Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2009
- To register for the 2015 course, visit www.edx.org/course/justice-ha....
ART ONE: WHATS A FAIR START?
Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy-a distributive system that rewards effort-doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.
PART TWO: WHAT DO WE DESERVE?
Professor Sandel recaps how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed, according to the three different theories raised so far in class. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and John Rawlss egalitarian theory. Sandel then launches a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor ($200,000) with the salary of televisions Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not. Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts-luck, genes, and family circumstances-for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they werent born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with societys inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.
It's really nice that such a wonderful lecture is available for anyone with an internet connection.
Imagine going to a college lecture where students clap at the end.
I agree and for the less fortunate to see that those above you are not necessarily smarter than you.
Great lectures until trying to fix the injustice from "nature" (God). Life is a gift from God. In Matthew 20:1 "The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" Jesus talks about the unfair gifts from God. May God bless American.
Internet connection could be a problem for some
@@andrewmolino5995 You should ask your school for your money back
Man, this lecture hits hard.
I know which percent I came from.
Rawls perspective really changed the way I thought about talent and merits .. the fact that society plays a huge role in determining the distribution of opportunities and wealth based on its requirements and can be variable to a large extent.. great lecture!
Rawls way is also highly hypocritical. How much money do you think he has given to the "less fortunate"? Big fat zero.
It's easy arguing for fairness to take the moral high ground while actually doing none of it at all.
Dangerous hypocrisy.
@@markarmage3776 if he hasn’t given some of his money to the poor then that’s not good, but let’s not use ad hominem here. His idea still may be a good one even if he doesn’t fully practice what he preaches. I don’t think that the argument of hypocrisy is enough to excuse his ideas. That’s like saying we should throw out the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, because they focus heavily on freedom and the founding fathers owned slaves.
@@markarmage3776 the hypocrisy of the person making a claim, doesn't make the claim any less true. There are some exception like if someone falsley claims to be a doctor and makes factual claims.
@@markarmage3776 Rawl's argument is also based on the presupposition that natural "unfairness" is inherently wrong and needs to be corrected. Why? Some people come from generational poverty. Some from generational wealth. It's a natural unfairness. But should we take generational wealth and redistribute it to those coming from generational poverty? What's "fair" about that? Why is it not better to establish a society where someone coming from generational poverty can begin establishing generational wealth knowing that it will be their great grandchildren who will truly get the benefits of their efforts? I think it's a commendable goal. The problem with equality of outcome is that it must be heavily regulated, it keeps anyone from being able to move ahead which is arguably a detriment to society as a whole, and is ultimately an unrealistic goal. Natural unfairness is natural, and the free market can create solutions to lessen that unfairness, but natural unfairness is not inherently "bad". It's just a natural outcome of a truly free society. I personally hold freedom at a higher importance than some unnatural, enforced "fairness", even though their are unfortunate outcomes in a free society.
In India Rawls' idea of justice scheme was employed by the Mandal commission much before they gained popularity in the west.
It is fair to say that the experiment has not worked out as intended after 40 years of it's implementation.
He raises interesting questions but his solutions assume too much and should not be seen as justified belief. Sadly they are too charming for the justice seeking younglings.
Absolutely brilliant that these lectures are freely available on line - if more Universities would do the same, the world would most certainly be a better place
😊😊
Although I have a degree I most certainly was never exposed to such wonderful lectures. I have now watch professors from Princeton (Physics, Mathematics), Berkely (Biology & Biochemestry), MIT (Mathematics), Harvard (Phylosophy and debates)
I so wish these videos were available when I attended school. I'm convinced that someone out there is getting a top notch education strictly by watching videos.
Yes
@Jorge Ramos can you help me find other such playlists ? (of any topics you mentioned ) thanks
@@tayabaashfaq9540 mitopencourseware
Me here.
@@tayabaashfaq9540 My apologies I just saw your message. Most top universities have lectures posted on UA-cam. Simply do a search on UA-cam/university and courses will pop-up. Good luck!!!
