Democracy and the Common Good: What do we Value? with Michael Sandel (2018)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Recent political developments in the West have led many to question whether liberal politics is in terminal decline, replaced by a polarised and polemical discourse that breeds exclusion and resentment. St Paul's Institute series 'Democracy and the Common Good' seeks to ask how a common good approach can be applied to certain spheres of public policy to help shape an inclusive society which better reflects the values of the people in it.
With the help of an audience of 90 students, Harvard Philosophy professor Michael Sandel asks whether globalisation and inequality have eroded the bonds that hold communities together. Are we citizens of the world, or is a citizen of the world a citizen of nowhere?
This public debate took place under the Dome of St Paul's Cathedral on 19th March 2018.
God bless this mans skill at instantly pronouncing names
it reinforces his skills at summarizing and rephrasing their arguments... sandel is good at what he does
There are only a few persons in my life, who inspired me like Michael J. Sandel. Well worth seeing!
True. He is a legend
I do agree with you.
Prof. Sandel is a master surgeon peeling of layers of our reasoning one by one patiently..... amazing :-)
I would love to see Professor Sandel have this discussion with a stage full of fossil fuel, insurance, and bank executives. Their responses could be very illuminating.
they would confuse the word moral with a dollar sign I am afraid....
You would be surprised how smart actual professionals are when they do not have intellectual blinders on called "Climate Change" or "1%" or that the mean insurance would not cover your surgery after you ate hohos and other shit that caused your disease.
@@AtlasandLiberty i smell another ignorant american that did not pay attention during science
@@DB-gl3jx You want Science? I believe in God not climate hoax. If you do not believe God exists...well there is an experiment to prove evil is real and it works every time. Start challenging demons by name...tell Satan etc that you dare him to show himself because you can kick his ass and other vulgar acts....do that for a few weeks for an hour or so everyday. Then after the mysterious scratches start call an exorcist before it gets truly life threatening.
Actually he didn't answer to any of the questions, he just make people to reflect on these arguments
Makes me have a great feeling of loss now that I am not teaching. Most inspiring area, teaching, I think anyone can enter.
Michael Sandal is my greatest of all time
His Only Presence Give Him An Air Of Strength, Patience, Goodness and Wisdom: Invites To Reflection On Our Own Capacity To Listen... Great Professor And Human Being...
Another great show. Michael Sandel always gets the best from the audience and always leaves me less sure of my positions than when I start. That is awesome!
what made this debate better than others, is there was no clapping, cheeing, laughing, whooping from audience people gave honest answers and wrnt trying to get audience validation
I have so much love for this man. I wish to be his student one day.
the differences between helping a family member over a stranger is morally sound only if the help is sustainable.
1:40:40 Michael Sandel’s stance on this question. Your welcome, and such a great point.
Profession Michael Sandel is so engaging and energetic in his lectures that inspire us in many ways!! thank you for this another awesome presentation!
I wish I am in harvard so that I would study from Michael Daniel.what a teacher.
Sandel
I feel so much love, respect and gratitude for this man.
Such bright delightful knowedgeable person / academia and what easy way of talking through his deep knowledge. Thank you. So pleased to have known you virtually. Hope to get to meet you so sometime. Perhaps in angel kinder time in the USA or anytime in the UK. ❤️⭐️🙂
Bless these young people!
And bless you, Mr. Sandel!
Scale is the bugaboo here.
Different _individuals_ will identify with different scales of groups. And *_there can be no agreement about this!_*
Therefore, it is worthwhile to pursue a way of including all factors so that any human being steps up to the Food Bank Line with Human Citizenship (don't get me started on their pets...) but they will have a card that shows their additional Citizenships. And they are not more or less valuable. But they _will_ show where the stream of money comes from! National money goes to National Citizens. World Bank money should go to World Citizens. City/State money should go to City/State Citizens. Etc. And Family money should come from Family. *_All_* of it should show up on their "account". _This is how real people fund their lives anyway!_ Why not show it on the books? There will be exceptions and nuances to this that would have to be worked out, but the main point I'm trying to put forward is that there need be no conflict between all these things. Only good documentation.
I have a Food Stamp card. I can use it in different cities than the one I'm living in right now. This is no big deal. But what if I wanted to go to Nevada or Mexico for a week or a day of shopping or whatever. Then I'm off-grid and I got nuthin'. This is utterly unnecessary.
It's possible that Block Chain will have a solution to this.
That would be great!
