Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 05: "HIRED GUNS"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2024
- To register for the 2015 course, visit www.edx.org/course/justice-ha....
PART ONE: HIRED GUNS
During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Professor Sandel asks students whether they consider this policy just. Many do not, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to avoid serving and risking their lives by paying less privileged citizens to fight in their place. This leads to a classroom debate about war and conscription. Is todays voluntary army open to the same objection? Should military service be allocated by the labor market or by conscription? What role should patriotism play, and what are the obligations of citizenship? Is there a civic duty to serve ones country? And are utilitarians and libertarians able to account for this duty?
PART TWO: MOTHERHOOD: FOR SALE
In this lecture, Professor Sandel examines the principle of free-market exchange in light of the contemporary controversy over reproductive rights. Sandel begins with a humorous discussion of the business of egg and sperm donation. He then describes the case of Baby M"-a famous legal battle in the mid-eighties that raised the unsettling question, Who owns a baby?" In 1985, a woman named Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a New Jersey couple, agreeing to be a surrogate mother in exchange for a fee of $10,000. However, after giving birth, Ms. Whitehead decided she wanted to keep the child, and the case went to court. Sandel and students debate the nature of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights.
poor Raul has to tell him his name every class
It's Rahul not raul
😭😂
He might remember Rahoul's name but doesn't want to say it just in case he forgets another student's name who's spoken before? Just a guess anyway.
@@jasminee204 well, I do the same in my class
@@abhinavnagar007 nobody asked
Again we see ma man Raul trying to be remembered by Sandel and we can notice the disapointment on his face whe he is not. Keep trying Raul , you got 14 episodes to go
Y
Came here looking for this comment.
I'm just fascinated, binge watching everything by Michael Sandel like its a Netflix show lol
Binge watching - very interesting collocation. Thank you.
It's better than any Netflix show
Michael Sandel should receive a Nobel Peace prize for his excellent ability to engage young minds into making informed decisions about the fundamental questions of our life in society
+LeFrogCatcher lol. sober up and then start typing
+gandalfs magic wand seriously.. what is that comment even saying??
Yeah even I should get one for commenting here. 😀😀😀
Peter Hoffman agree
@@harch620 lmao
He drifts from one scenario to another introducing a new philosophy asking questions and engaging students in a debate which involves asking more questions and sometimes there is no answer to that question. That is called philosophy, asking questions and debating, and not necessarily finding an answer! Brilliant
I think it’s also called beating about the bush
@@jonting7847 no my dear, beating around the bush has a different meaning!
@@jonting7847 et are yard st say her cxvfh
But some of them answer like that
Actually... The mother got the right to choose after birth... The contract was cancelled... The human value are higher than paper or contract... So in that case philosophy is there are value we can not trade of with money.
This is one of the most fascinating and engaging courses I've come across on UA-cam. I find myself sharing my opinions out loud and wishing I were in that class.
Me too
Same here ✋
@@julietobrado9535 1211111222¹10221111111
Yeeees! I'll pause the video and try to verbalize my opinion as if I were being asked directly lol. We're such nerds 🤣🤣🤣
Same
Raul is the protagonist of this series and Professor Sandel is the antagonist, depriving him of the recognition he desires
His name is Rahul for kind information not raul we indian already know these things as our great Sages have already researched on this a long time ago
RAULLLL
Michael Sandel never said er or um.. in all of his sentences. Which means he is a very professional presenter and citric
he instead takes a pause, i appreciate it a lot.
Take a pause>verbal fillers
@@angelcaicedo6242
Why is that?
He's trained/practiced and is very well read. Also helps when the lecture series is on what his book was on
he did, 15:12
at 13:40 , the coercion is not on the laborer who takes the $300 to go in place of someone who can afford to pay, but rather in the case of someone being nominated to go to war but cannot afford to buy themselves a way out.
