TEDxSwarthmore - Barry Schwartz - Why Justice Isn't Enough
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- Whatever else a good society should be, it should be a just society. But what does it mean to say that a society is just? For most people, a just society is one in which people deserve what they get and people get what they deserve. Whereas it may be possible to achieve the first of these goals, it is not possible to achieve the second. This is true when it comes to admission to selective colleges, and it is true when it comes to any form of material success. Lots of people do not get what they deserve. Aside from merit, success depends on luck. If we appreciate the importance of luck in our own lives, we may be more favorably disposed to helping people who deserve success just as much as we do but haven't been as lucky.
Frequent TED and TEDx speaker Barry Schwartz is Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action. His work explores the social and psychological effects of free-market economic institutions on moral, social, and civic concerns. In the book Practical Wisdom (2011), which Schwartz co-wrote with Kenneth Sharpe, William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Political Science, the authors argue that without such wisdom, neither detailed rules nor clever incentives will be enough to solve the problems we face.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
"Again I saw under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favour to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all." Ecclesiastes 9:11. That about sums it all up.
Isn't "bread to the wise", "riches to the intelligent", and "favour to those with knowledge" basically saying the same thing? What's the difference supposed to be? It's like God used a thesaurus to find synonyms for smart.
Alex Foyt knowledge is knowing what to do, intelligence is knowing how to do it, and wisdom is knowing why to do it. If you don't know the difference go watch ted talks. Start with "Our loss of wisdom".
@@SirLeperdy You literally just announced how little knowledge you have of culturally rooted literary method. That was neither wise nor intelligent.
The professor is right on about luck! Imagine being born as a Sudanese refugee in a Kenyan refugee camp. Then imagine that you are a child of Wall Street parents, living in the Upper West Side. One's life will be vastly different, if you have the exact same genes, depending upon those circumstances. Duh, no brainer!
yup.
but people aren't humble enough to acknowledge luck.
The "lottery system" is used in Peru for government official practitioner positions.
I once had the thought that justice is a question of being frugal (sounds so harsh in English, in German i would us the word "genügsam"). When i first came up with a allegory i was simply thinking about live and let live and told myself "It's justices, when: I let as many things live as there could be living, rather than let only thing live that will be living"
The Idea behind this is a simple thing ... If any form of life is on the rise and grows it pushes other life away, it take room from other living things away and make it our own, this of course is a natural thing and probably the real drama if being alive. But every time this happens it also opens up room for new live to take root ... like when trees started to grow open up more space in the height for different types of animals and insects to scatter or simple life-forms using CO2 to grow but also releasing O2 which at the time it happened first was a mayor poison to all the other life-forms only to be the new basis for mayor life. As an "advanced" society we go a bit further and start to shape the nature around us even more with our collective doing. We do not simply take whats there and move on, we safe and hold on to resources and space for our own well-being. And in this we also often try really hard to make other life go away ... we bring out poison to kill rats or insects to safe our food, we hunt dangerous animals to keep our self safe and calm or we blame fight each other because of the fear we could being left out from resources and space. But in all this trying we will actually never really achieve a 100% eradication of "threats" ... can't image a world where we have no rats at all or we will have zero bacteria in our hospitals. That's why as long, as we do not get rid of live as a whole there will always be life at one point or another ... if we like it or not.
So compared to animals that only hunt for a living, as long as i work for my living it's "fair", but when I start to work to eradicate life, it's become something "malicious". Finding a way to strength my body to fight infections? That's cool ... using poison to exterminate specific insects (and more) to make sure a sickness can't spread anymore ... understandable ... but harsh.
Of course all of this only talks about live and let live, it is a really simple analogy, but still I'm quite fond of it (well my thought though) but because my understanding of the term "living" changed a bit over the time ... i like to differentiate between "live and staying alive (in German "leben" and "überleben"). While i can't say i really struggled in life and had to face real hardships i do made experiences with life and death and I think it is appropriate to think about "life" not just as a struggle to go on, find ways to feed you by any means, but also chance to cherish existence. You can't be happy about life when your dead (probably? Maybe? Who knows?) so the life and death struggle is still a mayor thing ... but at some point or another simply staying alive isn't to aspire ... if it's not only for the fact that life itself is finite and will in the end be lost. In medical terms there is often this question about "quality of life" when people are to sick to life much longer and it's probably "better" to just ease their suffering than to prolong it to the maximum. But of course this is an ever-lasting game, not just restricted by age or time, but a part of the whole life of anybody.
