXQuebecRebelXx If you enjoy Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," I'd also recommend Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice," which is a good addition to Rawls work. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize economist.
"the only way to make discernible progress in political philosophy is by studying history, social and economic institutions, and the real world of politics in a reflective way. This is not incompatible with "doing philosophy;" rather, in this area, it is the only sensible way to proceed. After all, a major danger in using highly abstractive methods in political philosophy is that one will succeed merely in generalizing one's own local prejudices and repackaging them as demands of reason. The study of history can help to counteract this natural human bias. Politics depends, to a great extent, on judging what is actual relative to what is possible." Raymond Geuss, Outside Ethics, pg 38-39.
My favorite argument discussed in the lecture is the gambler's argument. So many people buy lottery tickets, invest in the stock market, or otherwise engage in more or less calculated risk, that many would be quite content, from behind the veil of ignorance, to increase the "pot" at stake, even at the cost of reducing equality, so long as the worse outcome available wasn't too horrible. Rawls' strongest claim is the practical "veil of ignorance"; the moralistic disapproval of lotteries and risky gambits seems much more dubious.
The strongest claim that comes from the "veil of ignorance" is how the ones that are fortunate enough to get natural talents (that which the present type of society rewards) may benefit the less fortunate ones. Or even whether it will be right for those who are winning the most (even though they don't win it in a strictly moral way, i.e. based on luck) to help the ones that are are having difficulties?
In ancient times, certain wolves supplicated humans, laying themselves at the feet of said humans. These animals are now known as dogs, and seem to have done quite well for themselves, by and large. Confucius discusses how everyone has a role to play in society, and that it is suitable to play your part well. This honor-based ethos described the rights and duties of all, and could thus be agreed upon in advance, from behind a veil of ignorance.
Aldo Jackson It's that "so long as the worst outcome available wasn't too horrible" clause that's really important. Not to say you were suggesting otherwise, but the economic reality for many people around the world doesn't fit that mold - if it's possible to lift those in extreme poverty out of that poverty, which is rather horrible, through redistribution from the wealth of those who won the "lottery," that seems to me more just than the alternative of letting people take the results of the lottery they got. Even as someone who considers myself a utilitarian, I think it's more desirable and just to have a world in which everyone's utility is above a certain minimum, even if the total utility is lower than it would be in a less egalitarian society where many people live in misery.
While full equality may not be achievable, this doesn't mean there's no value in trying to achieve it anyway. We have come a long way, and optimistically, we can go farther..
"If an inequality is amoral, then a decision to rectify that inequality is also amoral..." It doesn't logically follow. Yes, inequality is amoral (neither moral or immoral). However, its precisely what the institutions of society do about it that can be moral or immoral. So while one person may be gifted, it does not follow that he is morally entitled to be a billionaire, whereas the unlucky person by the accident of birth, starves. Of society allows this, then it is being unjust, immoral.
Taxation isn’t a form of theft, it’s a trade to operate in a society... and ensuring that the poor is taken care of well enough that they can continually support businesses and talents of the rich is the only way a circular society can work... what always comes as a trade for taxation is protection of the rich from the poor...
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children (children with no siblings) should raise their hand... If the students who had no siblings considered themselves to be first in birth order, than 75% is actually below the national average, not above. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children. But it depends on what the students thought was meant by "first children"
Yes. I thought that too, but had to remind myself that these are undergraduate law students, and statistics may not be their forte (at least not yet.) Statistically, you could take the argument further and examine whether having familial peers at all is an advantage or a disadvantage ("only child.") Great points!
This is correct. In addition, much of the research on birth order effects is questionable precisely because of inadequate control for variables like family size. (There are also endogeneity issues -- birth order may not matter intrinsically, but because of parents' attitudes and other aspects of the environment are affected by birth order. This is less relevant to the moral discussion in the video.) The unqualified claim that "psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference" is misleading. This is far from being the consensus.
first of all, being a the only child might not matter as long as ur the first born( maybe it's not the siblings that cause the extra effort) secondly, 75%is a vague number it isn't like he took a poll. google the facts and you'll find out that what he said has alot of proof from multiple researches. lastly even if that particular research turns out to be false, there are plenty of other evidence that proof factors of natural prowess, which are arbitrary, affects one's social position. in short ur missing the point
True, the psychological claim is very objectionable. But there still remains a philosophical point about circumstances affecting our effort. It is hard to measure what part of our efforts could come from within us, and which ones come from circumstances outside of our control.
My problem with equal opportunity is that it's not very efficient, or at least opens the door to ineffectiveness. In our post agricultural society, intelligence and hard-work are the two important traits. Intelligence is largelly genetic, and hard-workedness... also is. Studies of attention deficit suggest that there is a genetic element to that, and that people don't generally decide to work hard or to procrastinate. Work ethics can be taught to children, but that will depend on the familly they are born to. So in a way, it is also arbitrary to reward hard work. But it is necessairy. There's only so many intelligent people, and they... have to run everything. Make every decision, view every patient, make all the software, so on. It would be inefficient to let people of lesser intelligence work these jobs, as unfair as it is, and it would be inefficient to let them study these areas only for them to become useless after having spent years getting "equal opportunity education". We need to motivate the talented with incentives: prestige, wealth, power. It's the most efficient way to run society, both for them, and for the untalented.
+GregTom2 it is a very good thing they cannot redistribute our intelligence. They have tried and failed with AA but they keep trying to dig up another way to "redistribute". lol
I agree. That's also getting into Affirmative Action issues. I went to grad school with a woman that got in under AA. The first term she got a C & was placed on academic probation. Second term she was suspended over grades but was let back in after a threat of suing the school. Long story short, she spent tens of thousands in tuition & 4 years of her life & she was never able to pass the clinical licensing exam. That doesn't help anyone & I think that happens frequently. Entrance exams etc are highly predictive of success in any given program. We should strive to give everyone the opportunity to thrive but if we end up hurting as many as we help if we go beyond that.
That does not collide with Rawls' theory of justice. He isn't saying that equal opporunity is the "only just thing". He just says that one should not feel entitled to the earnings of his/her genetic advantages, which is why there is a need for higher taxes on those who have prospered from their genetic advantages.
7 ปีที่แล้ว
Good points. Two further suggestions. We're not just post ag society, we're post industrial. More and more, post secondary education is required in the "knowledge economy", but the jobs in the knowledge economy are more for low level techs, health providers, programmers, finance (ugh!!), IT maintenance, etc.. IQ famously has a bell curve distribution, and those in the 105 to 115 range, who are numerically many times more than those in the 120 to 140 range, need to get educated and/ or trained to pick up those jobs. The knowledge economy more and more IS the economy, i.e., intelligence has always gotten people the good jobs, but these days, people need to give their IQ every boost and assist they can, and a huge IQ is not really required. Second, IQ is about 50% heritable, and IQ effects everyone, i.e., everybody has one. ADHD (the inattentive type is one type of ADHD, much smaller group) has had heritability estimates approaching 80%. 55 to 60% is probably quite safe. However, the base rate of the disorder is likely max 5% of the American population. Not everybody "has" ADHD.
GregTom2 ok but how exactly do you determine who is fit to succeed and who is not if equal opportunity isn't applied? Are you suggesting that we somehow find a way to test a child's genetic material from a young age and if the child doesn't have the genetics to succeed we just don't bother giving them education or teaching them hard work? Do you think if Bill Gates was born in Somalia during war he would be where he is today? Do you understand that there's kids who's parents pay thousands of dollars in ACT prep just so they can go to these "prestigious" colleges meanwhile some kids go to school struggling to survive? Point is when you say that equal opportunity should be discouraged , you are basically saying everybody should accept their social economic status because let's be honest, without public education most parents including mine wouldn't afford school and I would forever remain as dumb as I was born.