But people who know how to solve such problems should be working on this. It's not necessary nor helpful to have debates with people who are _all_ laboring under simply _ineffective monetary systems._
It’s valuable to revisit this wonderful discussion at different stages of life.
Man if i had a teacher like this growing up i would have been more driven to become educated growing up!!
this video should be mandatory for every decent human being... why only 7,500 views
It's very nice to here you Mr. machael Sandel .
It is also important to know that the food bank is not a government institution. It is organized by private individuals, only volunteers work there and the food is donated by supermarkets.
The state has nothing to do with it.
In addition, refugees and foreigners in Germany receive a lot of money, some of which is sent to their home countries. Then these people go to the food banks to stock up on groceries.
It may be new to many in the world, but many German pensioners are starving!
German politicians prefer to give the money abroad, billions at that! Instead of giving it to your own people (by that I mean the population in Germany).
Bad schools, bad nursing homes, low pensions that now also have to be taxed.
In Germany you work 45 years to end up in poverty in old age.
That is not a picture that is by any means objective. Like many other countries the division of capital in Germany is diverse and there is a relevant gap between the richer and the poorer people. But the question on how to deal with the distribution of limited resources was widely discussed in the video and the answer to just give it to your fellow people - if you carefully listened - must seem to be a far to simple answer.
What Ute said is so true!! 🥰🥰
One of the best lectures I have ever watched.
St Paul's Cathedral, This is Brilliant, very encouraging presentation regardless Of ones "beliefs".
Excellent debate. Thank you.
Still a great debate today from 2 years ago. The Food Bank is a charity that caters to all ; thus, all would be inclusive. However if it is state, it may impact the benefits allocated to the whole, giving priority to its citizens first, then distribute resources, food and service to others. We have moral obligations to those close to us, 'charity begins at home', we also have moral responsibilities to others as well.
Michael Sandal..one of the great political & economics philosopher of our time..
How many of you are as annoyed as me by people constantly trying to change the focus of the conversation?
"We haven't talked about..."
"There hasn't been enough of a discussion of..."
"I want to talk about..."
"We should focus on the other idea..."
I wish they could concentrate on the subject that the moderator is trying to pick apart, and don't try to change it to their own agendas, just because one thinks that what is populating the mind is worth attention.
Agreed. It was also interesting to see how many of the votes were explicitly self-serving.
Your children would disagree that you as a parent have an equally moral obligation to help another unrelated child with comparable needs.
Dr. Sandel is a brilliant man with great points. His point of view coming from an “outsiders” point of view allowed him to see the democracy and what has worked and what hasn’t. I appreciated one of the students comments about providing for your country first, rather than providing for others in need. There will always be other places who are in need that could benefit from the resources. It is often a question that comes up a lot in school and other places of debate (like in politics) where in the United States, people want to help our homeless population first, then the undocumented or refugees. I think there are several points to this. First, the U.S is very wealthy and definitely should do more to help the Americans who are homeless, especially the homeless veterans. I believe that providing resources such as food and shelter/mental health resources is a must. Addressing the root cause of why people are homeless in the first place is a good start. There are opioid crisis, mental illness, economy losses that affect millions. Healthcare costs can cause families to file for bankruptcy. When it comes to certain portions of funds being distributed, I agree with the other students, that those who are most in need should get first dibs. After all, we are all human, and not one person on earth should be worth more than another, even if that is not the popular opinion. People are born into their social status and sometimes cannot help when things go bad for them. By providing opportunities for education, as an example, one can work hard, earn a degree and get a career to bring generational changes. There are many ways to make change of course, I just wanted to comment on a few that came to mind during the argument.
Basic: we need more debate on morals and ethics in dealing with the world outside our individual realm of influence. Education is one tool, thinking of others perspective and walking in their shoes is another. Do not close your mind but increase your knowledge of the world!!!
He is truly a scholar and a great Moderator
This is a great public discussion-- what we need more of in our societies today! Very Socratic. However, these discussions need to be much more diverse, as the one man in the audience puts it: the crowd is quite unrepresentative of the larger society. We need these discussions to be broadcasted from more than just the elite institutions, from places that feel left out of public discussion the most.
Justice is a principle that truly need greater decrement for the common good.
= For the Love of Truth & Wisdom }}} t.y. from Canada Sept. 2019
How would a rich nation like Germany or Great Britian end up in a situation where its citizens require to use food banks.
Amazing!
Because globalization is a relatively modern phenomenon, debate and listening to one another is now so important for us to understand that we all have different experiences, beliefs and points of view. Sandel gives people the opportunity to share their thoughts, so that we can see that there are many different realities that we need to learn to respect, even those with which we might not agree.