If i come back to my analogy i still think that it is important to cherish live ... to let things live as good as it can next to me and not just let the things stay alive i can not get rid off. It does boils down to a lot of aspects to thing about .... what does a victim needs to over-come pain and suffering? What does the culprit can take to keep on living or in most cases even find back to life? How do i keep a society safe but also value the dignity of every individual?
You are right.
islamont: from the perspective of a child who is born - it is luck. Babies are not capitalists, entrepreneurs, or small business owners (but I am, so don't think you are talking to someone on "the other side"). Further, there are millions of people in this world born into oppressive circumstances. A human's environment absolutely and unequivocally has an effect, as does a person's genetic makeup.
Waterloo university does exactly that; except it's weighted.
Has anything changed in last 6 years? Honestly, why this idea wasn't taken up my masses?
I often wish we could forgo the speech and get to point. The point here however would not be palatable for most, its about social control.
I totally agree with this peole need sens, happiness, joy, feelings of importance, be famous, and many other things like love, romance, attention, health, etc....
Does everyone want justice? What can we do, if the authority hate justice or they don't care about it?
Mother Fortuna, O, she makes sisters of us all
Yes the nature of capitalism requires 'winners' and 'losers' as well as the concept of scarcity.
But, how can one say the universe is not evil if you agree there is no justice?
I am still confused
He has turned justice into a flip of a coin... what he fails to realize is that the gripes he has are not with luck, but actually with capitalism - carries on with the same reasoning (flawed or otherwise) that was in his book "Paradox of Choice"
he is a smart man, I think he realizes it. He just doesn't know enough about alternatives to think them valid
Wow, being an investment banker these days seem to be just slightly more respectable than a criminal.
Brick and mortar educational institutions should be replaced by virtual classrooms.
happening now..
Wow man you were real early
Let me bring it up a notch. Even "people get what they deserve" is not enough. There should be "Make everybody deserves." This is what they practise in Scandinavia, consistently regarded as the best countries to live in. But I will let you in a dirty secret, once they create a system like that, they think you only got yourself to blame if you don't get what everybody gets. So, we are back to square one. Human societies are imperfect. Let's just start from individual levels, don't push other people down on your way up, ok?
We KNOW there is no justice. There is whatever there is out there. It's just another concept without a voice. The monetary system creates and distributes 'equity'. Why do we need a system that generates 'winners' and 'losers'? We KNOW the game is rigged, yet we continue to play it as if everyone is on equal footing. I agree with the parent-child analogy, but as long as the rules insist on creating winners and losers, it's a flawed ideology. I'm just going to assume I'm wrong. Thanks.
He defines "equity" his way: deserve what they get. get what they deserve. -->explained with very special examples, so not definit, too broad to be correct! So deserving sth. isnt defined. Related to university system: why even restrictions? you have so big university fees, think about it, you could pay as a little group, more than the professors by yourself, to make them teach you privately! Scarcity, without values to completely decide who deserves the chance, just doesnt need to exist.
I don't really understand what you mean...
So, you're saying the universe is evil, but it is up to us to enforce justice?
If there is no justice in this world, then does it not mean we live in a universe which is unjust, hence, evil?
he doesnt defines what decides what who deserves so the whole speech is based on no foundation.
he has laid it more complete in his book.
Hey TEDx, why don’t you pass the hat? All these high minded idealists lecture the rest of us about not what we should do, but what we should lobby the state to do, and call it morality. If it is moral, then there should be more than a few disciples that would be willing to VOLUNTARILY undertake the task of distributing their own good fortune equitably. Certainly there is someone at Swarthmore, in that very audience, with enough empathy and moral conviction to realize that their position there is not deserved, and therefore would be willing to relinquish it to someone who, according to their moral code, is more deserving…. What no takers? No, the point is to sit on your hands and wait for an election where 51% of the population can choose a government that will REQUIRE people to engage in their moral good, and if they don’t then it’s off to the big house. How is that moral? How is that just? Is the state the only mechanism in society through which you can act? Why is there no mass organization of leftists out there that enacts their egalitarian goals voluntarily? If all these people believe their own rhetoric, you would think they would turn TEDx into a philanthropic enterprise to enact their benevolence on the needy people of the world, but no, its nothing more than a political action committee for the left. Its time the left faced some facts, leftist morality is the morality of force. It is nothing more than an excuse NOT to practice their morality unless all are forced to do likewise.
time out. you built this speech on a story where you utterly mislead someone and commenced capitalizing on the despair disappointment that you created. the father of the daughter, over whom you gaslit, should have had the ware withal to hang up on you.
justice is plenty enough.