Hey guys. Remember Michael Sandel made an entire book criticizing Rawls's theory of justice. So, the debate is not trying to indoctrinate anything as it may look like. Its get hotter because people often do not trust theories that say that they do not deserve the fruits of their efforts entirely. Sandel was simple showing Rawl's arguments over Mike.
what was his criticism?
@@kandalaambarish4341 you can check it out in his book " liberalism and limits of justice", i do not think i can sumarize it in a UA-cam coment. But he does not agree with Rawls "veil of ignorance" mental experiment. For Sandel moral and justice comes out with democratic debate and political open discussions, not from an atomic mental experiment.
For deeper aproach you can see Rainer Forst book "context of justice".
I hope i helped :)
Dnes 2020 budú podať všetci generáli štáty
Neviem komu v hlave zas chce kupovať vojenské lietadla nad morne a komu sa chce plávať ktorým generálom mimo BA strato sféru
Bro respect for Gabriel for answering a comment after 2 years of his first post. I’m a conservative and I do like Sandel, just how there is diversity of thoughts and ideas I may have my own opinions and I have very contradictory ideas from John Rawls ideas
@howzbyu1 it’s a bit objective to say that because I have some form of criticism of Sandel must have any influence on my political ideology
Sandel is surgical. Mike started out so optimistic.
23:09 I didn't know what to expect. I knew by his face he was expecting something, but my jaw DROPPED.
I had heard it from Dr Sowell and his books.
Incredible class. Mr. Sandel, your book on the moral limits of markets should be required reading in all economic and business degrees. I'm an economics grade student and I've recommended it to peers and professors.
My mail. ---- according to advisor(?) I. received confirmation of admissions to every single ivy league law school.....sandy lai
Well. If you believe in the best value you can give someone is money, you need to check your moral and intellectual capacity. He is NOT the problem here.
Times have changed for the better in those regards!!!
။ာငုငငာင
The lectures are lively, freaking awesome!! When you are lost in it you forget about time. These are thought-provoking and engaging.
There was always a thought in the back of my mind that Sandel looked disturbingly familiar.
I just now realized why: he looks like a younger Tywin Lannister!
Thank you my man for hitting me with an awhhhhhh moment.
sheldon
Can't unsee it now.
Tom Virtue
Haha... Nooooo.. I kinda have crush on Sandel..
John Rawls idea of whether are or not effort is worth more than social status was interesting. It gives one something to deliberate on.
The video is part of a series of lectures, it is not a debate. He is taking single theories, one at a time, and basing his answers on that theory to help the students develop their understanding. He does the same thing when discussing libertarianism, utilitarianism and such like. It is not his own opinion or bias.
Of course 7years ago person
@@randomstranger8081 In other news, water is wet.
@@suezsiren117 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Michael Sandel is so articulate! So much hard work must be paid for that level of skill!
Genius helps. He is a hard worker. He was a Rhodes Scholar and always a great scholar.
Mike smiled a victory smile at 15:15, before he knew his ass would be handed to him later on :) . Especially when prof Michael Sandel had a show of hands to see who were the first born. Mike raised his hand and realized that the so called individual effort he did to get to Harvard, although commendable, was not his sole responsibility. There are innumerable factors that contribute to your success and many are not your doing. Hence solely merit base societies failed to recognize that most people don't get the same starting point of support.
(y)
Sorry for being an archeologist, but the problem I see there is that a correlation is being shown between being first-born and getting to Harvard on that particular lecture. You would need to prove that this also shows a correlation to being able to put more effort, a correlation to be able to achieve success (maybe their younger brothers and sisters ended even better?), and that someone who puts more effort into his life and achieves success is actually happier, or otherwise rewarded better than someone who lived a simply life with simple, low rewards.
So let's say I'm a younger brother of a Harvard graduate and somehow it made me not go to Harvard, not learn a lot, but I still had a lot of fun in my life, have a loving wife and children and I regret nothing and I wouldn't want to trade places with my brother.
