Charles Taylor, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Walzer and Isaiah Berlin have provided me with so much food for thought. Thank you for this short and insightful clip.
Spot on, particularly during the current global pandemic. Care and Capabilities all the way, thanks Martha Nussbaum for raising awareness within Ethics, Law, and Inclusion.
It's just HER opinion; it could be right OR wrong. She isn't God, stop worshipping people. No matter how great they seem to be, when they say something that is just an opinion, it is just that. Additionally, humility is a sign of a truly great person. Just stating an opinion and expecting it to be an axiom is self-righteous at best.
7:25 - the concluding thought: people get together to form societies that result in benefits because of a capacity to love - but this is surely the wrong way to look at it - people's love of societies is a result of societies being the sort of thing that offers benefits.
Cont: So in the spirit of the limited discourse allowed here, I will sum up by saying I could argue that there could be a moral obligation NOT to pay taxes when that tax money is used for unjust things. It's not that the government does nothing good but that enough is questionable so that, well, we ought to question and doubt it.
I find the walk interesting. The pace seem brisk. Is it the speaker or the producer that dictated this speed? I feel like knowing that would add a lot to understanding how she is saying these things.
what if physical disability was chosen by the soul as a life lesson for the soul and retribution from past lives? Should we interfere? If we are ignorant of metaphysics and 'what really is going on' how can we make wise decisions?
@@quaesitor If you're asking whether we should kill or heal the state, your asking what the state is at it core. I'd reckon that a good place to start would be with the state in its earliest forms. One place to look could be Mesopotamia, with the kingdom of Ur. Scholars like the political scientist James C. Scott have argued that the early state relied on the forced labor and migration of its subjects, and the continual enslavement of neighboring people. The accomplishments of early states like writing and monumental architecture were enjoyed mainly by the (small) administrative and ruling class, rather than by its subjects as a whole (Against the Grain). If you look at police brutality, mass incarceration, warfare, trade policies encouraging reliance on sweatshop labor, and the control of movement through national borders, it's pretty clear that this tendency of the state is still in place. Liberalism was supposed to fix this by spreading the benefits of the accomplishments of the state to everyone, but still, people are continuously excluded from those benefits. Even in Norway and Sweden, places liberalism's come close to covering every citizen, it still relies on systems which exclude people from the wealth of the state. For example, Sweden built part of its wealth on the sale of military hardware, notably, to the Nazis. Norway built its wealth on oil, the burning of which is denying wealth (and possibly even life) to future generations. Both those states rely on borders and citizenship papers to determine who's worthy of receiving the benefits of their welfare state. The state is, even at its best, a system which enriches the few through the immiseration of the many.
@utubehayter OK see now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately for you she never claimed that either Locke nor Hume said such a thing. She said, "this LEADS us too the ideal of the real man, which is something LIKE the person in the original position" I.E. a person without dependence, or knowledge of his place in society. She's talking about the stereotypical notion of man as an individualist.
@ThomasDeLello ummm... were you even listening? she is criticizing the social contract approach. she's aristotelian... social contract theory wasn't around for, you know, almost 2,000 years after aristotle.
I think some people fail to point out the real problem so maybe I can help them along briefly and then you can reply if you choose. Some are skeptical of taxes and a strong federal government when that strength is misused. EG: spending untold sums of money on continual and arguably unjust wars against other countries for reasons other than self defense. Poverty and hunger are a cause of much more suffering and death than terrorism, yet gets much less funding. More...
@utubehayter How do you view the "individualist" then? I think she's absolutely right that there is this ridiculous machismo going on where people (like you do) believe that individualism is the loner figure who has done everything by himself/herself, and has no obligations to society or people at large.
@mieliav"I try to teach my child that respect must be earned." This could mean your children disrespecting everyone who has not 'earned' their respect!
No it doesn't. Respect is an evaluation with a positive conclusion. Disrespect is another conclusion. You've missed out the stage pre evaluating where one has yet to reach a conclusion. This is the default position.
