How Universal is Liberalism (Ronald Dworkin)

Professor Ronald Dworkin, New York University, delivers the 2012 Ralf Dahrendorf Memorial Lecture, with response from Professor Sir Adam Roberts, President of the British Academy.
podcasts.ox.ac.uk/how-universa...
0:00 Introduction
4:50 Ronald Dworkin is welcomed
37:37 About conditions of coercion

[@gabrielubeda410]

What a pleasure is to hear prof. Dworkin.

[@lissadawes4243]

Someone please put a time stamp to when the lecture starts. In this case it is around 4:52.

[@afshinsalehi2136]

It seems logical to me to recept liberalism in these two means. True argument. Thank you, professor Dworkin.

[@anandbissoon4448]

Immaculate insight.

[@fuckyoutubengoogle2]

16:26 Two principles of liberalism introduced.

[@sigridedwards2495]

thank you for share

[@Allen1029]

Wonderfully lucid.

[@thriversoffset]

love him, but i advise you all to change the speed of this video to 1.25 (completely audible) and better to digest in a normal speech speed, what a brilliant mind he was.
Also, it is always best to a) make questions be asked separately and b) if not so, make the person who replies repeat the questions

[@pianofreak247]

Thanks, you saved me a lot of time

[@bodbn]

Move it up to Ben Shapiro speed.

[@automan1591]

@@bodbn yeah let's leave mention of the pseudo intellectuals out of here ay?

[@firstal3799]

It works. Now let's speed up reality 1.25 x too

[@srs1659]

37:37 about coercion

[@gorecassady1632]

Thanks lad

[@springinfialta106]

Even a monarchy with a single state church can agree with the first principle. If the political and religious leaders agree that the salvation of souls is most important then they can be justified in creating a political order that focuses on keeping citizens in line with religious doctrine. They will be showing equal concern for all citizens by creating a political and social structure that encourages, or even forces, all citizens to act in accordance with religious dogma.
The second principle, where each person is allowed to choose their own definition of success, undermines the first. In such a society any person who chooses to act against religious dogma is a danger to others and to himself. So he must be kept in line.
But if a society favors the second principle, then the opposite can happen where the society as a whole has no raison d'etre and devolves into warring camps whose beliefs are in complete opposition, i.e. what we see in the West today. For example, should the government show equal concern for the unborn? This is a question that divides the west and there appears to be no compromise that would be acceptable or even tolerable to all.

[@pavelchikalov4622]

There is no abundance of the religious societies which could consistently stand up for an idea that governments of their countries are illegitimate due to violations of these principles. Whereas it's the only logical conclusion for them that they have to do if their government violates the second principle.
Nice Nabokovian nickname!

[@dikkie2913]

Интересно, спс

[@manuelmanuel9248]

No obligation of the rich to the poor? It is not a matter of obligation but of self interest. Anyone can become poor with a little bad luck.

[@lpaulo08]

Boca mole

[@pavelchikalov4622]

What do you mean?

[@jonatasiago9065]

KKKKKKKKK

[@jonatasiago9065]

@@pavelchikalov4622 significa que ele é um papangu

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

food water roof

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

when there was no farm and pet animals was very easy to kill and eat know farm pets know not so easy so no war if you love me as I love you then why fight there's bigger problems?

[@victor9554]

Shit