Yes, a very important aspect and the decisive difference to the voluntary army today. Today it is not pretended, that their is a 'fair and equal' involvement of all members of society via a lottery, which in the end only ends up being binding for the poor. That is what makes the civil war system very flawed as it pretends to be something that it is not.
It is in fact the same because that laborer ain’t have many options available. Let’s say a janitor doesn’t have many options to pick and choose employers in comparison with a doctor or a software engineer.
Thank u ... I was waiting for someone to give this argument.
39:28 That girl in the back was so shocked to what the speaker said hahaahhahaha
Everyone ignored the fact that she already had 2 children and she did know what she was getting into
@@richardchamblin5097 Seller's remorse
It was all expenses paid which she prob already took advantage of before the baby was born.
@@richardchamblin5097 Actually Michael did mention that but the thought of giving up a child when it happens is still unknown regardless of anything prior to that moment.
hahaha saw that too. Nothing more than just tryna be "cool and edgy," what a clown lol. It's so easy to say something theoretically and when you're just an observer on the sidelines.
Professor's gonna keep asking his name till Raool accepts his name's actually Rahul
HAHA indeed
@@yaminiiiii2213 LMAO nailed it
Haha💯
I actually got the exact amount right, I said 50 thousand dollars immediately when he first asked the question. Seems like I'm a natural talent for foetus pricing.
What’s a foetus
That's a talent
theChartist it's a baby in the womb
😂
@@DoomCycle foetus and fetus are both correct 😉
Raul! If you don't know Raul by now then there is something wrong with you.
I don't know who Raul is... Despite my being slightly offended at your claim that there's something wrong with me, I'm actually curious now. Who is he?
The guy that appears in every class arguing something. His name is Raul!
or Raoul
or joe!
raul is a portuguese or spanish name
12:20 Raoul DOES go for a 3rd attempt to make his name known to the professor. The crowd starts to like it.
love seeing students being able to discuss different viewpoints instead of having shouting matches
Yeah I don’t know why people hate each other for having different opinions in the real world… after all, politics and philosophy is meaningless unless there are multiple competing points of view. That’s what makes these subjects interesting
That's Andrew's challenge
Andrew's face: That's not my challenge
I literally watched this episode to see if the professor remembers Raul’s name..... But damn!!! Poor Raul.
😂😂
Ye Raul hai ki Rahul, looks like a Rahul to me xD
@@solankijimmy bhai wo khud Raoul bolta hai to wahi hoga. Maybe he's indian but now Firangi hawa me ghul gya hai😂
@@asmany405 all Indians outside India
Michael always does a great job extrapolating the thoughts of the students sometimes poorly expressed thoughts. This is the first time I saw an argument go a little side ways it looked like one of the students pointed out the injustice of a poor man being conscripted not having the wealth outsource their duty as compared to say Carnegie but the lecture went sideways and focused on the legitimate transaction between the wealthy and the merc
00:40 - What are the limits on the Govt that even the agreement of the major can't override ?
02:21 - If we agree to the libertarian concept of self-possession then
is it right for govt to send people to fight on borders through coercive legislation? What does Locke say in this regard - 'Arbitraryness' - Locke argues that as long as the action of the state is not arbitrary it is justified.
04:21 - Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and obligation to obey ?
05:35 - Example of US fighting in Iraq - Not enough recruitment - possible options
1. ⬆️ remuneration
2. Lottery Conscription
3. hiring mercenaries
08:59 - Civil war system - Hybrid system - Conscription + buyout
was it a just system ?
11:33 - Riskier jobs are offered to marginal section of society - In this case it is not just to claim that this is choice of that person to accept the riskier job.
it may be socio-economic coercion that unemployment is so rampant for this section that they are coerced to take up any job for money for sustenance. It may look like a free exchange, voluntary but it may be coercion. - this is possible justification for why most of people in army comes from sections having lower economic status
18:26 - Emily's powerful response - that seems totally just too -- Conscription might be better than all-volunteer army system where everyone has sense of responsibility and awareness of conflict rather than few individuals justifying cause of war without sense of responsibility.