Sandel also says, in some of his other talks, that elitism and thinking that one (or one's culture) is better than others only serves to divide and to create anger and resentment. Individual rights and freedoms are important, yes, but with these rights and freedoms comes the all-important responsibility to respect others. However, respect seems to have become forgotten in merit-based economies where 'getting ahead' and 'me, me, me' is more important that the common good.
Those of us lucky enough to have a good life need to be more understanding of those who are less fortunate. I believe that it's not what you 'have' that makes you a successful human being, but rather, what you 'do' to make the world a better place!
How the world would be a much better off, if there were politicians with Sandel's way of thinking! Thank you, Professor Sandel!
Well done sir
The audincence are messing up the difference between a moral obligation and biological obligation.
Thank u prof. Sander for this amazing dialogue I wish u can pay a visit to Saudi university
Sandel is a gift
Really cool debate. But I think the dichotomy between global and local responsibility is in direct disregard of the manner in which the world has become global. I'm effectively more local to the people I can contact directly online than I am to any of the people on my street. My colleagues are in three countries spaced out over nearly 10,000 miles but there's barely a half second of lag between us. I can visit a friend in another country as cheaply as family in my own. And we form shared interests, beliefs and language that link us as would a 'culture', but the composite nature of our identities allows a much richer and more diverse population to be connected. So the reasons for borders seem, in my mind, more for practicality of jurisdiction of state than for dividing us into tribes to which we owe some moral preference.
That our western culture and nation have been successful to the point of allowing abstract conversations like this in a world of wants needs and that is often brutal should call into question yhe cosmopolitan view espoused by so many on stage feeling guilty or their privilege
This recording was filmed when there was no war in Europe. Five years onwards I am puzzled how companies are allowed to act stateless. If they have access to markets where consumers are, they have an obligation to their respective societies
The Food bank example is so oversimplifing. Ask the Food bank guy why he did that? Ask him what happened to the old "customers" often over 70 years and why they didn´t came anymore. Maybe his reaction wasn´t right, but it´s easy to judge if you dont know the full story.
I imagine what it would be like to sit in his lectures...a truly democratic spirit: the questionings, dialogues etc. Great sir.
Many foreign students do not see their responsibility locally but rather internationally. How does it look when they are back in their homeland?
Imao 20:38 the Guys has beeen Raising his Hand for an hour
LMAO 😭😂
38:00 that's awesome 😂
Is that Bishop Robert Barron sitting to the left of the Chancellor during the introductory portion of this presentation? Pardon me if this has already been answered.
No sir
one could break this conundrum by making a complex but comparatively useful distinction between an individual morality and collective morality. we may think and act universally and in cosmopolitan terms about morality on an individual level but in case of state or collective level moral principles may have a limited application.
Could you expand it with a compelling example?
Doing good to our own member of family /the closest to us, has nothing to do with moral obligation, it is biological obligation.. I give my brother a new shoes, it is not a moral obligation, for he is the one I grow with, it is natural action based on biological function. But when I help someone in need in the streets whom I don't know, that's a moral obligation, and it has a moral implications. That's a kindness.
it cant be a biological obligation because adopted children exists.
🙏
It is very surprising to me that nobody voiced a more Utilitarian point of view.
For me, Social Security is not the security for those in need. It is exactly the opposite.
Let's assume that there are some people below poverty line in the society.
Then, those who are doing better economically are in a constant danger of being robbed, conned, or subjected to whatever worse fates.
Thus, paying tax to support a Social Security system is to "buy security for everyone, especially for those who doing better economically".
It is also likely the cheapest way to buy such security.
From this point of view, I think it is obvious that Social Security has to cover even illegal immigrants.
Because if the system only covers only a fraction of the poor people, then it will fail to "buy security" for those who pay tax, therefore defeating its purpose.
Among so many well-presented arguments from participants I think one argument that's been made was in my opinion the most realistic one, and also contemporaneous straightforward. A nation state & biology matters as a trigger for making prejudice decisions when it comes to hiring or benefits, especially so in countries like Germany with tied historical heritages of the post-war era. Again, it tremendously depends on generation and age. For example, most German younger adults have more gentle world perspectives on anti-semitism than older people do. I am honest with you.