I agree. The absence of respect doesn't mean disrespect or treating someone with a lack of basic dignity. Many social issues can arise from giving credit where it *isn't* due. The merit system is imperative.
@utubehayter Cont. We don't owe each other something "undefined or unlimited". We do owe each other a helping hand - that's the very nature of society. Some people disagree whether we should help each other through taxation, but instead through private charity etc., and that's a legitimate concern. But I think at this juncture we have to have a strong federal government, and to sustain such a thing, we need to pay taxes. If you don't want to be swallowed up by China or Russia, you better pay up.
@utubehayter Please quote me ANY passage in ANY of Locke's work where he alludes to there not being such a thing called society. When you're arguing, everything is a "lingual term". Words by their very nature are lingual. Society is a choice human beings have made because living on your own in the wilderness is a pretty shitty deal, so we've gathered like a family (using Rousseau's metaphor) where we try to protect each other's rights through various institutions, like the police, firemen etc.
If we take Judith Butler seriously then there shouldn't be any problems. According to Butler the individual just has to act differently because our social roles are only and act. If we act like an able bodied man then we won't have any problems.
@utubehayter Society is not a "conceptual abstraction", it's a conglomeration of these very individuals you are talking about. Who's talking about collectivism? Locke is a social contractarian and Nussbaum agrees with him here so I don't know what you're talking about. She does however point out some of the inherent flaws with the social contract; just because there is a contract in place doesn't mean that the tenets of this contract is fair. This is not a straw man by any means.
A documentary called "Examined Life". But be warned, the rest of it is "root canal" bad. These are people who have examined everything but their own life, which was the point of Socrates' words.
@hampusheh below Margret Thatcher says:"Society is a conceptual abstraction". LOL. Yes and pretty damn fundamental and important one without which Ayn Rand "individuals" wouldn't exist.
@shatakan Aren't alive? Aren't people? Not from my experience in sonography. That is most certainly sacred life, human life, vulnerable life. Hearing the fetal heartbeats, usually around 8 weeks, and seeing the moving 3 dimensional images with the latest ultrasound technology had completely changed my perspective that as fragile as an unborn child is, he she is most certainly human life.
@utubehayter Yeah, I've watched the video and I can't see how it's a strawman. She talks about the theory of the social contract and the "state of nature" as specified by Rousseau and Locke, and expresses her concern about whether it's fair to assume that everyone would even be autonomous in the first place. How is this a straw man? You have to specify
@S2Cents I don't even know what "conceptual abstraction" means in this context. All words are "conceptual abstractions" aren't they? That's what words are, symbols of a phenomena. He sounds like a pseudointellectual to me.
In light of the findings in anthropology the ideas of the social contract, the loner, individualism, self reliability, planed societies, indeed centuries of thought on the left and right are all patiently false.
@utubehayter What is she straw-manning? It isn't a debate and she isn't responding to any specific person, so who is she straw-manning? It's not an appeal to emotion fallacy, she simply states a plain fact, if you don't have handicap availability handicap people can't go there, that's not a fallacy.
@utubehayter Also, I'm so sick of American neo-cons misinterpreting John Locke's philosophy, he was by no means an "individualist", he worked in the Government for crying out loud, and was heavily involved in securing justice and fairness for all. Yes, he believed in personal liberty and the right to not be exploited by authority (he was living under a monarch, so who can blame him?), but he in no way supported an "individualist" approach. I haven't read enough Hume so I can't comment on him.
Why are you talking about trade? Nussbaum is not talking about trade, she's talking about the social contract theory, a theory which states that individuals choose to enter a society and give up some rights for the benefit of protection and safety. Can you please quote her actual words and then point out which part is a strawman because I'm really not feeling you on this one buddy
@S2Cents Yeah, I've encountered this bastardized notion of libertarianism on youtube before. I think Nozick and Milton Friedman are really important thinkers, and not to be dismissed, but people here have a very limited understanding of what libertarianism actually comprise. They spout catch-phrases like collectivism and liberty without any real grasp of these terms.