Or let's say I'm a younger child, so parents took more care into raising me. They didn't want to repeat any mistakes, they always protected me in an argument against my brother, because I'm younger and need more care etc. In the end I am spoiled, I have everything I want, I become lazy and careless. So I don't care a lot about education and at the point I could try to get to Harvard, even if I wanted to, it would already be too late, because I'm too stupid. So what I want to present here is, should a society tax a man of success, even if his head-start wasn't a genetic advantage, wasn't money, but paradoxically it was harsh circumstances that hardened him up and made him put a lot of effort into fulfilling his ambitions by sacrificing his youth, while someone who had great childhood, became spoiled, when being a teenage had a lot of fun, should be considered someone who had a bad start, because by actually giving him everything he wanted, he wasn't incentivized to put any effort to life, so he ended in a worse situation than a person that worked hard?
Both situations don't present what's actually happening, it's just a thought experiment. I think meritocracy is cool, but once you start arguing that even those that put more effort into life in order to achieve something, put the effort because of the particular start they got, you're stepping into the slippery slope of determinism, where we don't have a free will, because everything we do is an effect of what happened before.
that mike dude is such an archetype
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes.
If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
@@MikkoHaavisto1 that's actually not true... loads of people are born psychopaths and loads of people are born psychopaths into shitty environmental situations... and yet there are extremely few active serial killers every year... also not to mention that your running into a fundamental flaw in using a serial killer... your using a person who's mental status is typically extremely rare and that has a predisposition toward inability to control impulse... so yes with all those factors added in like the inability to control impulse along with the up bringing and the Gene's you are likely to achieve a similar result... however to apply that to someone without the predisposition to lack impulse control you run into the problem of free will and choice durring times of impulse
Wow this is deep i'm loving these debates! Maybe in another life i'll hit the socioeconomic jackpot and go to Harvard
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children should raise their hand... this is actually below the average of first order and only children in America. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children.
actually they are
Brooke Bingham same here
Brooke Bingham you're right its really awesome by speech.
I know right! I have been watching this entire series since episode 1 and it is giving me ideas.
The look on their faces their 'legitimate' expectations and 'efforts' slowly shatters 😅
50:00 the faces of all... "first born" make my day. I am still studying Rawls, but it is already one of the best theories I have found.
.............
Perhaps the most important of this series of incredible lectures. ALL politicians and leaders should be required to know this by heart.
Hope your last words for all of your students will be prophetic for them to become the best of these society! Congratulations Professor! You are a fantastic teacher!
This session has made me question so much of what I've believed in so far.
I was fortunate to have a similarly great professor, even more than one, but I have learned to appreciate what I had as I get I older. In fact I have gone back to my notes. Sandel is marvelous. What a joy this is.
Prof. Sandel makes art out of this classroom, amazingly well-done from an educative standpoint...
Watching, absorbing & understanding. It takes an effort to even understand each sentence in these lectures but it is worth it.
one of the best lectures in this series. most relevant.
A truly amazing lecture
Who else became a Rawlsian through these lectures (+Sandel's books)?
so Michael remembers Marcus's name up front but doesn't remember Rahul's. Damn
lmfao...
Honestly lol
I think the core of the debate around min 20 to 24 (shortly before the break) is that we value results more than effort. If we would really be able to assess effort regardless of results equally the starting point and therefore location of the finish line wouldn''t matter anymore, still it would maybe prevent us as a society to raise to the top, so I think Rawls school of thought is persuasive also the way of distribution opens up a vast range of questions regarding justice again
Well said my friend,
Thank you for taking the time to share your reflection!
I find myself actually clapping at the end of this magnificent lecture.
This man has answer for every question comes in his way
I many ways, I believe that what is fair is society coming together to share. Beside economics and sociocultural factors, some people are born with some physical disabilities that inhibit their abilities to progress. That is why the ultimate theory should be taking care of each other to be better off.
This is my favorite so far.
This lecture should be highlighted for our country right now as we try to determine a way forward out of this global pandemic. An informed public is necessary for a solid solution forward. Education system has done our country harm by politicizing our education. We would’ve benefited far more from an educated population over an egotistical consumer driven society.