21:51 - Should Patriotism be the primary motive behind military services offered by individuals ?
25:54 - V. Imp Question to mull upon - How inequalities in background conditions of society restrict choices that people in regard of buying and selling of labor.
27:44 - Role of Markets in realm of Human reproduction and procreation - advertisement for egg and sperm donors by fertility clinic
- Raising the question that should egg/sperm should or shouldn't be sold or bought for the money ?
33:28 - Case of Commercial surrogate motherhood - After giving birth surrogate mother changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby. - Baby M case
Another question to think about - Can surrogacy and adoption contracts be compared to baby selling?
in Baby M case- Supreme courts took the stand that the contract is not enforceable - Based on the following grounds
1. lack of information regarding bond a mother might develop
2. Courts also equate it to the sale of a Child.
there are some things in a civilized society that money can't buy.
"by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child, It is duly compared to the effort to convert women's labor into a form of alienated labor." - by Elizabeth Anderson
As a former Cav Scout I can tell you there was not one - that is zero - soldiers in my troop that wasn't there for money. Whether it was about financial decisions, or money for college we all joined for the almighty dollar. Yes we love our country. That wasn't why we joined. I don't think the Harvard kids have experienced those gut wrenching economic decisions when the Military is the only job paying enough to survive. Outstanding lectures!
"There is an undeniable emotional bond between mother and child." I would love for this to be the case 100% of the time, but sadly it isn't. Mothers wouldn't leave their babies in trash bins if there was "an undeniable emotional bond."
Yes ,unfortunately, there are parents who leave their children
@Олжас Есенбаев Not necessarily. How many women have babies becuase that's what their family or culture expects of them? And how many of them don't put their babies in the trash simply becuase they're afraid of the repurcussions? I'm guessing a lot, not just a few outliers. Maternal instincts are not universal.
Who is the mother?
The carrier or the egg donor?
@@magnolia8626 saying there's a "standard deviation" is the opposite of saying it's "universal" 🙂
@@liombeendeley2167 I think that's an interesting line of thought. My take: "Mother" is a word, a label that is convenient most of the time. When you start separating out some of a mother's common functions you need to use specific terms (e.g. carrier, egg donor, as you have) or simply adjust for context - e.g. "I inherited a genetic trait from my mother" is clearly referring to the egg donor, while in most social situations "mother" will be the one who raised you.
13:09 That's Emily Riehl. I though I had seen her somewhere before, then I realised she was on Numberphile and she is a Mathematician now.
thanks a lot ! I thought she looked familiar too !!
I just started my masters and i felt this video more engaging and knowledgeable then almost all of my bachelors classes. This was an assignment for my first master class. I hope it follows suite.
I feel like they never got around to the root of the issue concerning the civil war system. The crux of the matter rests on is it right that people can circumvent the equality of law by buying the right to do so?
No money should not be able to buy you freedom from the law
Doesn't the court system allow the rich to often circumvent the law, via a high paid lawyer, e.g. OJ Simpson?
It is not buying your freedom from the law, it is finding others who can fill your spot and perform those duties. You can't just pay a certain amount of money to be liberated from your public duties, but you can persuade another man to willingly fill your duties. The root of the issue is that can your public duties be transferred to another man if the man is more willing to perform those duties, and I believe yes. Because it benefits everybody; the duty is fulfilled and the people are protected; the man serving is happy as he got his money; the man not serving is happy as he no longer risks losing his life. In other circumstances this isn't acceptable, for instance, you can't just pay a certain amount of money to neglect your duty to wear a mask, because no one is there to fill your spot, since if someone did, then another person will have to fill their spot, and so on. But yes, no money should be able to buy your freedom from the law
These students are privileged to have opportunity to sit under such a gifted and stimulating instructor
Never thought I would be so invested his his lectures . I got this on my recommend.. and I binged to this point in one sitting . I absolutely love it. Will definitely continue to follow his lectures
He has written a great book titled "What Money Can't Buy"
talks about the morality of flood insurance, prostitution (as a commodity just like any other) etc.