Personally, I think it's natural for people to feel that having certain favourable traits which lead to success actually confers desert. It's a bit of a social darwinist position.
Matthew Pritchard Tho we are not referring to success here as an outcome but to the distribution of wealth in the eye of justice. Success when defined philosophically would have another intrinsic value and would be subjective from person to person.
Why do they MORALLY deserve it? What did they DO to deserve having more favorable traits? Why do they deserve it any more than someone would deserve to have won the lottery?
22:14 effort If people can’t even claim credit for their effort, the total amount of effort will be reduced dramatically in the society. Look at all the countries where this has been practiced. This course should be taken together with Thomas Sowell’s lectures to add empirical evidence to the discussion.
It is 2021 and we are seeing that this debate is very applicable. The amount of people that still believe in systems in which it is encouraged to humiliate another human and even label that person as “not a hard worker” it is appalling and contradictory with all the technological advances we have. Unfortunately, as historian Yuval Hariri said: In a near future humans will fight for relevance.
He argues, birth order might have something to do with effort and "proves" it by letting all first borns raise their hands. But then again, there are a lot more first borns than second borns since not every family has more than one kid, if at all. So I dont think that was a good example, I'm not entirely convinced.
+Mister Gunsen Overwhelming majority was first born, somewhere between 90-95%. If your stance was true , then we would see maybe 75:25 ratio. Additionally "more firstborns" argument could be bullshit, since some families have 5 children, some 3 and some one only. Which on country to country basis has to be statistically calculated and cannot be said, based purely on intuition. The USA fertility rate is roughly 2 births per woman as per public statistic.
Uh, you dont need to be a genius to know first borns are the minority in any society. There is no society where 1 child is the average. If three kids are the average, then maybe we can assume 1/3 of the population is first born. In some African nations it would be 1/6.
23:09 the first born majority should not surprise: in the U.S. the ~majority of children ARE first-born (you can't have a second-born without having a FIRST born; birth order is not an independent series)
I was so into Michael Sandel over the first 7 lectures. So dignified, thoughtful, and professorial. He engaged the students in critical thinking by presenting a balanced, 2 sided presentation. Then in this lecture when he got to the libertarian objections to Rawls' theories of distributive justice, he totally went off the reservation and became a stereotypical indoctrinator. For example, he gave only a single sentence to one of the greatest economists in history, Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in 1976 and totally caricatured him, snarkily misrepresenting his positions. Yes, Friedman said "life is not fair." That's a fundamental reality upon which personal growth is predicated. But he never said, unfeelingly, "Get over it and let's see if we can at least maximize the benefits that flow from it." To the contrary, for half a century, he touted a negative income tax which would have given the poor direct cash injections so they could manage their own money vs. being tied to a paternalistic welfare worker. This would have also cut down on the size of government which has become bigger and bigger as a result of the welfare state and crony capitalism. This is another negative aspect of the redistributive state Sandel never touches on - all the useless, paper pushing jobs that are tied to larger and larger bureaucracy. Since Obama took office, Washington DC has boasted the highest average per capita income in the nation ($82,000) largely at the expense of the middle class taxpayer. These incomes are certainly not tied to any increase in economic productivity in Washington. Sandel loves to harp on Gates and Jordan to present a stark contrast between rich and poor. But the fact is that if you took Michael Jordan's $31 million income and distributed it among the bottom 10% of society, everyone would get $1. There simply aren't enough rich people to fund Rawlsian redistribution which is why the middle class always gets hit. Thus, going after these fat cats is simply making redistributionists feel good and stirring up class warfare. Sandel also doesn't mention that the greatest increase in the standard of living in the history of the world came during the latter half of the 19th century in America (3 fold increase). The American middle class arose out of that economic boom - the first middle class in world history. There was no welfare state at the time and government spent only 3% of the national income. There were tons of private charities that came out of that era though (the Red Cross, etc). The same thing happened in China over the past 30 years. 600 million Chinese have risen out of poverty solely due to free market capitalism. The state administered none of Rawls' equalizing justice. Now they are starting to and growth rates are going down. Finally, if you look at marginal tax rates over the last 60 years, you'll see they've varied tremendously (from 90% to 25%). But throughout this entire time, tax revenues have remained between 17 and 20%. Often when taxes were lowered tax revenues went up because people no longer felt it was necessary to pay CPAs large amounts of money to shelter their income. In short, there are complex economic cause/effect interrelationships that Sandel and Rawls simply don't understand. It's easy to look at economic injustice and point the finger at Dave Letterman (a Democrat no less). It's hard to study the deeper economic phenomena to try find out what would truly benefit the poor the most.
Marshall Duncan You know? Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize too. I bet you don't agree with him that much. You have to accept when a philosopher just is able to reply to most objections and reply well. Maybe in the future there will be a new way of thinking that will more evolved and overshadow Rawls' work. It still is very safe to say that libertarianism and meritocracy are simplistic and thus relatively easy to object to. If you prefer them, that's your business but don't call an intellectual an "indoctrinator" for going with he more complex theories.
Sebastian Hosu Respectfully... again, you're doing exactly what Sandel did. You're making a categorical statement about libertarianism in general as "simplistic" without any specfic evidence or examples. It may be simplistic in certain cases, but give it the same complex analysis you've give all the other philosophers' positions. He gave all the other philosophers 6 to 8 slides and Milton Friedman only 1. He caricatured him as an uncaring social Darwinist. Better to just leave him out of the mix than oversimplify his ideas. It WAS an indoctrination.
Marshall Duncan Look man, it's only indoctrinating if it bothers you. If he was advocating for libertarian views I'm sure you would have not posted this comment. I happen to believe that moral arbitration is a real problem; it's especially real here in California, where income inequality is huge in a very small area. Take LA for example. There are places like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu and etc, all within 40 miles of places like Compton. Take the Bay area for example. Within San Francisco alone there is a vast amount of income inequality, especially between those who survive because of rent control and those who take high paying jobs at profitable tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and others. There are others. Palo Alto and Stanford vs. East Palo Alto and Newark. West Oakland and its industry and East Oakland and it's extreme crime and poverty. East San Jose vs. South San Jose. Etc. Prof. Sandel has shown the statistics on elite universities and income -- This is also even true at our best public colleges and universities which are designed to better serve a larger portion of our society. Schools like UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbra, UC Irvine etc. Do you know where the majority of low-income students go to college in California? The CSU system. Is it fair that wealth is the best indicator of standardized test score discrepancies? It's funny how socialist principles are looked down upon in American culture. We glorify the rich while thousands of people struggle when we could shame the rich and use excess wealth to buy security for others. To be frank, I wouldn't miss any of the "innovative" consumer products that are being sold for extreme profit. 99% of the time I don't give a shit about the next overly glorified money making, unmoral cheap labouring, waste producing piece of plastic junk that scans your shit for your diet's vitamin content.
Robert Wilson III How could anyone take anything you say seriously when you'd actually make the sophomoric, flip statement, "it's only indoctrinating if it bothers you." Said like a true moral relativist. Try applying that statement to Naziism. "It's only indoctrinating if it bothers you." Wrong. There ARE moral absolutes. Sandel crossed one when he gave one slide and a couple loaded sentences to Milton Friedman. It would be like me comparing Bernie Sanders' brand of socialism to that of Joseph Stalin. That's how bad of a caricature it was. I would stand up for Bernie Sanders in that case, just as you should be standing up for Milton Friedman in this case... but you seem far too partisan.
Marshall Duncan Fair enough. However, this class aims to discuss whether or not there are moral absolutes, and if so, how and why. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with him inserting his personal views during his class on the philosophy of ethics.