Thanks for posting these clips and for the great summaries
The quotation we find of John Rawis at 46:46 regarding entitlement vs. worthiness mimics King Solomon's observations, which reads
I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Ecclesiastes 9:11
Talk about "the veil of ignorance", effort != production... I could try really really hard to be a professional basketball player but not be good enough for people to pay to watch. Michael Jordan is a great example since he never really had to try as hard as everyone else to get good, so he says in his biography. He played because his brother liked it, and he was better at it naturally. He admits his fortune, being 6'6" from a family all under 6' tall.
It should be noted that there's a huge difference between effort and product, and I would have liked to have seen the distinction made
He does address this distinction in the lecture, yes
@@juliafrancone3116 I must've missed it then lol
I agree! I would like to see a clear seperation beteenn effort and actual product of your work.
@@paxdriver it’s around 40 minutes in...
@@hugomuller7332 one example is the big, strong carpenter putting up 4 walls in a few hours and doesn’t break a sweat- and the weak, small carpenter taking 3 days to put up the walls.
watching these episodes i learnt more things than in my University
What impresses me the most about this lecture, is how the professor has a slide for every point brought up by students. For example, the meritocracy debate. It's as if the lecturer has done this for long enough that he's seen everything the students will possibly come up with.
exactly
No Ads, Free to download, Wow Iam so Grateful! Thank you Harvard
É imensamente gratificante assistir a este curso da Harvard. Parabenizo esta brilhante iniciativa.
Excellent debates, I'm from Brazil, I'm watching to learn English.
Listening these lectures like our dreams come true 🙏🙏
It would be awesome if I left the lecture room and my students clapped for me. Such an inspirational professor.
It such a privilege for me to sit in my house in Ireland and watch this enlightening lecture from Harvard in America.
I wonder where the students are now and what are they doing?
crying girl at 43:26 . hearing wisdom so great it makes you emotional!! lets be honest, If i was lucky enough to be in professor Sandel's lectures i would be crying too.
It's the best I've been seeing I learned in a lot thank you Mr. Sandra thank you
Rawls' description of markets reminds me of neural networks. Neural networks describe patterns extremely accurately, but they base a lot of outposts on factors that really shouldn't matter (e.g being born first as a factor)
I THINK THE MAJORITY WERE QUITE SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT THEY MAY NOT MERITED THEIR PLACE AT HARVARD. IT'S A TOUGH TALL FIRST TIME ROUND.
It's also bullshit... which could explain the suprise they felt...
its not bullshit
@@wade2bosh but it is...
@@Still_who_Iam What a compelling counterargument, Jacob.
@@RashidMBey its neither an argument nor counterargument... for it to be a counter there would have to be one made in the first place... there isnt... for it to be an argument it would have to be me attempting to prove or disprove a point. I did neither. What I did was a statement.
Sandel gives the best two burrrns ever!!! Don't argue with a philosopher, lol
I love 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel , for taking the bell of ignorance , his teaching is brilliant, even those who are mentally challenged, can understand his teaching, he explained so clear and simple, i wish every teacher was like him, is true that loving law helps, we all are like that , if we like the subject matter we pay attention, because we find pasión on learning, thank you 💕😊 professor Michael Sandel, you are my hero who took the bell of ignorance away from me and help me be in the real world
this was the best lecture in this series
The problem that occurs when someone makes 25 million dollars in a year is that this can be used for political power. Just living in a 25 million dollar mansion harms no one but the power that comes from this wealth empowers one to assert their political power over others.
Some interesting aspects, but In considering justice - Why focus on winning races?
Races are, by definition, one winner.
Existence isn't like that.
We do all exist.
There does not need to be, one winner.
Existence does not need to be a competition.
The very notion of "winning" is anathema to justice in this sense.
We can all freely enter into various sorts of races.
Many of us do so in the full knowledge that we will never "win".
It is our own personal performance, our out there doing it, and our personal improvement that interests us.
In a world of infinite possibility, and finite people, we can all find things that interest us, are meaningful to us.
What seems most important in terms of justice is having the resources, tools, and freedom to invest our existence in whatever way we responsibly choose.
We are now in an age of exponentially expanding computation and automation.