I'm sorry if there are still viewers who think Ayn Rand is in anyway a well read and legitimate thinker. She is, to be charitable, a person who reasons poorly and wildly.Nussbaum seems okay, I suppose
@utubehayter NOBODY is advocating collectivism or egalitarianism, for someone who talks about strawmen you sure like to use them yourself. I can definitely say that I'm envious of some people, so what? Is it fair that nature endows some people with talents and cripples others with mental or physical disability? I don't think it's right to just say "it's their own fault", or this person earned something, when so much is down to luck in the genetic or societal lottery.
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - Orwell It's just plain offensive to suppose that adult individuals need a bunch of careerist bureaucrats to administer nanny-ish (maternalistic) laws in order to correct and redeem them. How is this not gross interference with law-abiding citizens? The definition of an adult is (in my book, at least) someone who has internalised the functions of their mother and father and is thus self-reliant, well-regulated and (barring an emergency) capable of conducting themselves reasonably in society. No doubt Prof Nussbaum detests the idea of the "patriarchy" and its paternalistic arm. Why then does "matriarchy", maternalism and "nanny state" strike her as so appealing? Because - perhaps - she sees history as providing ample evidence that men are morally incomplete, child-like beings? To a feminist, any power which takes the form of a nanny must be preferable to sex-neutral government, I guess.
@utubehayter You don't have to be a collectivist to believe in fairness. You can still believe in personal liberty and worry about people around you, it's called compassion. It's not a straw man to argue from your own stand point, where did you get that from? No position was misrepresented here, she didn't say Locke or Hume believes in an individualistic man, she said that we see this idea of man as individualistic which is your position, so once again, WHAT'S THE STRAW MAN!?
I don't equate respect and dignity. Basic dignity should be shown to all but respect must be earned. Basically, don't harm people, add unnecessary stress to their lives or try to improve your situation at their expense. My version of expanded Libertarianism. At the society level, we should try to maintain an environment (particularly for children) that provides a standard of dignity.
Broken intellectual thinking. Morality cannot be a duty, it has to be the result of individual choice of action. Morality is objective by identifying life, human life qua life as the standard on which to base it.
Charles Taylor, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Walzer and Isaiah Berlin have provided me with so much food for thought. Thank you for this short and insightful clip.
Very moving. The capabilities approach is quite a treasure. Thank God for Martha Nussbaum.
Spot on, particularly during the current global pandemic. Care and Capabilities all the way, thanks Martha Nussbaum for raising awareness within Ethics, Law, and Inclusion.
How would you summarize this video?
Just discovered Martha Nussbaum. She is inspiring! Thank you for making this clip. I can't wait to read/listen to more of her work.
I just discovered Martha Nussbaum last week. What a treasure.
Simply Brilliant. I'm so happy to even walk the same halls as she does!
I love how love is her science at a core
It's just HER opinion; it could be right OR wrong. She isn't God, stop worshipping people. No matter how great they seem to be, when they say something that is just an opinion, it is just that. Additionally, humility is a sign of a truly great person. Just stating an opinion and expecting it to be an axiom is self-righteous at best.
Nussbaum is pretty smart.
martha makes such a case for sane and ... even good living. someone to read, for sure
and by living i mean not just OUR own lives, but living TOGETHER
7:25 - the concluding thought: people get together to form societies that result in benefits because of a capacity to love - but this is surely the wrong way to look at it - people's love of societies is a result of societies being the sort of thing that offers benefits.
100 % true:)
What society offers benefits, and what people love societies?
I think the song in the background is from Tom Waits (Dead and Lovely)
+Rz2750* The director is married to Jeff Mangum, who probably had something to do with the music selections. Neutral Milk Hotel rocks!
I immediately thought of Maslow. It seems to me that his hierarchy of needs supports the capabilities approach.
Very insightful. Clearly communicated and indeed an adept use of youtube.
Go back to sleep.
really informative and interesting
Thank you for sharing this video. Nussbaum is no hack. I like that she's more pragmatic than many other thinkers.