Actually I was saying that the need to rectify it, itself already presupposes a moral imperative, or why else the need to rectify it? Yes, I'm not talking about "rectifying" natural ability itself, since there is nothing to rectify with it. Its OK that some people are naturally gifted. All the better. What needs to be rectified is a system that doesn't allow everyone to benefit from those that happen to be lucky, resulting in extreme inequality (along with other regressive social factors).
I'd have liked understanding this speech totally but my english level isn't so high, in spite of having studied so hard this language a long time ago. A shame.
Well first of all.. why would you search out academic discussions before learning the basics? And.. The auto-generated captions work like a charm on this, try them!
It's really nice that such a wonderful lecture is available for anyone with an internet connection.
Imagine going to a college lecture where students clap at the end.
I agree and for the less fortunate to see that those above you are not necessarily smarter than you.
Great lectures until trying to fix the injustice from "nature" (God). Life is a gift from God. In Matthew 20:1 "The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" Jesus talks about the unfair gifts from God. May God bless American.
@@andrewmolino5995 You should ask your school for your money back
@@Wesker10000 well I live in TN so as long as you have good grades you get 2 years free!
Rawls perspective really changed the way I thought about talent and merits .. the fact that society plays a huge role in determining the distribution of opportunities and wealth based on its requirements and can be variable to a large extent.. great lecture!
Rawls way is also highly hypocritical. How much money do you think he has given to the "less fortunate"? Big fat zero.
It's easy arguing for fairness to take the moral high ground while actually doing none of it at all.
Dangerous hypocrisy.
@@markarmage3776 if he hasn’t given some of his money to the poor then that’s not good, but let’s not use ad hominem here. His idea still may be a good one even if he doesn’t fully practice what he preaches. I don’t think that the argument of hypocrisy is enough to excuse his ideas. That’s like saying we should throw out the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, because they focus heavily on freedom and the founding fathers owned slaves.
@@markarmage3776 the hypocrisy of the person making a claim, doesn't make the claim any less true. There are some exception like if someone falsley claims to be a doctor and makes factual claims.
@@markarmage3776 Rawl's argument is also based on the presupposition that natural "unfairness" is inherently wrong and needs to be corrected. Why? Some people come from generational poverty. Some from generational wealth. It's a natural unfairness. But should we take generational wealth and redistribute it to those coming from generational poverty? What's "fair" about that? Why is it not better to establish a society where someone coming from generational poverty can begin establishing generational wealth knowing that it will be their great grandchildren who will truly get the benefits of their efforts? I think it's a commendable goal. The problem with equality of outcome is that it must be heavily regulated, it keeps anyone from being able to move ahead which is arguably a detriment to society as a whole, and is ultimately an unrealistic goal. Natural unfairness is natural, and the free market can create solutions to lessen that unfairness, but natural unfairness is not inherently "bad". It's just a natural outcome of a truly free society. I personally hold freedom at a higher importance than some unnatural, enforced "fairness", even though their are unfortunate outcomes in a free society.
In India Rawls' idea of justice scheme was employed by the Mandal commission much before they gained popularity in the west.
It is fair to say that the experiment has not worked out as intended after 40 years of it's implementation.
He raises interesting questions but his solutions assume too much and should not be seen as justified belief. Sadly they are too charming for the justice seeking younglings.
Absolutely brilliant that these lectures are freely available on line - if more Universities would do the same, the world would most certainly be a better place
😊😊
Indeed 😊
Although I have a degree I most certainly was never exposed to such wonderful lectures. I have now watch professors from Princeton (Physics, Mathematics), Berkely (Biology & Biochemestry), MIT (Mathematics), Harvard (Phylosophy and debates)
I so wish these videos were available when I attended school. I'm convinced that someone out there is getting a top notch education strictly by watching videos.
Yes
@Jorge Ramos can you help me find other such playlists ? (of any topics you mentioned ) thanks
@@tayabaashfaq9540 mitopencourseware
Me here.
@@tayabaashfaq9540 My apologies I just saw your message. Most top universities have lectures posted on TH-cam. Simply do a search on TH-cam/university and courses will pop-up. Good luck!!!
Man, this lecture hits hard.
I know which percent I came from.
Hey guys. Remember Michael Sandel made an entire book criticizing Rawls's theory of justice. So, the debate is not trying to indoctrinate anything as it may look like. Its get hotter because people often do not trust theories that say that they do not deserve the fruits of their efforts entirely. Sandel was simple showing Rawl's arguments over Mike.
what was his criticism?
@@kandalaambarish4341 you can check it out in his book " liberalism and limits of justice", i do not think i can sumarize it in a TH-cam coment. But he does not agree with Rawls "veil of ignorance" mental experiment. For Sandel moral and justice comes out with democratic debate and political open discussions, not from an atomic mental experiment.
For deeper aproach you can see Rainer Forst book "context of justice".
I hope i helped :)
Dnes 2020 budú podať všetci generáli štáty
Neviem komu v hlave zas chce kupovať vojenské lietadla nad morne a komu sa chce plávať ktorým generálom mimo BA strato sféru
Bro respect for Gabriel for answering a comment after 2 years of his first post. I’m a conservative and I do like Sandel, just how there is diversity of thoughts and ideas I may have my own opinions and I have very contradictory ideas from John Rawls ideas
@howzbyu1 it’s a bit objective to say that because I have some form of criticism of Sandel must have any influence on my political ideology
The lectures are lively, freaking awesome!! When you are lost in it you forget about time. These are thought-provoking and engaging.
Incredible class. Mr. Sandel, your book on the moral limits of markets should be required reading in all economic and business degrees. I'm an economics grade student and I've recommended it to peers and professors.
My mail. ---- according to advisor(?) I. received confirmation of admissions to every single ivy league law school.....sandy lai
Well. If you believe in the best value you can give someone is money, you need to check your moral and intellectual capacity. He is NOT the problem here.
Times have changed for the better in those regards!!!
။ာငုငငာင
Perhaps the most important of this series of incredible lectures. ALL politicians and leaders should be required to know this by heart.
23:09 I didn't know what to expect. I knew by his face he was expecting something, but my jaw DROPPED.
I had heard it from Dr Sowell and his books.
The video is part of a series of lectures, it is not a debate. He is taking single theories, one at a time, and basing his answers on that theory to help the students develop their understanding. He does the same thing when discussing libertarianism, utilitarianism and such like. It is not his own opinion or bias.
Of course 7years ago person
@@randomstranger8081 In other news, water is wet.
@@suezsiren117 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sandel is surgical. Mike started out so optimistic.
Hope your last words for all of your students will be prophetic for them to become the best of these society! Congratulations Professor! You are a fantastic teacher!
Prof. Sandel makes art out of this classroom, amazingly well-done from an educative standpoint...
50:00 the faces of all... "first born" make my day. I am still studying Rawls, but it is already one of the best theories I have found.
.............
John Rawls idea of whether are or not effort is worth more than social status was interesting. It gives one something to deliberate on.
John rawl base efforts also on social factors. He discounted effort is what is the problem we, even mike had.
Mike smiled a victory smile at 15:15, before he knew his ass would be handed to him later on :) . Especially when prof Michael Sandel had a show of hands to see who were the first born. Mike raised his hand and realized that the so called individual effort he did to get to Harvard, although commendable, was not his sole responsibility. There are innumerable factors that contribute to your success and many are not your doing. Hence solely merit base societies failed to recognize that most people don't get the same starting point of support.
(y)
Sorry for being an archeologist, but the problem I see there is that a correlation is being shown between being first-born and getting to Harvard on that particular lecture. You would need to prove that this also shows a correlation to being able to put more effort, a correlation to be able to achieve success (maybe their younger brothers and sisters ended even better?), and that someone who puts more effort into his life and achieves success is actually happier, or otherwise rewarded better than someone who lived a simply life with simple, low rewards.