We are not short of energy - there is ample sunlight for every person on the planet to have what any westerner would consider a high basic standard of living. Beyond that basic, there need be no hard limit. Certainly limits on how much energy we can use on the planet, and if we go into space, the sun has enough energy for very person to have as much as humanity as a whole currently uses. That is not a practical limit at this time.
We are not short of matter.
We live on a massive ball of it, and another one orbits nearby.
Most people only need a few tens of tons of mass to do all they reasonable want to do.
Our current economic system does not deliver that sort of justice.
We have the technology to easily deliver that sort of justice.
Automation allows us to produce all that most people reasonably want, with no need to involve anyone else.
That sort of production was never an option in our past.
Our economic system cannot deal with that sort of universal abundance.
Sandel's thinking is trapped inside a market capitalist box.
Markets cannot give a positive value to universal abundance.
Most people strongly value universal abundance (think of air - vital to all of us, universally abundant, zero market value).
Automation allows us to produce a vast set of goods and services in the same sort of abundance as air.
But markets will always work against such universal abundance, as it destroys market value.
Hence we see an explosion of Intellectual Property (IP) laws - that serve no real purpose other than to maintain scarcity for the masses, and thereby deliver value to the few.
Markets undoubtedly had utility in an age when most things were genuinely scarce.
Automation and universal abundance changes everything.
Kinda - I think we have the ability to influence our development through the exercise of free will, and at the same time I acknowledge the profound complexity (on many levels) of both our genetic and cultural heritages, and the vast array of subconscious processes required for consciousness to exist.
So yes - choice and free will are important, and all human beings exist in complex realities with many different aspects, physical, biological, social, cultural, conceptual, strategic, ....
Individuals are important, and no individual will survive for long without a social and technological context.
So I don't really fit neatly in the existentialist camp, and I am perhaps closer to that camp than any other.
Winning is like existing. Biologically speaking, the more we are alive, the more we are the winners. The more offspring we have who in turn have their offspring, the more, the winners we are.
I do not think we can automate everything and then redistribute wealth so that everyone has what they can possibly need. Factories will just shutdown. CEOs might want to stop working.
Society should reward those whose natural talents serve the society and in turn those who have those natural talents should help others. That is the right way to do things. I agree with John Rawls.
You are right though. A society that which rewards all types of talents would be good as well. I think we do more or less that. And might be a good idea to improve on that.
That is a good point - it questions whether societal life should be considered as a game, and in particular, a competitive game.
I really can’t express in words how focused I am in the task asked of me, I can’t continue tell translating is satisfying
None of these professors ever give up their positions to those that were less lucky than them. Got to love it
Please live and teach for a long time, I really would love to be your student some day
Luck definitely has a lot to do with success - being born in the upper quartile, first born, healthy, athletic, smart, and so on. But I would argue that its not only luck or accident that people find success. A lot of people are born with all the advantages in life and yet they do not seize the opportunities of those gifts, and there are those that didn't have great backgrounds who were able to improve their station in life by hard work and some smarts.
A corollary of this deterministic view point is that criminals in prison are not responsible for their actions that led them to that situation - it's my parents fault, we were poor, I got in with the wrong crowd, my teachers didn't care, nobody helped me, so on and so forth. In a way it is in conflict with Kant's philosophy of freedom - we have the freedom to choose our morality and our principles. Those correct morals and principles when lived with consistency do have consequences that enable people to achieve their goals. There are lazy talented rich kids who squander their lives, and there are average hardworking poor kids who carve their own path to success. The capacity for self-determination and inward drive are not arbitrarily assigned, it exist within each and every one of us. It's a choice.
The problem is, for affluent/rich kids who do have the correct morals and principles.. their chances of failure are next to none. Given a sample size of the poor and underprivileged kids with a decent head on their shoulders and excellent morals and principles, there are certain limiting factors that will undoubtedly prevent them from achieving any real success, for example: insufficient family income for basic necessities, living in a less developed nation (remember, we're speaking on a global scale), deficient education systems, lack of healthcare etc etc.. I'm sure you understand.