Cont: So in the spirit of the limited discourse allowed here, I will sum up by saying I could argue that there could be a moral obligation NOT to pay taxes when that tax money is used for unjust things. It's not that the government does nothing good but that enough is questionable so that, well, we ought to question and doubt it.
I saw you first on Bryan Magee's programme on philosophy. Social justice is still very relevant.
Just so great❤
FanTASTIC! What a brain what a setting
Really? Can you elaborate or give one example of that "mainstream"?
I find the walk interesting. The pace seem brisk. Is it the speaker or the producer that dictated this speed? I feel like knowing that would add a lot to understanding how she is saying these things.
Does anyone know the name of the song playing throughout the video?
I think the song is Dead and Lovely done by Tom Waits
what if physical disability was chosen by the soul as a life lesson for the soul and retribution from past lives? Should we interfere? If we are ignorant of metaphysics and 'what really is going on' how can we make wise decisions?
some sweet info here
Those who decry the "nanny state" are often those who actually had nannies. (kill the trumpet!)
Kill the state.
@@strelokoperator7509 why not heal it?
@@quaesitor If you're asking whether we should kill or heal the state, your asking what the state is at it core. I'd reckon that a good place to start would be with the state in its earliest forms. One place to look could be Mesopotamia, with the kingdom of Ur. Scholars like the political scientist James C. Scott have argued that the early state relied on the forced labor and migration of its subjects, and the continual enslavement of neighboring people. The accomplishments of early states like writing and monumental architecture were enjoyed mainly by the (small) administrative and ruling class, rather than by its subjects as a whole (Against the Grain). If you look at police brutality, mass incarceration, warfare, trade policies encouraging reliance on sweatshop labor, and the control of movement through national borders, it's pretty clear that this tendency of the state is still in place.
Liberalism was supposed to fix this by spreading the benefits of the accomplishments of the state to everyone, but still, people are continuously excluded from those benefits. Even in Norway and Sweden, places liberalism's come close to covering every citizen, it still relies on systems which exclude people from the wealth of the state. For example, Sweden built part of its wealth on the sale of military hardware, notably, to the Nazis. Norway built its wealth on oil, the burning of which is denying wealth (and possibly even life) to future generations. Both those states rely on borders and citizenship papers to determine who's worthy of receiving the benefits of their welfare state.
The state is, even at its best, a system which enriches the few through the immiseration of the many.
what is BGM?
brilliant video
@utubehayter OK see now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately for you she never claimed that either Locke nor Hume said such a thing. She said, "this LEADS us too the ideal of the real man, which is something LIKE the person in the original position" I.E. a person without dependence, or knowledge of his place in society. She's talking about the stereotypical notion of man as an individualist.
Today that park is littered with needles and bullet shells.
I agree 100% with everything she said here
I like her. I like Judith Butler too, but I like her.
@ThomasDeLello ummm... were you even listening? she is criticizing the social contract approach. she's aristotelian... social contract theory wasn't around for, you know, almost 2,000 years after aristotle.
Anyone watching from Central University of Kashmir , Ganderbal India
Everything is concious
Bravo, bravo.
I think some people fail to point out the real problem so maybe I can help them along briefly and then you can reply if you choose. Some are skeptical of taxes and a strong federal government when that strength is misused. EG: spending untold sums of money on continual and arguably unjust wars against other countries for reasons other than self defense. Poverty and hunger are a cause of much more suffering and death than terrorism, yet gets much less funding. More...
I have examined life, and i've concluded, that it is not worth living. I would givie my eternal soul if a gasoline taker would explode next to me.
@utubehayter How do you view the "individualist" then? I think she's absolutely right that there is this ridiculous machismo going on where people (like you do) believe that individualism is the loner figure who has done everything by himself/herself, and has no obligations to society or people at large.
Oh my God. Martha Nussbaum is the greatest philosopher. She is so good at bridging academia and humanity. Best philosopher ever.
Sorry, thought he was talking about Rand!
Her thoughts make me realize that I am a perfect human being....lacking nothing.
@mieliav"I try to teach my child that respect must be earned."