Written with the same insight and philosophical grounding as seen in these lectures.
His classes are amazing. I am in love with Philosophy, Economics, and Cognitive Neuroscience. In all cases we are challenging these fields in our decision making process.
Sublime! 👽♥️♥️♥️
Dear Harvard.
More of these lectures please! I´m thoroughly enjoying this, as are many of my friends.
greetings from holland
Am I the only one who thinks these lectures are even more exciting than movies ? :)
39:20 the girl in the background is a cracking me up😂😂😂 and all the consequent scenes that follow after that where she talks.
This kid Raul is pretty impressive with his argument! ..I’m rooting for him every time! 👍🏼
Dr. Jacobson was the highlight of the day with his personal touch Lol... Justice Michael classes indeed are the most educational on you tube well done Sir. from Africa. Kenya.
These lectures are exactly what I love to listen to. Thank you!
Fascinating lecture! I wish someone could address the following question: What would happen if the adoptive parents decided that they didn't feel a bond toward the child and renege on the contract? Would the biological mother be required to take care of the child then? Would the contract be unenforceable in such a situation as well using the same objections?
This is an interesting question, I know that some foster parents give back their adopted child to foster care. Again, I think it is a bit different as you can communicate with your future foster child before adopting them so you are more informed about how you would feel raising this child and also I think here time is of importance as well as you need time to develop the bond. Unless you mean if they take a newborn baby in which case I believe the same rules apply as per surrogate mother.
thts the issue being addressed in this movie
@@aarnashah3290 Which movie are you referring to?
@@pawanvora "Mimi" is the movie. I thought I had added the link ig I must hv made a mistake
This scenario happened in the late 1980s. Look up the Nowakowski case. The surrogate mother became pregnant, not with a singleton, but with twins, a boy and a girl. The biological father and his wife wanted only the girl; they rejected the baby boy. The baby girl went to live with them, and the baby boy went into foster care. The surrogate mother, Patty Nowakowski, and her husband were so distraught about the twins being separated that they hired lawyers to get the baby girl back and get the baby boy out of foster care. The Nowakowskis (God bless them) raised the twins along with their own biological children.
College kids talking about the motivations of the military is adorable... their innocent naivety warms my heart and proves they are worth defending lol... but no matter what brings you on to the battlefield, things like money and patriotism become incidental details fast. You fight for the person next to you who is keeping you alive. That isn’t a moral statement, just a statement about battlefield psychology so to speak. Whether the mission everyone is out defending each other on is just or not is a decision Raul was supposed to have voted on before we went (assuming he was 18).
Yeah why didn’t Rahul just stop the war? Such a naive little kid 🥵
They don't know shit about the matter...
Raoul is always in it and Sandel can never be bothered remembering his name haha
Very interesting courses on youtube. And Im glued on my tablet watching Prof Sandel hour after hour!
By far this was the most interesting video in series (don't know about next, now), I hope more people will watch this
Any philosphy ending up with a state where propety is sacrosanct yet life can be taken sounds sorely lacking to me !
***** well put. You must not be from America!
Gameboob
Good guess. But not really a guess ?
You might be able to tell from my typing accent.
cheers
Life? Are you a vegetarian?
"...no guns, no schoolshooting, but i understand if there are alligators, then we have to defend ourselves from alligators
Must be the coolest Professor I have seen. Crowd control at its finest! Smarter than expected. Wow! He could be an actor in a movie. Acting as scientist.
At 11:00, I think Sandel misinterprets Sam's argument.
I think Sam is saying that if a poor person loses the lottery and must buy their way out, and they can't afford that, then they are effectively forced to serve in the military.
What I think Sandel is interpreting Sam to have said is that if a poor person does not lose the lottery but is so poor as to need the money they could earn from serving as a substitute, that person is coerced into serving.