In my humble points of view, Rawls has made him clear that Justice is only about the design of system and administration. And the basis for Justice are clear: 1, we should be guaranteed to have the equal basic human rights; 2, difference principle. So criminals have impaired people's basic rights, which violates the first principle of Justice. Therefore, criminals are entitled to be punished. But, they are not moral desert to be criminals, as the fact that all the inner or outer environments are contingencies that are not decided by themselves.
And I do not think it goes agains Kant's idea of freedom. We do have the freedom to choose to perform moral duty or our own desires. Still, those criminals who, apparently chose to perform their desires, are entitled to be punished, but not morally desert.
Being first-born showed nothing. But the truth is that you don't "choose" anything in a fundamental sense. Your body is made of fundamental particles, which behave according to the laws of physics. You couldn't have done/thought/wanted otherwise than you did. You didn't choose any of the facts about your environment and genes.
If you had the exact same genes and environment as a serial killer, you would be him commit the same crimes.
Also, when the criminals do wrong doings to others, they are not respecting the victims freedom, which is in congruence with Kant's moral view (categorically wrong).
You didn't understand Rawl's point of view.
Being lazy is not a real choice, but more a natural inclination.
And nobody proved Kant's autonomy prejudice.
Even AS a consequentialist, I'm cool with this moral system because it's basically just him proposing exactly the consequentialist moral system I use but just saying that it's the one we'd all agree on if we weren't idiots.
This lecture was so helpful. It is so courteous of you that you share this valuable talks in a public domain.
It's not about what works, it's about figuring out - what's just. And "THIS GUY" is helping YOU to understand what the greatest philosophers had come by, he never says they were right. So unless you have a better or more understandable way of exploring and explaining this material to the audience - please do, or send your CV to Harvard to apply for
lecturing about justice.
this is all because people care about themselves more than other strangers.
+Commandos12 The use of the word Strangers is interesting. How about 'others'?
It might also be because of a self-sustaining society. A society where people care more about others than themselves might not be sustainable (since being selfish naturally gives the most rewards and people will inevitably start trying being selfish).
I am going through withdrawals. these videos keep me sane
Dear all great prof.
very sweet good morning.
It is clearing lecturing.
Thank you very much
"It's always so attractive to do good at other people's expense." - Milton Friedman
Well said. lol
"Some people are just cunts." - Grandma Rawlings.
James Rawlings. Lmao...well played, sir.
Roman P reality discredited Friedman
"Its always so attractive to get rich at other peoples expense" -Karl Marx
heh... I'm watching the eighth episode of this "show" today, and I realised they're all about an hour long. I've been watching these for roughly 7 hours in one sitting. cool.
FEELING BLESSED AND HUMBLED BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD 🙏🙏 AND EXPRESSING HEARTFELT GRATITUDE
Sir your justice totally change my life thanks Sir for availing your video for everyone in world
2018 and I wanna know where mike is now? He challenges Rawls in the first quarter of the video.
Mike!!😂 where are you now?!
RIP Mike
I have never felt knowledge so sweet.
This lecture is the best one , hitting hard last 7 min
@xXQuebecRebelXx If you enjoy Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," I'd also recommend Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice," which is a good addition to Rawls work. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize economist.
9:03 Guy thinks he is only in Harvard based on merit and intelligence. Then these kind of people goes on to be part of the ruling/executive minority... sad.
thank you harvard. this is wonderful
What an important class is the last one.Harvard University, thank you enormously for uploading publicly formative material for all.
I don't know if it's just me, but I think this is the best lecture so far of the first 8 episodes I've seen. My mind was blown! I look forward to episode 9.
Question...what is it about being first born that gives people that edge, gives them that Type A personality? Is it a genetic thing, or an environmental thing, where the first born is naturally pushed harder by parents than the younger ones?
Old comment but i'd say its a combination of all those things you mentioned and more instead of a singular metric.
My favorite argument discussed in the lecture is the gambler's argument. So many people buy lottery tickets, invest in the stock market, or otherwise engage in more or less calculated risk, that many would be quite content, from behind the veil of ignorance, to increase the "pot" at stake, even at the cost of reducing equality, so long as the worse outcome available wasn't too horrible. Rawls' strongest claim is the practical "veil of ignorance"; the moralistic disapproval of lotteries and risky gambits seems much more dubious.