So let's say I'm a younger brother of a Harvard graduate and somehow it made me not go to Harvard, not learn a lot, but I still had a lot of fun in my life, have a loving wife and children and I regret nothing and I wouldn't want to trade places with my brother.
Or let's say I'm a younger child, so parents took more care into raising me. They didn't want to repeat any mistakes, they always protected me in an argument against my brother, because I'm younger and need more care etc. In the end I am spoiled, I have everything I want, I become lazy and careless. So I don't care a lot about education and at the point I could try to get to Harvard, even if I wanted to, it would already be too late, because I'm too stupid. So what I want to present here is, should a society tax a man of success, even if his head-start wasn't a genetic advantage, wasn't money, but paradoxically it was harsh circumstances that hardened him up and made him put a lot of effort into fulfilling his ambitions by sacrificing his youth, while someone who had great childhood, became spoiled, when being a teenage had a lot of fun, should be considered someone who had a bad start, because by actually giving him everything he wanted, he wasn't incentivized to put any effort to life, so he ended in a worse situation than a person that worked hard?
Both situations don't present what's actually happening, it's just a thought experiment. I think meritocracy is cool, but once you start arguing that even those that put more effort into life in order to achieve something, put the effort because of the particular start they got, you're stepping into the slippery slope of determinism, where we don't have a free will, because everything we do is an effect of what happened before.
that mike dude is such an archetype
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes.
If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
@@MikkoHaavisto1 that's actually not true... loads of people are born psychopaths and loads of people are born psychopaths into shitty environmental situations... and yet there are extremely few active serial killers every year... also not to mention that your running into a fundamental flaw in using a serial killer... your using a person who's mental status is typically extremely rare and that has a predisposition toward inability to control impulse... so yes with all those factors added in like the inability to control impulse along with the up bringing and the Gene's you are likely to achieve a similar result... however to apply that to someone without the predisposition to lack impulse control you run into the problem of free will and choice durring times of impulse
Michael Sandel is so articulate! So much hard work must be paid for that level of skill!
Genius helps. He is a hard worker. He was a Rhodes Scholar and always a great scholar.
Watching, absorbing & understanding. It takes an effort to even understand each sentence in these lectures but it is worth it.
I many ways, I believe that what is fair is society coming together to share. Beside economics and sociocultural factors, some people are born with some physical disabilities that inhibit their abilities to progress. That is why the ultimate theory should be taking care of each other to be better off.
I was fortunate to have a similarly great professor, even more than one, but I have learned to appreciate what I had as I get I older. In fact I have gone back to my notes. Sandel is marvelous. What a joy this is.
This lecture should be highlighted for our country right now as we try to determine a way forward out of this global pandemic. An informed public is necessary for a solid solution forward. Education system has done our country harm by politicizing our education. We would’ve benefited far more from an educated population over an egotistical consumer driven society.
one of the best lectures in this series. most relevant.
The quotation we find of John Rawis at 46:46 regarding entitlement vs. worthiness mimics King Solomon's observations, which reads
I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
Wow this is deep i'm loving these debates! Maybe in another life i'll hit the socioeconomic jackpot and go to Harvard
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children should raise their hand... this is actually below the average of first order and only children in America. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children.
actually they are
Brooke Bingham same here
Brooke Bingham you're right its really awesome by speech.
I know right! I have been watching this entire series since episode 1 and it is giving me ideas.
I find myself actually clapping at the end of this magnificent lecture.
I think the core of the debate around min 20 to 24 (shortly before the break) is that we value results more than effort. If we would really be able to assess effort regardless of results equally the starting point and therefore location of the finish line wouldn''t matter anymore, still it would maybe prevent us as a society to raise to the top, so I think Rawls school of thought is persuasive also the way of distribution opens up a vast range of questions regarding justice again
Well said my friend,
Thank you for taking the time to share your reflection!
This session has made me question so much of what I've believed in so far.
The look on their faces their 'legitimate' expectations and 'efforts' slowly shatters 😅
What impresses me the most about this lecture, is how the professor has a slide for every point brought up by students. For example, the meritocracy debate. It's as if the lecturer has done this for long enough that he's seen everything the students will possibly come up with.
exactly
Talk about "the veil of ignorance", effort != production... I could try really really hard to be a professional basketball player but not be good enough for people to pay to watch. Michael Jordan is a great example since he never really had to try as hard as everyone else to get good, so he says in his biography. He played because his brother liked it, and he was better at it naturally. He admits his fortune, being 6'6" from a family all under 6' tall.
It should be noted that there's a huge difference between effort and product, and I would have liked to have seen the distinction made
He does address this distinction in the lecture, yes
@@juliafrancone3116 I must've missed it then lol
I agree! I would like to see a clear seperation beteenn effort and actual product of your work.
@@paxdriver it’s around 40 minutes in...
@@hugomuller7332 one example is the big, strong carpenter putting up 4 walls in a few hours and doesn’t break a sweat- and the weak, small carpenter taking 3 days to put up the walls.
I love 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel , for taking the bell of ignorance , his teaching is brilliant, even those who are mentally challenged, can understand his teaching, he explained so clear and simple, i wish every teacher was like him, is true that loving law helps, we all are like that , if we like the subject matter we pay attention, because we find pasión on learning, thank you 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel, you are my hero who took the bell of ignorance away from me and help me be in the real world
*Veil of ignorance. Not 'Bell' or 'Bail'
crying girl at 43:26 . hearing wisdom so great it makes you emotional!! lets be honest, If i was lucky enough to be in professor Sandel's lectures i would be crying too.
This man has answer for every question comes in his way
Excellent debates, I'm from Brazil, I'm watching to learn English.
For Opportunity,converted into a Fact,is the taking hold on the simplest task at hand - and doing it to a finish in the best way you know how. It's picking up the pins of priceless Minutes that the other fellow passes heedlessly over. It's doing your work BETTER than you are paid for, and tackling bigger jobs than you may think you are capable of handling. Great is the rise of the man who makes an early friend of Opportunity and takes her with him through the paths of the common everyday?)❤❤❤❤
It such a privilege for me to sit in my house in Ireland and watch this enlightening lecture from Harvard in America.
I wonder where the students are now and what are they doing?
It would be awesome if I left the lecture room and my students clapped for me. Such an inspirational professor.