This could mean your children disrespecting everyone who has not 'earned' their respect!
No it doesn't. Respect is an evaluation with a positive conclusion. Disrespect is another conclusion.
You've missed out the stage pre evaluating where one has yet to reach a conclusion. This is the default position.
I agree. The absence of respect doesn't mean disrespect or treating someone with a lack of basic dignity. Many social issues can arise from giving credit where it *isn't* due. The merit system is imperative.
@utubehayter Cont. We don't owe each other something "undefined or unlimited". We do owe each other a helping hand - that's the very nature of society. Some people disagree whether we should help each other through taxation, but instead through private charity etc., and that's a legitimate concern. But I think at this juncture we have to have a strong federal government, and to sustain such a thing, we need to pay taxes. If you don't want to be swallowed up by China or Russia, you better pay up.
Why?
@utubehayter Please quote me ANY passage in ANY of Locke's work where he alludes to there not being such a thing called society. When you're arguing, everything is a "lingual term". Words by their very nature are lingual. Society is a choice human beings have made because living on your own in the wilderness is a pretty shitty deal, so we've gathered like a family (using Rousseau's metaphor) where we try to protect each other's rights through various institutions, like the police, firemen etc.
If we take Judith Butler seriously then there shouldn't be any problems. According to Butler the individual just has to act differently because our social roles are only and act. If we act like an able bodied man then we won't have any problems.
@utubehayter Society is not a "conceptual abstraction", it's a conglomeration of these very individuals you are talking about. Who's talking about collectivism? Locke is a social contractarian and Nussbaum agrees with him here so I don't know what you're talking about. She does however point out some of the inherent flaws with the social contract; just because there is a contract in place doesn't mean that the tenets of this contract is fair. This is not a straw man by any means.
Where is this video from?
A documentary called "Examined Life". But be warned, the rest of it is "root canal" bad. These are people who have examined everything but their own life, which was the point of Socrates' words.
I think Eckhart Tolle has a lot of the answers.
@hampusheh below Margret Thatcher says:"Society is a conceptual abstraction". LOL.
Yes and pretty damn fundamental and important one without which Ayn Rand "individuals" wouldn't exist.
@shatakan Aren't alive? Aren't people? Not from my experience in sonography. That is most certainly sacred life, human life, vulnerable life. Hearing the fetal heartbeats, usually around 8 weeks, and seeing the moving 3 dimensional images with the latest ultrasound technology had completely changed my perspective that as fragile as an unborn child is, he she is most certainly human life.
She's hella cute I guess I fell in love with her :D
its amazing how intelligent I find her when she's talking about ancient Greece. but when she talks about contemporary politics its weak as hell.
I believe that is based on a bad sense of justice based on social contract. It's a departure from Aristotle
Could you please qualify your answer?
Was she a he, prior to being a she? I wonder
@utubehayter Yeah, I've watched the video and I can't see how it's a strawman. She talks about the theory of the social contract and the "state of nature" as specified by Rousseau and Locke, and expresses her concern about whether it's fair to assume that everyone would even be autonomous in the first place. How is this a straw man? You have to specify
@S2Cents I don't even know what "conceptual abstraction" means in this context. All words are "conceptual abstractions" aren't they? That's what words are, symbols of a phenomena. He sounds like a pseudointellectual to me.
In light of the findings in anthropology the ideas of the social contract, the loner, individualism, self reliability, planed societies, indeed centuries of thought on the left and right are all patiently false.
@utubehayter What is she straw-manning? It isn't a debate and she isn't responding to any specific person, so who is she straw-manning? It's not an appeal to emotion fallacy, she simply states a plain fact, if you don't have handicap availability handicap people can't go there, that's not a fallacy.
@utubehayter Also, I'm so sick of American neo-cons misinterpreting John Locke's philosophy, he was by no means an "individualist", he worked in the Government for crying out loud, and was heavily involved in securing justice and fairness for all. Yes, he believed in personal liberty and the right to not be exploited by authority (he was living under a monarch, so who can blame him?), but he in no way supported an "individualist" approach. I haven't read enough Hume so I can't comment on him.