I think Sandel's interpretation fails: if you get offered two jobs "A" and "B", both paying well enough that you escape your situation of need if you take either one, and each requiring enough of your time that you can't take the other, what are you coerced into doing? Nothing? Taking none? Taking both? Taking job A?
I think the right answer is that you're required by necessity to choose a job and take it. But that means, in the military example, that to the extent those who don't lose the lottery have other acceptable job offers available, they are not coerced.
Note also it is the poverty of the person which determines whether or not something is required by necessity: if the payment for job A is large enough to alleviate the necessity, having job B pay more than job A does not make taking job B more required than taking job A-since it is the necessity which brings about the requirement, it is the alleviation of the necessity, which both jobs do, which removes the requirement. (Of course, if you're poor you might run into future necessities and be more likely to take the higher paying job to shield against that, but that is a different scenario.)
Same thoughts!
Agreed, I noticed that too. Sandel was (unintentionally) quick to interpret what Sam said (which would be against a system of full or semi-conscription) to mean what he believes in (the unfairness of a free-market system). It's amazing to me that the definition of words as simple as consent and coercion can be hammered enough to try to make the case that conscription doesn't count as coercion, but a free-market system does!
👍
Excellent teaching & learning atmosphere.
When he said "let alone a general" all I could think of was the classic "potion seller" skit. The phrase "let alone ____" is forever linked to that skit (for better or worse depending on one's personal inclinations). Thanks, Justin Kuritzkes, you absolute legend.
I'm truly enjoying these lectures. Thanks for the video
Patriotism is essentially intrinsic motivation whereas being paid to go fight in a war is an extrinsic motivation. They are *both* motivational factors that drives an individual to do something and are both valid motivational factors. You simply cannot argue that one is better than the other, as honestly there isn't one that is better as it is entirely dependent on the individual, the activity, etc etc.
I'm amazed at that poll. That says a lot about the general view of recruitement for the army. Most Harvard students have family in the army. Very amazing. I would want to see an explanation for that.
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
Knowledge educate growing attitude and attitude growth everything. Thank you somuch.
I agree entirely. He's has a very bright set of student's. However, one still requires the ability to engage. I like his method of teaching . He doesn't simply 'lecture'.
Paying the other person to fight for you if drafted is fair for both parties, but extremely unfair to others who are drafted who can't afford to pay someone.
This is gem of courses, greatful HLS
I would rather to have professors who are able to give more interesting and fascinating lectures!
Best reaction shot: 39:22 The shocked look of the girl over her right shoulder at her comment.
44:44 Vivian FTW!
"Cause that what happens..."
LOL
Harvard, MORE, please?
A lot of people seem to be arguing about the emotional welfare of the biological mother, but don't talk about the emotions of the wife who couldn't bear children, who had to ask another woman for help, but then that woman backed out on her and essentially tried to take the child that this other woman may have been trying for years to have.
Exactly, it could've at least been mentioned. But no.
yeap! Just finished watching and kept thinking the same.
I guess that the arguments of this discussion were not balanced at all.
I could see the lecturer not mentioning a point he may not support -- though his behaviour so far was quite neutral. Still, not even the students.
Same thoughts here. The previous episodes were quite balanced, but in this one, the discussion was steered to let one view predominate, I felt. The next few episodes might offer a counter argument, but here, it felt like the conclusion was all forms of surrogacy and sperm donation are objectionable.
Because it's Irrelevant .
yes in this session there is no case made for utilitarianism
The Consent by Majority in Politics and Decision by the legitimate Government
This is engaging and so necessary... To insatiable minds anyway. Enjoying it like it were a great show.
Lovely lectures with most engaging topics of life and reason.:)
Proposal: "Suppose that a US citizen sold his/her right to vote to an illegal immigrant. Is that ethical?"
Market forces should apply here too, in a free society.
Surrogate mother Mary
I'm really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist. ...depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ... I have gone to join University if I am that lucky. I have my surrogated child had a better life. The mindset of mother's rights to sell your own selling. Selling baby contract.
Emotional blackmail.