9:03 Guy thinks he is only in Harvard based on merit and intelligence. Then these kind of people goes on to be part of the ruling/executive minority... sad.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:02 *The video discusses distributive justice, focusing on John Rawls' principles for the distribution of income, wealth, power, and opportunities.*
01:18 *Rawls' principles are derived from a hypothetical contract made in an original position of equality behind a veil of ignorance, which ensures fairness.*
03:02 *Rawls argues that people would reject utilitarianism behind the veil of ignorance in favor of equal basic liberties to avoid potential oppression of minorities.*
05:17 *Rawls' second principle, the difference principle, allows social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least well-off.*
07:15 *A student challenges Rawls' principles by advocating for a merit-based system where rewards are based on effort, citing Harvard as an example.*
10:26 *Statistic reveals only 3% of students at selective colleges come from poor backgrounds, highlighting inequality in opportunities.*
17:28 *Rawls suggests that even a meritocratic system, which assumes equal starting points, is unfair as it still depends on natural talents, which are arbitrary from a moral perspective.*
21:52 *Rawls argues that even effort is influenced by birth order, which questions whether individuals truly deserve rewards for their efforts.*
27:12 *Rawls proposes a system where people can benefit from their talents but only if it benefits the least well-off, challenging pure meritocracy.*
30:58 *Income examples of school teachers versus celebrities like Judge Judy are used to question fairness without applying Rawls' difference principle.*
34:17 *Rawls' difference principle argues for balancing incentives to protect well-being of the least well-off while considering necessary pay differentials.*
34:39 *Incentives for the naturally advantaged should only cover costs related to education and using talents to help the less fortunate.*
35:31 *Meritocratic objection addresses effort and deserving earnings based on hard work, contrasting with Rawls's views.*
36:09 *Libertarian objection emphasizes self-ownership against the redistribution of wealth for public benefit.*
37:05 *Milton Friedman's argument critiques forced equality of outcomes as impractical, addressed by Rawls through the justice of dealing with natural inequalities.*
38:10 *Nozick's libertarian view contests Rawls, questioning taxation as coercion and theft.*
40:43 *Rawls argues the state shouldn't completely override self-ownership, but questions exclusive claim to market benefits.*
42:17 *Rawls connects effort to family and social conditions, not solely individual merit.*
44:13 *Distributive justice focuses on entitlements, not moral desert, distinguished between chance (lottery) and skill (sports) outcomes.*
47:05 *Rawls differentiates entitlements from moral worth, critiquing the meritocratic view.*
49:09 *Contribution and market rewards are morally arbitrary, dependent on societal values.*
50:57 *Rawls's distinction suggests entitlement to societal rewards doesn't equate to moral desert.*
52:22 *Question posed on educational opportunities: are they societal entitlements or rewards for individual merit?*
Made with HARPA AI
There was always a thought in the back of my mind that Sandel looked disturbingly familiar.
I just now realized why: he looks like a younger Tywin Lannister!
Thank you my man for hitting me with an awhhhhhh moment.
sheldon
Can't unsee it now.
Tom Virtue
Haha... Nooooo.. I kinda have crush on Sandel..
No Ads, Free to download, Wow Iam so Grateful! Thank you Harvard
It's not about what works, it's about figuring out - what's just. And "THIS GUY" is helping YOU to understand what the greatest philosophers had come by, he never says they were right. So unless you have a better or more understandable way of exploring and explaining this material to the audience - please do, or send your CV to Harvard to apply for
lecturing about justice.
FEELING BLESSED AND HUMBLED BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD 🙏🙏 AND EXPRESSING HEARTFELT GRATITUDE
É imensamente gratificante assistir a este curso da Harvard. Parabenizo esta brilhante iniciativa.
Nothing happens naturally gifted, it’s your abilities, and your capability, your knowledge, experience, philosophy, morality, and lots more , to make it huge success
I THINK THE MAJORITY WERE QUITE SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT THEY MAY NOT MERITED THEIR PLACE AT HARVARD. IT'S A TOUGH TALL FIRST TIME ROUND.
It's also bullshit... which could explain the suprise they felt...
its not bullshit
@@wade2bosh but it is...
@@Still_who_Iam What a compelling counterargument, Jacob.
@@RashidMBey its neither an argument nor counterargument... for it to be a counter there would have to be one made in the first place... there isnt... for it to be an argument it would have to be me attempting to prove or disprove a point. I did neither. What I did was a statement.
Dear all great prof.
very sweet good morning.
It is clearing lecturing.
Thank you very much
Rawls ideas are appealing, but those of us who grew up in Eastern Europe have first hand experience of what that looks like in practice. Prof SandeI brushes off the concern about incentives, with kind of "it is just a technical detail" response, but if you look at human history as an experimental ground you will find evidence that doesn't match that easiness.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a very often used motto in USSR, but the reality was that economy productiveness was extremely low and everyone was very poor by any reasonable standard except for bureaucratic elites. There are many other examples of failures and none of successful implementation of those principles at least to my knowledge. I would be grateful if someone named a prosperous society based on Rawls principles.
I don't think they strictly adhered to this principle in USSR. Soviet Union declared a lot of good principles but rarely sticked to them. Maybe it was a poor implementation of good ideas(or at least ideas which seem good) or in principle those ideas were not viable though the mere failure of Soviet Union doesn't prove it. Moreover I don't see that Rawls suggests to take everything away and divide it(soviet style). What he is saying seems to be very similar to social inclined systems in Western European countries like Germany or Sweden. They have a progressive tax scale and the taxes then redistributed to benefit those less fortunate. The incentive to be productive is still there because the taxation won't take away all the increase(a significant portion though). That could be an example of [at least partial] implementation of these ideas.
0:35 How income and wealth be distributed according to what principles
1:40 Following veil of ignorance what Principles can be choosen
Options Utilitarinism, but when after contract veil of ignorance is removed everyone has dignity so utilitarianism cant be applied.
4:02 social and economic inequalities only those are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of the society
6:12 Example of taxation of Micheal Jordan and Bill Gates , progressive tax system
9:00 Distribution factors should not be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view
13:02 Feudal aristocracy
so Michael remembers Marcus's name up front but doesn't remember Rahul's. Damn
lmfao...
Honestly lol
Sad man
Penicillin is one of the earliest discovered and widely used antibiotic agents. It is derived from the penicillium mold. Antibiotics are natural substances that are released by bacteria and fungi into the environment. Penicillin was discovered by bacteriologist, Alexander FIROZ Fleming, while he was working at St. Mary's FIROZ Hospital in London in 1928.)❤❤❤❤❤.
I don't know if it's just me, but I think this is the best lecture so far of the first 8 episodes I've seen. My mind was blown! I look forward to episode 9.
Question...what is it about being first born that gives people that edge, gives them that Type A personality? Is it a genetic thing, or an environmental thing, where the first born is naturally pushed harder by parents than the younger ones?
Old comment but i'd say its a combination of all those things you mentioned and more instead of a singular metric.
What an important class is the last one.Harvard University, thank you enormously for uploading publicly formative material for all.
watching these episodes i learnt more things than in my University
This classes can only be possible in a materialistic society. We brainwashed ourselves to produce, produce, and produce. Merit and and effort are just some of the mental mechanisms that allow this to keep going on.
The problem that occurs when someone makes 25 million dollars in a year is that this can be used for political power. Just living in a 25 million dollar mansion harms no one but the power that comes from this wealth empowers one to assert their political power over others.
What a high level of thought. So why doesn't this video have at least 1 million in views?
Luck definitely has a lot to do with success - being born in the upper quartile, first born, healthy, athletic, smart, and so on. But I would argue that its not only luck or accident that people find success. A lot of people are born with all the advantages in life and yet they do not seize the opportunities of those gifts, and there are those that didn't have great backgrounds who were able to improve their station in life by hard work and some smarts.
A corollary of this deterministic view point is that criminals in prison are not responsible for their actions that led them to that situation - it's my parents fault, we were poor, I got in with the wrong crowd, my teachers didn't care, nobody helped me, so on and so forth. In a way it is in conflict with Kant's philosophy of freedom - we have the freedom to choose our morality and our principles. Those correct morals and principles when lived with consistency do have consequences that enable people to achieve their goals. There are lazy talented rich kids who squander their lives, and there are average hardworking poor kids who carve their own path to success. The capacity for self-determination and inward drive are not arbitrarily assigned, it exist within each and every one of us. It's a choice.
The problem is, for affluent/rich kids who do have the correct morals and principles.. their chances of failure are next to none. Given a sample size of the poor and underprivileged kids with a decent head on their shoulders and excellent morals and principles, there are certain limiting factors that will undoubtedly prevent them from achieving any real success, for example: insufficient family income for basic necessities, living in a less developed nation (remember, we're speaking on a global scale), deficient education systems, lack of healthcare etc etc.. I'm sure you understand.