For example, if I were to choose between two applicants with a grade 1.9 and 2.3, respectively, I would rather hire the guy with a grade 2.3. Not just merely because of their inheritance but because they as a foreigner and probably a victim of hate had gone through a lot in terms of endurance, trials, allegation, trepedation, speculation etc. They deserve a chance. Of course, Germans come first to get hired cause "I have been grown up and raised in Germany. From a moral point of view, I feel that I have a self-induced obligation to fullfil cause I feel like I am part of the German society and more importantly I am working for a German company." There is no other choice to make than that is how I feel about.
It's all about gathering together relevant information about hot debated issues, of which one piece of information is 'justice' for obvious reasons.
Ever the optimist. all efforts should first be put into proactive solutions including immediate collection programs from local communities to facilitate all, even if just a bowl of soup for today, but if having 'not enough to go around ' is the immediate reality, one has to remember that the 'state' (german government or other) has the right to ask you to 'give your life in defense of the nation', and basic reciprocity suggests that 'sustaining' or 'feeding' the citizen, over the foreign national, as a priority, can be rationalized.
I agree with the poll answers but I suspect lots of the people on the stage are not being honest because this is a public place and they want to be seen to answer in a particular way. Perhaps anonymous polls would be more effective to get truthful (and representative) answers.
Why did everyone always raise their hands?
Explore Golgumbaz with Guide Jahangir
... as human beings are social animals, who exist and NURTURED and cultured (cultivated) in layers of social bodies: family, the local community, the town/city, the nation ... so may be our moral responsibilities are proportional to quality of the nurturing we received from these layers of society, but with the proviso that in terms of 'inter-social' conflicts, the lesser / localized social body should give way to the larger / more universal social body ...
내자신을 사랑하고 내가족을사랑하고 내이웃을 사랑하라
Hiring based on qualificatio rather than nationality if we believe in progresing
as esh nation-state have the commitment esh nation have its commitment to its people
Humanitarian Obligations
The egalitarian notion that an ideal world is that all persons are equal is false and unrealistic. Humans are not created equal. We are all different. An ideal world is a world that citizens learn to live with their differences.
Observations:mens answers are more pragmatic womens more utopian, as a whole the university mindset or atleast the sample here is very out of touch with the realities of how the world works and the extent of finite resource and benevolence
this discussion is not about how the world works. It's not exactly about practical feasibility, either.
This is a discussion about moral values. It is about how people think we should act.
A lot of moral philosophy ends up being either very complicated to apply in practice, or not resting on a solid foundation.
But justifying your own viewpoint as "it's how the world works" is obviously not a solution, as the status quo is arbitrary and often unfair and simply accepting it eliminates any possibility of change.
Enlightenment thinkers obviously didn't describe how the world worked back then either. You could probaby describe some of their theories as utopian as well.
But their theories shaped how the world works today.
So today's "utopians" might well shape how the world will work in the future.
Men are too simple to understand women. Sorry.
S. Q. Scameron
Like whether or not it’s morally ok to eat people.
We’re not advocating for it if we believe that it isn’t morally wrong.
MONIKA GARNYS
Sure thing “all caps”.
7:20 Michael sandel begins
That grim look at some peoples face after raising their hands on the question with whom he has more in common his homies or the people in his university, realising there is a little contradiction between that and their statements before.....
It’s about proximity and efficiency, not nationality, that’s just a natural result of the proximity thing.
We’ve sent food from the un straight to warlords so they could divvy it up as they saw fit, which is not a great solution.
What happens if the neediest people are needy because of a situation that makes helping them so much harder.
Prof. Michael says, that those or a person doesn't know with foreigners then should you don't want to love them. If you like them because your mind thinking about expanding their business cultural, why not educated yourself then try to do business with them?
to the question of the food bank my answer would be " they were right to put preference of germany over foreigners. what country would put prefernce of foreigners over their own people when the state is put their for the interes of the people.
I SAY YES. PARENTS HAS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST DUTY TO CARE THEIR KIDS.
also to the state too, right?
competition vs hand-out approaches?
اعتقد بأ الاهمية يجب ان تشمل كل من يسكن المانيا بطريقة شرعية بعيدا عن أي إنتمائية دينية أو سياسية أو عرقية
Who pay?
1:40:51 passage of montesqieu
The love of humanity is a noble sentiment but we live ourlives by smaller solidarities
We learn to love humanity not in general but through its particulars
The students are too sensitive to political correctness and not participating/ contributing well to the discussion.
Yeah! You're right. Harvard students would have had a more objective and rational responses to the professor's question. Too many politically correct students on the stage.