I like that the professor takes all points
I love his lessons , every time
I would LOVE going to class if he was my professor.
Michael Sandel: What is your name?
Raul: Raul
Michael Sandel: Just accept it!
Raul: Accept what?
Michael Sandel: That your name is actually Rahul!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@doesitmatter1409 lol thanks for laughing
I Love Catherine's content with her response
Certain goods can't be the price of money but must be treasured with love, honor, & respect.
Sandel: "Who has an answer to that?"
Raul: pick me pick me
Raul: "I agree with him"
-_-
damn - emily kicked everyone's ass.
I wonder what is she doing now.
Awwwwsome. This is a brilliant professor. Those who have this gentleman as a teacher do not ask question just thank God and run with it. May God bless him and his family eternally.
I think this is the best part so far
that girl behind kathline is appalled by her answer and the ruthlessness in the way she says the contract needs to be enforced here :v
Andrew's the lucky star ✨
He even got credit for the 1st argument which he didn't make.
39:20......That face in the background says it all.
Good Professor. Very good.
He is a Lannister!
Yeah, I bet. I'm just saying that there needs to be more professors like him in universities. It would really encourage students to come to class with the way that he teaches.
Your doing great prestation sir.
Now that is a charismatic professor.
In the case of Carnegie and hybrid approach to the northern military, is it not unjust because it allows those who gain the most from the consensual majority to continue benefiting notwithstanding responsibility?
I feel like Professor Sandel is silently judging most of these students.
If it doesn't bother you, I want to ask why?
I just think it's kind of funny. Also I write it because not all of these students are the smartest.
+WittowBudduh yes, but most students are smart
+WittowBudduh Hehe this is exactly my thought. I read a lot about safe spaces and such crap and in the Czech Republic I would be realy disturbed if would proffesor stare on me this way. He is very charismatic.
Mary Quantrell
hop
That’s funny as shit he just distinguished them all as upper middle class/rich in one question about the military and family.
I remember reading about Jacobson in the newspaper and the key thing that was discussed was the children's rights to child support from the father.
In the discussion of the 'civil war' conscription system, I felt one argument was overlooked. By giving the poor the option to be 'bought' the government actually places a burden upon them - similar to "allowing" children the right to work in a factory - as was the case in America's industrialization period. Removing the option for being bought is the most ethical choice.
can't believe this 12 year old comment doesn't have more likes. I like this point a lot! It's very important.
He is Tywin Lannister with Stuarts (from Big Bang Theory) mannerisms. XD
11:04 He's so nervous, he's literally shaking.
But still I am impressed how he always picks up on the different names throughout the whole discourse.
The coercion isn't of the person giving consent to fight. The coercion is of the draftee who cannot pay a consenting individual and who does not give any explicit consent to risk their life. Carnegie was able to buy his way out of his imposition and yet any regular person would not be able to do that. They are coerced.
I really liked Emily's note on the coercion in modern societies. However, I must admit the whole debate in the first part of this episode makes me sad. It seems that, even for well-educated and self-aware people, war, violence and mutual aggression are unavoidable.
I would prefer to watch a discussion on how to make the world a peaceful place, rather than how to make people fight for something completely worthless.
The only thing left is hope.
You are right we should not think about war and violence anymore but think about if a nation A invades and want to conquer nation B. Even if nation B is pacific it has to defend itself and recruiting soldier if pheraps it didn't have any in the first place. And therefore you have a debate to who should go defend the country
With respect and honor. To the great teacher Michael. .Danlet. ...Is Wonderful to hear you about The. Militar y Case . .... civil. Voluntary. And patriótic ..Army. ........
1) .......congratulation every students for learning More about justice World . ..Is very important in. America ....in the whole World.......
2). The just for every human people... Is very important. .
3) my opinión Is. .. every militar e.
Civil or patriot ........or diferent workeng in the war. .......this soldiers
Give to us freedom and change His life ..for other. .........