In my humble points of view, Rawls has made him clear that Justice is only about the design of system and administration. And the basis for Justice are clear: 1, we should be guaranteed to have the equal basic human rights; 2, difference principle. So criminals have impaired people's basic rights, which violates the first principle of Justice. Therefore, criminals are entitled to be punished. But, they are not moral desert to be criminals, as the fact that all the inner or outer environments are contingencies that are not decided by themselves.
And I do not think it goes agains Kant's idea of freedom. We do have the freedom to choose to perform moral duty or our own desires. Still, those criminals who, apparently chose to perform their desires, are entitled to be punished, but not morally desert.
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes.
If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
Also, when the criminals do wrong doings to others, they are not respecting the victims freedom, which is in congruence with Kant's moral view (categorically wrong).
You didn't understand Rawl's point of view.
Being lazy is not a real choice, but more a natural inclination.
And nobody proved Kant's autonomy prejudice.
Even AS a consequentialist, I'm cool with this moral system because it's basically just him proposing exactly the consequentialist moral system I use but just saying that it's the one we'd all agree on if we weren't idiots.
A truly amazing lecture
I really can’t express in words how focused I am in the task asked of me, I can’t continue tell translating is satisfying
Some interesting aspects, but In considering justice - Why focus on winning races?
Races are, by definition, one winner.
Existence isn't like that.
We do all exist.
There does not need to be, one winner.
Existence does not need to be a competition.
The very notion of "winning" is anathema to justice in this sense.
We can all freely enter into various sorts of races.
Many of us do so in the full knowledge that we will never "win".
It is our own personal performance, our out there doing it, and our personal improvement that interests us.
In a world of infinite possibility, and finite people, we can all find things that interest us, are meaningful to us.
What seems most important in terms of justice is having the resources, tools, and freedom to invest our existence in whatever way we responsibly choose.
We are now in an age of exponentially expanding computation and automation.
We are not short of energy - there is ample sunlight for every person on the planet to have what any westerner would consider a high basic standard of living. Beyond that basic, there need be no hard limit. Certainly limits on how much energy we can use on the planet, and if we go into space, the sun has enough energy for very person to have as much as humanity as a whole currently uses. That is not a practical limit at this time.
We are not short of matter.
We live on a massive ball of it, and another one orbits nearby.
Most people only need a few tens of tons of mass to do all they reasonable want to do.
Our current economic system does not deliver that sort of justice.
We have the technology to easily deliver that sort of justice.
Automation allows us to produce all that most people reasonably want, with no need to involve anyone else.
That sort of production was never an option in our past.
Our economic system cannot deal with that sort of universal abundance.
Sandel's thinking is trapped inside a market capitalist box.
Markets cannot give a positive value to universal abundance.
Most people strongly value universal abundance (think of air - vital to all of us, universally abundant, zero market value).
Automation allows us to produce a vast set of goods and services in the same sort of abundance as air.
But markets will always work against such universal abundance, as it destroys market value.
Hence we see an explosion of Intellectual Property (IP) laws - that serve no real purpose other than to maintain scarcity for the masses, and thereby deliver value to the few.
Markets undoubtedly had utility in an age when most things were genuinely scarce.
Automation and universal abundance changes everything.
Kinda - I think we have the ability to influence our development through the exercise of free will, and at the same time I acknowledge the profound complexity (on many levels) of both our genetic and cultural heritages, and the vast array of subconscious processes required for consciousness to exist.
So yes - choice and free will are important, and all human beings exist in complex realities with many different aspects, physical, biological, social, cultural, conceptual, strategic, ....
Individuals are important, and no individual will survive for long without a social and technological context.
So I don't really fit neatly in the existentialist camp, and I am perhaps closer to that camp than any other.
Winning is like existing. Biologically speaking, the more we are alive, the more we are the winners. The more offspring we have who in turn have their offspring, the more, the winners we are.
I do not think we can automate everything and then redistribute wealth so that everyone has what they can possibly need. Factories will just shutdown. CEOs might want to stop working.
Society should reward those whose natural talents serve the society and in turn those who have those natural talents should help others. That is the right way to do things. I agree with John Rawls.
You are right though. A society that which rewards all types of talents would be good as well. I think we do more or less that. And might be a good idea to improve on that.
That is a good point - it questions whether societal life should be considered as a game, and in particular, a competitive game.
-
Actually the real trick is to avoid dilemma's this great guys is talking about.
-
This is not always possible, but often it is.
-
The monetary system we live in with greedy bankers and corrupt politicians is are examples of situations we must avoid.
-
-0-
Effort - if you have a family who support you while you're unemployed you can choose to attend a university to further your occupation. Therefore, you are not starting at 0 someone help you get ahead. I call that the opportunity advantage -
Rawls' description of markets reminds me of neural networks. Neural networks describe patterns extremely accurately, but they base a lot of outposts on factors that really shouldn't matter (e.g being born first as a factor)
this is all because people care about themselves more than other strangers.
+Commandos12 The use of the word Strangers is interesting. How about 'others'?
It might also be because of a self-sustaining society. A society where people care more about others than themselves might not be sustainable (since being selfish naturally gives the most rewards and people will inevitably start trying being selfish).
I am going through withdrawals. these videos keep me sane
This is my favorite so far.
I've already addressed this point in some of my original comments. I see no significant distinction between entitlement and desert. You still deserve to reap the benefits of your work, as long as it doesn't harm or take away from others. The idea that any inequality that results from natural disadvantages needs to be fixed is just an assumption, and any attempt by society to act on that assumption alone will cause more problems than it will solve.
heh... I'm watching the eighth episode of this "show" today, and I realised they're all about an hour long. I've been watching these for roughly 7 hours in one sitting. cool.
I have never felt knowledge so sweet.
@xXQuebecRebelXx If you enjoy Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," I'd also recommend Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice," which is a good addition to Rawls work. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize economist.
"the only way to make discernible progress in political philosophy is by studying history, social and economic institutions, and the real world of politics in a reflective way. This is not incompatible with "doing philosophy;" rather, in this area, it is the only sensible way to proceed. After all, a major danger in using highly abstractive methods in political philosophy is that one will succeed merely in generalizing one's own local prejudices and repackaging them as demands of reason. The study of history can help to counteract this natural human bias. Politics depends, to a great extent, on judging what is actual relative to what is possible." Raymond Geuss, Outside Ethics, pg 38-39.
My favorite argument discussed in the lecture is the gambler's argument. So many people buy lottery tickets, invest in the stock market, or otherwise engage in more or less calculated risk, that many would be quite content, from behind the veil of ignorance, to increase the "pot" at stake, even at the cost of reducing equality, so long as the worse outcome available wasn't too horrible. Rawls' strongest claim is the practical "veil of ignorance"; the moralistic disapproval of lotteries and risky gambits seems much more dubious.
The strongest claim that comes from the "veil of ignorance" is how the ones that are fortunate enough to get natural talents (that which the present type of society rewards) may benefit the less fortunate ones. Or even whether it will be right for those who are winning the most (even though they don't win it in a strictly moral way, i.e. based on luck) to help the ones that are are having difficulties?
In ancient times, certain wolves supplicated humans, laying themselves at the feet of said humans. These animals are now known as dogs, and seem to have done quite well for themselves, by and large. Confucius discusses how everyone has a role to play in society, and that it is suitable to play your part well. This honor-based ethos described the rights and duties of all, and could thus be agreed upon in advance, from behind a veil of ignorance.