I agree with insomniabelow. That music sounds like some band in a park or in a parade. It spoils the video. Who in the world chose it?
You better not change the lamp in a dark room , if you are able and learned how too ! Unless a redacted can as well .
Why are you talking about trade? Nussbaum is not talking about trade, she's talking about the social contract theory, a theory which states that individuals choose to enter a society and give up some rights for the benefit of protection and safety. Can you please quote her actual words and then point out which part is a strawman because I'm really not feeling you on this one buddy
she is so cool
This music is so unfitting...
insomniabelow absolutely unfitting
@S2Cents Yeah, I've encountered this bastardized notion of libertarianism on youtube before. I think Nozick and Milton Friedman are really important thinkers, and not to be dismissed, but people here have a very limited understanding of what libertarianism actually comprise. They spout catch-phrases like collectivism and liberty without any real grasp of these terms.
Joe Mama
I'm sorry if there are still viewers who think Ayn Rand is in anyway a well read and legitimate thinker. She is, to be charitable, a person who reasons poorly and wildly.Nussbaum seems okay, I suppose
Rand's ideas are timeless. Nussbaum is merely rehashing basic liberal tenets.
Are you a libertarian?
@utubehayter NOBODY is advocating collectivism or egalitarianism, for someone who talks about strawmen you sure like to use them yourself. I can definitely say that I'm envious of some people, so what? Is it fair that nature endows some people with talents and cripples others with mental or physical disability? I don't think it's right to just say "it's their own fault", or this person earned something, when so much is down to luck in the genetic or societal lottery.
We can't try to compensate for luck. I might have been taller but I'm not. My issue, my challenge.
Not here by choice
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - Orwell
It's just plain offensive to suppose that adult individuals need a bunch of careerist bureaucrats to administer nanny-ish (maternalistic) laws in order to correct and redeem them. How is this not gross interference with law-abiding citizens? The definition of an adult is (in my book, at least) someone who has internalised the functions of their mother and father and is thus self-reliant, well-regulated and (barring an emergency) capable of conducting themselves reasonably in society.
No doubt Prof Nussbaum detests the idea of the "patriarchy" and its paternalistic arm. Why then does "matriarchy", maternalism and "nanny state" strike her as so appealing? Because - perhaps - she sees history as providing ample evidence that men are morally incomplete, child-like beings? To a feminist, any power which takes the form of a nanny must be preferable to sex-neutral government, I guess.
The intellectual mainstream has always been against her, most of them agree that her arguments are laughable.
@utubehayter You don't have to be a collectivist to believe in fairness. You can still believe in personal liberty and worry about people around you, it's called compassion. It's not a straw man to argue from your own stand point, where did you get that from? No position was misrepresented here, she didn't say Locke or Hume believes in an individualistic man, she said that we see this idea of man as individualistic which is your position, so once again, WHAT'S THE STRAW MAN!?
the bullshit approach destroyed by hume
what a useless banter, nothing of substance Martha
So if she cares so much about the lives and happiness of the vulnerable in society, she must be pro-life when it comes to the unborn, correct?
no, at "inherent dignity" as a human attribute, she lost me. what is inherent about it? I try to teach my child that respect must be earned.
I don't equate respect and dignity. Basic dignity should be shown to all but respect must be earned. Basically, don't harm people, add unnecessary stress to their lives or try to improve your situation at their expense. My version of expanded Libertarianism. At the society level, we should try to maintain an environment (particularly for children) that provides a standard of dignity.
Similar to how the founders talked about "natural rights"
Broken intellectual thinking. Morality cannot be a duty, it has to be the result of individual choice of action. Morality is objective by identifying life, human life qua life as the standard on which to base it.
I would like you are catholic and love Jesus. For you it would be to find Him and He would give you all.
The Unexamined Life-Trump and Leftists.
no one cares about this, unless you're going to be a philosophy teacher... or are forced to take a philosophy class in college
Good people care about it...the rest will die unhappy.