4) if we had moral. We understand
We not Pay the life with all money the life....to them .... .......militar y
5) justice. >> .if we know .300 hundree or More Is nothing for change His Brain when they come back the war .. Sicholigiaca mente. ..the Brain Is not the
sean.... >. money Is nothing for Pay
to them ...they need More confort life. When they come back the war ........
Thank you. Sir. Teacher Michael God bless for yours. Class .and God bless for open mind. And make Senses. Justice. ..
Finally an episode I can fully understand 😅
What I would say on the surrogate mother case:
"Contracts are only valid as long as they are legal. I can't make a contract with person A that I will murder person B, and it won't be valid in the eyes of the law. You cannot make a contract that is inconstitutionnal, much like Locke said that the fundamental right to self ownership is unalienable. If it can be demonstrated that taking away a child from her mother, without her consent, is against the chart of fundamental right by the UN or by the states, then this contract is invalidated. I still think that the couple that bought the surrogate pregnancy should be refunded in full".
And I quote the universal chart of human rights that is upheld by the united nations, whcih the USA is a part of and should enforce; article 14: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
So, even by the liberalist point of view, unalienable rights are being violated by this contract, rendering it invalid.
***** I guess it would be my conclusion, yeah.
+GregTom2 Same case came in a Indian court , judge also made the same decision that It is against of the fundamental right of the child .
食物治病法
37:18 is the only person till episode 5 who tells his second name as well..
Volunter Army is the best.The Army is managed by the Government and Patriotrism is the Motivating factor
These lecture r creating more confusion than clarity ...still enjoying
These students seem to be failing to see why the civil war system was a violation of the social contract. If, by Locke's logic, conscription is justified if and when it is not arbitrary, then the civil war system violates this principle. The difference is that rather than making the conscription an arbitrary governmental decision, individuals are chosen arbitrarily by those with economic advantage. If the goal of justifying conscription is to make sure it is not an arbitrary system, should it be permissible for those with economic advantage to use said advantage to avoid civic duty?
i second that
Binge watching these videos, and I do see that the process which was by a general law, and not arbit, is suddenly tilted against those who are worse off in the society.
Didn’t he say those who want the money go in payers’ place? How’s that arbitrary?
Add to that, that "non-arbitrary" law, arbitrarily exclude half the population, the female population, from ever being drafted.
39:21 look at the reaction of the girl in the background
That is hysterical
It's a meme on its own😂
My, how drastically the tides have turned when it comes to surrogacy. It's so commonplace now. compared to the brand newness with which some of these students are describing it as
The conscription system with buyout is MORE UNJUST than regular conscription, because in a conscription system, everyone has equal probability of being sent to war, but in the civil war system,
a. If a wealthy person gets drafted, he doesn't have to go to war, he simply buys out a substitute who is in desperate need of money.
b. If a poor gets drafted, he would have no option afterall but to go to war.
So, it not just includes the factor of COERCION but also the UNJUST system that reflects discrimination .
How does Professor Sandel still not remember Raúl’s name? 😂
the dude has a lot to remember hahahaa
Nicole Fry Yeah, I suppose you’re right.
Probably cant even see him
With regards to the Motherhood lecture (considering the scenario given, and not the outcome that occurred after the contract was invalidated).
If contracts lose their credibility over someone's feelings and lack of emotional awareness, however strong they may be, how far can this go?
I also question why the feelings of the non-biological parents aren't factored in.
-Mrs Stern had Multiple Sclerosis, so chose not to have her own baby. Imagine that feeling; giving birth would mean a difficult life for the child, so you choose a surrogate. Nine months preparing to find out you still can't have a child.
-Mr Stern gave a part of his being, his sperm, on the condition that he would receive the child. In voiding the contract, you are violating his right to his own body.
It's presumptuous to only consider the feelings on one individual involved. Personally, I believe a compromise should be made in such cases; e.g. monetary compensation or split custody.
What about the right of surrogate’s husband? Did he want the child? Could he file for divorce on the grounds of adultery?