Aldo Jackson It's that "so long as the worst outcome available wasn't too horrible" clause that's really important. Not to say you were suggesting otherwise, but the economic reality for many people around the world doesn't fit that mold - if it's possible to lift those in extreme poverty out of that poverty, which is rather horrible, through redistribution from the wealth of those who won the "lottery," that seems to me more just than the alternative of letting people take the results of the lottery they got. Even as someone who considers myself a utilitarian, I think it's more desirable and just to have a world in which everyone's utility is above a certain minimum, even if the total utility is lower than it would be in a less egalitarian society where many people live in misery.
It would be exciting to see how Prof Sandal and Prof Chomsky discuss different topics to see the discussions and arguments.
2018 and I wanna know where mike is now? He challenges Rawls in the first quarter of the video.
Mike!!😂 where are you now?!
Rostarative and distributive justice.. Henry Halakhe watching and listening from Kenya
Please live and teach for a long time, I really would love to be your student some day
This lecture brings shines a bright light on our current Presidential candidates points of view here is the USA.
Sandel gives the best two burrrns ever!!! Don't argue with a philosopher, lol
While full equality may not be achievable, this doesn't mean there's no value in trying to achieve it anyway. We have come a long way, and optimistically, we can go farther..
The communists tried.
"If an inequality is amoral, then a decision to rectify that inequality is also amoral..."
It doesn't logically follow. Yes, inequality is amoral (neither moral or immoral). However, its precisely what the institutions of society do about it that can be moral or immoral.
So while one person may be gifted, it does not follow that he is morally entitled to be a billionaire, whereas the unlucky person by the accident of birth, starves. Of society allows this, then it is being unjust, immoral.
Taxation isn’t a form of theft, it’s a trade to operate in a society...
and ensuring that the poor is taken care of well enough that they can continually support businesses and talents of the rich is the only way a circular society can work... what always comes as a trade for taxation is protection of the rich from the poor...
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children (children with no siblings) should raise their hand... If the students who had no siblings considered themselves to be first in birth order, than 75% is actually below the national average, not above. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children. But it depends on what the students thought was meant by "first children"
Yes. I thought that too, but had to remind myself that these are undergraduate law students, and statistics may not be their forte (at least not yet.)
Statistically, you could take the argument further and examine whether having familial peers at all is an advantage or a disadvantage ("only child.")
Great points!
This is correct.
In addition, much of the research on birth order effects is questionable precisely because of inadequate control for variables like family size. (There are also endogeneity issues -- birth order may not matter intrinsically, but because of parents' attitudes and other aspects of the environment are affected by birth order. This is less relevant to the moral discussion in the video.)
The unqualified claim that "psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference" is misleading. This is far from being the consensus.
first of all, being a the only child might not matter as long as ur the first born( maybe it's not the siblings that cause the extra effort) secondly, 75%is a vague number it isn't like he took a poll. google the facts and you'll find out that what he said has alot of proof from multiple researches. lastly even if that particular research turns out to be false, there are plenty of other evidence that proof factors of natural prowess, which are arbitrary, affects one's social position. in short ur missing the point
True, the psychological claim is very objectionable. But there still remains a philosophical point about circumstances affecting our effort. It is hard to measure what part of our efforts could come from within us, and which ones come from circumstances outside of our control.
In that case, life is like theater, and the best we can do is to fulfill the duty of our office.
Who else became a Rawlsian through these lectures (+Sandel's books)?
"It's always so attractive to do good at other people's expense." - Milton Friedman
Well said. lol
"Some people are just cunts." - Grandma Rawlings.
James Rawlings. Lmao...well played, sir.
Roman P reality discredited Friedman
"Its always so attractive to get rich at other peoples expense" -Karl Marx
Listening these lectures like our dreams come true 🙏🙏
My problem with equal opportunity is that it's not very efficient, or at least opens the door to ineffectiveness.
In our post agricultural society, intelligence and hard-work are the two important traits. Intelligence is largelly genetic, and hard-workedness... also is. Studies of attention deficit suggest that there is a genetic element to that, and that people don't generally decide to work hard or to procrastinate. Work ethics can be taught to children, but that will depend on the familly they are born to.
So in a way, it is also arbitrary to reward hard work.
But it is necessairy. There's only so many intelligent people, and they... have to run everything. Make every decision, view every patient, make all the software, so on. It would be inefficient to let people of lesser intelligence work these jobs, as unfair as it is, and it would be inefficient to let them study these areas only for them to become useless after having spent years getting "equal opportunity education". We need to motivate the talented with incentives: prestige, wealth, power. It's the most efficient way to run society, both for them, and for the untalented.
+GregTom2 it is a very good thing they cannot redistribute our intelligence. They have tried and failed with AA but they keep trying to dig up another way to "redistribute". lol
I agree. That's also getting into Affirmative Action issues. I went to grad school with a woman that got in under AA. The first term she got a C & was placed on academic probation. Second term she was suspended over grades but was let back in after a threat of suing the school. Long story short, she spent tens of thousands in tuition & 4 years of her life & she was never able to pass the clinical licensing exam. That doesn't help anyone & I think that happens frequently. Entrance exams etc are highly predictive of success in any given program. We should strive to give everyone the opportunity to thrive but if we end up hurting as many as we help if we go beyond that.
That does not collide with Rawls' theory of justice. He isn't saying that equal opporunity is the "only just thing". He just says that one should not feel entitled to the earnings of his/her genetic advantages, which is why there is a need for higher taxes on those who have prospered from their genetic advantages.
Good points. Two further suggestions. We're not just post ag society, we're post industrial. More and more, post secondary education is required in the "knowledge economy", but the jobs in the knowledge economy are more for low level techs, health providers, programmers, finance (ugh!!), IT maintenance, etc.. IQ famously has a bell curve distribution, and those in the 105 to 115 range, who are numerically many times more than those in the 120 to 140 range, need to get educated and/ or trained to pick up those jobs. The knowledge economy more and more IS the economy, i.e., intelligence has always gotten people the good jobs, but these days, people need to give their IQ every boost and assist they can, and a huge IQ is not really required.
Second, IQ is about 50% heritable, and IQ effects everyone, i.e., everybody has one. ADHD (the inattentive type is one type of ADHD, much smaller group) has had heritability estimates approaching 80%. 55 to 60% is probably quite safe. However, the base rate of the disorder is likely max 5% of the American population. Not everybody "has" ADHD.
GregTom2 ok but how exactly do you determine who is fit to succeed and who is not if equal opportunity isn't applied? Are you suggesting that we somehow find a way to test a child's genetic material from a young age and if the child doesn't have the genetics to succeed we just don't bother giving them education or teaching them hard work?
Do you think if Bill Gates was born in Somalia during war he would be where he is today?
Do you understand that there's kids who's parents pay thousands of dollars in ACT prep just so they can go to these "prestigious" colleges meanwhile some kids go to school struggling to survive?
Point is when you say that equal opportunity should be discouraged , you are basically saying everybody should accept their social economic status because let's be honest, without public education most parents including mine wouldn't afford school and I would forever remain as dumb as I was born.
None of these professors ever give up their positions to those that were less lucky than them. Got to love it
Personally, I think it's natural for people to feel that having certain favourable traits which lead to success actually confers desert.
It's a bit of a social darwinist position.
Matthew Pritchard Tho we are not referring to success here as an outcome but to the distribution of wealth in the eye of justice. Success when defined philosophically would have another intrinsic value and would be subjective from person to person.
Why do they MORALLY deserve it? What did they DO to deserve having more favorable traits? Why do they deserve it any more than someone would deserve to have won the lottery?
22:14 effort
If people can’t even claim credit for their effort, the total amount of effort will be reduced dramatically in the society. Look at all the countries where this has been practiced. This course should be taken together with Thomas Sowell’s lectures to add empirical evidence to the discussion.
RIP Mike
It is 2021 and we are seeing that this debate is very applicable.