I agree, they are more emotional and a lot less rational in their arguments compared to some of the audiences in other videos of Michael Sandel
The nature of correctness , prevents one from the risks of slings and arrows., hans thin skin...
@Desinformation aus Russland im Bundestagswahlkampf Well, some apparently deem the local history to play a role in the morality and that's interesting - I'd want to know, when does it stop playing a role, and why would it make a difference? One guy felt that it was Germany in particular that should be careful about this type of bias, but I don't really think the lessons of Germany's history are to be simply ignored by the rest of the world because "it wasn't us that done it". Nationalism to the point of delusions of supremacy is still present in many places.
As for missing/evading the point, I think particularly towards the end some of the students just got too comfortable saying whatever came into their heads even if the conversation had long moved on. Still, many things came up that were well expressed and on topic, so good on them.
St Paul didn't carry the Bible in his hand but he Preached the Gospel from the core of his heart where it gets written in the holy spirit, which is common sense. So, the Bible dead letters have nothing to do with the Christianity of heart.
Professor Sandel is doing well with setting up his Lectures like Prince Franz Ferdinand did in his Salons in 🇦🇹 - 🇭🇺 Hungary before his death ruined the progress of the moral debates.
There were many views interpretations justifications opinions shared in this debate... But let's adhere to facts and see majority and maximum people are happy with decisions that are made in public or private ...bahujan hitai bahujan sukhay...
That Jesse guy sounded like Roger Scruton
여기서 배출되는 인재들이 세상을 움직일 것이라는 생각이 들자 마음이 풍요로워진다.
In the intervention of people, somes are showing naivety others are doing hypocrisy.
The indian girl; I am working with indians and some are managers. When it comes to look for junior profiles, first they are looking for indians.
Why ?
I enjoyed this discussion - but note that the views of those on the stage were entirely biased by the fact that this population was entirely made up of liberal arts students - none of whom pay taxes, work support families, and most probably few have assets that would be used to fund their generosity or will ever pay back their student loans.
@ 01:02:07 I love you
prosím rozoberte ekomicku právo od Moderne nad vlády a kolonizácie
What about All kinds of manipulative people, who can pretend to be needy???
For those who might have forgotten. Let me remind you that the matters herby discussed, represent the same ones concerning the matters for which we shall SEEK FIRST, WITHIN the KINGDOM (BEFORE ALL THINGS “ELSE”) as it is written in scripture (🧏🏾
I love how some of these people think
It’s harder to love your neighbour because they’re real.
At 43 minutes currently. I think of the organization of the human body and think that citizenship is somewhat like being apart of a human organ. Individual cells all contribute to the overall success of the human and this is of course a critical point that humanists and globalists espouse. Still, liver cells can not replace the job of heart cells or neurons. If they are able to give sustenance or prevent harm of each other despite being in different organs, this is also valid and important. Differentiation is good and necessary and yet most of the time it's more sensible for one liver cell to support another than it is for a liver cell to support a kidney cell, yet without all of them working together the system will fail. Without this diversity, the whole human can not function and in a way world citizenship would turn us back into amoeba. And yet the stem cells that can dedifferentiate into other cells as needed through out the body akin to refugees are also critically important and further bolster diversification and function of each organ. Ultimately without different cultures and peoples, uniformity would be a demise -- and still we are all part of the same greater organism totally entwined. A bit of a paradox, yet with a simple solution: if we all play are parts perhaps we can survive long enough to *evolve*!
私神リリースグループにソックリ
the black dude in white at the front is hilarious, his reactions are so funny
Anybody else wonder why these mic runners had to use stick to point at people? Why cant they just take it off and hand it out to people? So distracting.
Wish prof.S. Would also ask , don’t we all need to ask ourselves ,this Q:what are the reasons of immigration and poverty …..is it going too far on polices ?!?!
The point i saw nobody made during the whole discussion -
People need identities because it allows them to negotiate power with the Elites & maintain their already uncertain life with some certain hopeful beliefs.
So it's virtuous to have no friends from moral perspective but isn't the choice of having friends or no friends is a choice for privileged ones ? If a person is poor then the individual would have no choice but to engage with his collectivist, tribalistic, natural instincts to survive & thus this argument is a privileged notion of universal identity.
Where did you find all these "students"? Isn't it peculiar that almost 99% had the same opinion about national identity?
1:40:40 Who is Alex guy that Sandel is impressed by?
He's not impressed, he has been pressed!
Who's notice guy in the front row closer to Chinese face girl raising hand on every question?
1:26:47 like? like! like?! like!! like.