The amount of people that still believe in systems in which it is encouraged to humiliate another human and even label that person as “not a hard worker” it is appalling and contradictory with all the technological advances we have.
Unfortunately, as historian Yuval Hariri said: In a near future humans will fight for relevance.
He argues, birth order might have something to do with effort and "proves" it by letting all first borns raise their hands. But then again, there are a lot more first borns than second borns since not every family has more than one kid, if at all. So I dont think that was a good example, I'm not entirely convinced.
Thats not true. Check Demographics of e.g. Germany or Japan. I'm not talking about Africans or other third country citizens.
bullshit m8
except for your maths is bullshit.
+Mister Gunsen Overwhelming majority was first born, somewhere between 90-95%. If your stance was true , then we would see maybe 75:25 ratio.
Additionally "more firstborns" argument could be bullshit, since some families have 5 children, some 3 and some one only. Which on country to country basis has to be statistically calculated and cannot be said, based purely on intuition.
The USA fertility rate is roughly 2 births per woman as per public statistic.
Uh, you dont need to be a genius to know first borns are the minority in any society. There is no society where 1 child is the average. If three kids are the average, then maybe we can assume 1/3 of the population is first born. In some African nations it would be 1/6.
23:09 the first born majority should not surprise: in the U.S. the ~majority of children ARE first-born (you can't have a second-born without having a FIRST born; birth order is not an independent series)
I was so into Michael Sandel over the first 7 lectures. So dignified, thoughtful, and professorial. He engaged the students in critical thinking by presenting a balanced, 2 sided presentation. Then in this lecture when he got to the libertarian objections to Rawls' theories of distributive justice, he totally went off the reservation and became a stereotypical indoctrinator. For example, he gave only a single sentence to one of the greatest economists in history, Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in 1976 and totally caricatured him, snarkily misrepresenting his positions. Yes, Friedman said "life is not fair." That's a fundamental reality upon which personal growth is predicated. But he never said, unfeelingly, "Get over it and let's see if we can at least maximize the benefits that flow from it." To the contrary, for half a century, he touted a negative income tax which would have given the poor direct cash injections so they could manage their own money vs. being tied to a paternalistic welfare worker. This would have also cut down on the size of government which has become bigger and bigger as a result of the welfare state and crony capitalism. This is another negative aspect of the redistributive state Sandel never touches on - all the useless, paper pushing jobs that are tied to larger and larger bureaucracy. Since Obama took office, Washington DC has boasted the highest average per capita income in the nation ($82,000) largely at the expense of the middle class taxpayer. These incomes are certainly not tied to any increase in economic productivity in Washington. Sandel loves to harp on Gates and Jordan to present a stark contrast between rich and poor. But the fact is that if you took Michael Jordan's $31 million income and distributed it among the bottom 10% of society, everyone would get $1. There simply aren't enough rich people to fund Rawlsian redistribution which is why the middle class always gets hit. Thus, going after these fat cats is simply making redistributionists feel good and stirring up class warfare. Sandel also doesn't mention that the greatest increase in the standard of living in the history of the world came during the latter half of the 19th century in America (3 fold increase). The American middle class arose out of that economic boom - the first middle class in world history. There was no welfare state at the time and government spent only 3% of the national income. There were tons of private charities that came out of that era though (the Red Cross, etc). The same thing happened in China over the past 30 years. 600 million Chinese have risen out of poverty solely due to free market capitalism. The state administered none of Rawls' equalizing justice. Now they are starting to and growth rates are going down. Finally, if you look at marginal tax rates over the last 60 years, you'll see they've varied tremendously (from 90% to 25%). But throughout this entire time, tax revenues have remained between 17 and 20%. Often when taxes were lowered tax revenues went up because people no longer felt it was necessary to pay CPAs large amounts of money to shelter their income. In short, there are complex economic cause/effect interrelationships that Sandel and Rawls simply don't understand. It's easy to look at economic injustice and point the finger at Dave Letterman (a Democrat no less). It's hard to study the deeper economic phenomena to try find out what would truly benefit the poor the most.
Marshall Duncan You know? Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize too. I bet you don't agree with him that much. You have to accept when a philosopher just is able to reply to most objections and reply well. Maybe in the future there will be a new way of thinking that will more evolved and overshadow Rawls' work. It still is very safe to say that libertarianism and meritocracy are simplistic and thus relatively easy to object to.
If you prefer them, that's your business but don't call an intellectual an "indoctrinator" for going with he more complex theories.
Sebastian Hosu Respectfully... again, you're doing exactly what Sandel did. You're making a categorical statement about libertarianism in general as "simplistic" without any specfic evidence or examples. It may be simplistic in certain cases, but give it the same complex analysis you've give all the other philosophers' positions. He gave all the other philosophers 6 to 8 slides and Milton Friedman only 1. He caricatured him as an uncaring social Darwinist. Better to just leave him out of the mix than oversimplify his ideas. It WAS an indoctrination.
Marshall Duncan Look man, it's only indoctrinating if it bothers you. If he was advocating for libertarian views I'm sure you would have not posted this comment.
I happen to believe that moral arbitration is a real problem; it's especially real here in California, where income inequality is huge in a very small area. Take LA for example. There are places like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu and etc, all within 40 miles of places like Compton.
Take the Bay area for example. Within San Francisco alone there is a vast amount of income inequality, especially between those who survive because of rent control and those who take high paying jobs at profitable tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and others.
There are others. Palo Alto and Stanford vs. East Palo Alto and Newark. West Oakland and its industry and East Oakland and it's extreme crime and poverty. East San Jose vs. South San Jose.
Etc.
Prof. Sandel has shown the statistics on elite universities and income -- This is also even true at our best public colleges and universities which are designed to better serve a larger portion of our society. Schools like UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbra, UC Irvine etc. Do you know where the majority of low-income students go to college in California? The CSU system.
Is it fair that wealth is the best indicator of standardized test score discrepancies?
It's funny how socialist principles are looked down upon in American culture. We glorify the rich while thousands of people struggle when we could shame the rich and use excess wealth to buy security for others. To be frank, I wouldn't miss any of the "innovative" consumer products that are being sold for extreme profit. 99% of the time I don't give a shit about the next overly glorified money making, unmoral cheap labouring, waste producing piece of plastic junk that scans your shit for your diet's vitamin content.
Robert Wilson III How could anyone take anything you say seriously when you'd actually make the sophomoric, flip statement, "it's only indoctrinating if it bothers you." Said like a true moral relativist. Try applying that statement to Naziism. "It's only indoctrinating if it bothers you." Wrong. There ARE moral absolutes. Sandel crossed one when he gave one slide and a couple loaded sentences to Milton Friedman. It would be like me comparing Bernie Sanders' brand of socialism to that of Joseph Stalin. That's how bad of a caricature it was. I would stand up for Bernie Sanders in that case, just as you should be standing up for Milton Friedman in this case... but you seem far too partisan.
Marshall Duncan Fair enough. However, this class aims to discuss whether or not there are moral absolutes, and if so, how and why. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with him inserting his personal views during his class on the philosophy of ethics.
Actually I was saying that the need to rectify it, itself already presupposes a moral imperative, or why else the need to rectify it?
Yes, I'm not talking about "rectifying" natural ability itself, since there is nothing to rectify with it. Its OK that some people are naturally gifted. All the better. What needs to be rectified is a system that doesn't allow everyone to benefit from those that happen to be lucky, resulting in extreme inequality (along with other regressive social factors).
I'd have liked understanding this speech totally but my english level isn't so high, in spite of having studied so hard this language a long time ago. A shame.
Well first of all.. why would you search out academic discussions before learning the basics? And.. The auto-generated captions work like a charm on this, try them!
What a great lecture from a great man!