The strongest claim that comes from the "veil of ignorance" is how the ones that are fortunate enough to get natural talents (that which the present type of society rewards) may benefit the less fortunate ones. Or even whether it will be right for those who are winning the most (even though they don't win it in a strictly moral way, i.e. based on luck) to help the ones that are are having difficulties?
In ancient times, certain wolves supplicated humans, laying themselves at the feet of said humans. These animals are now known as dogs, and seem to have done quite well for themselves, by and large. Confucius discusses how everyone has a role to play in society, and that it is suitable to play your part well. This honor-based ethos described the rights and duties of all, and could thus be agreed upon in advance, from behind a veil of ignorance.
Aldo Jackson It's that "so long as the worst outcome available wasn't too horrible" clause that's really important. Not to say you were suggesting otherwise, but the economic reality for many people around the world doesn't fit that mold - if it's possible to lift those in extreme poverty out of that poverty, which is rather horrible, through redistribution from the wealth of those who won the "lottery," that seems to me more just than the alternative of letting people take the results of the lottery they got. Even as someone who considers myself a utilitarian, I think it's more desirable and just to have a world in which everyone's utility is above a certain minimum, even if the total utility is lower than it would be in a less egalitarian society where many people live in misery.
Mr Sandel is a terrific teacher!
The ultimate reality on equality!
Effort - if you have a family who support you while you're unemployed you can choose to attend a university to further your occupation. Therefore, you are not starting at 0 someone help you get ahead. I call that the opportunity advantage -
One of the things pointed out in this lecture is how about 75% of the students are first in birth order. Since he didn't clarify whether only children (children with no siblings) should raise their hand... If the students who had no siblings considered themselves to be first in birth order, than 75% is actually below the national average, not above. In other words... they aren't disproportionately made up of first children. But it depends on what the students thought was meant by "first children"
Yes. I thought that too, but had to remind myself that these are undergraduate law students, and statistics may not be their forte (at least not yet.)
Statistically, you could take the argument further and examine whether having familial peers at all is an advantage or a disadvantage ("only child.")
Great points!
This is correct.
In addition, much of the research on birth order effects is questionable precisely because of inadequate control for variables like family size. (There are also endogeneity issues -- birth order may not matter intrinsically, but because of parents' attitudes and other aspects of the environment are affected by birth order. This is less relevant to the moral discussion in the video.)
The unqualified claim that "psychologists say that birth order makes a lot of difference" is misleading. This is far from being the consensus.
first of all, being a the only child might not matter as long as ur the first born( maybe it's not the siblings that cause the extra effort) secondly, 75%is a vague number it isn't like he took a poll. google the facts and you'll find out that what he said has alot of proof from multiple researches. lastly even if that particular research turns out to be false, there are plenty of other evidence that proof factors of natural prowess, which are arbitrary, affects one's social position. in short ur missing the point
True, the psychological claim is very objectionable. But there still remains a philosophical point about circumstances affecting our effort. It is hard to measure what part of our efforts could come from within us, and which ones come from circumstances outside of our control.
In that case, life is like theater, and the best we can do is to fulfill the duty of our office.
Great explanation, very thorough, thank you!
What a high level of thought. So why doesn't this video have at least 1 million in views?
"If an inequality is amoral, then a decision to rectify that inequality is also amoral..."
It doesn't logically follow. Yes, inequality is amoral (neither moral or immoral). However, its precisely what the institutions of society do about it that can be moral or immoral.
So while one person may be gifted, it does not follow that he is morally entitled to be a billionaire, whereas the unlucky person by the accident of birth, starves. Of society allows this, then it is being unjust, immoral.
Personally, I think it's natural for people to feel that having certain favourable traits which lead to success actually confers desert.
It's a bit of a social darwinist position.
Matthew Pritchard Tho we are not referring to success here as an outcome but to the distribution of wealth in the eye of justice. Success when defined philosophically would have another intrinsic value and would be subjective from person to person.
Why do they MORALLY deserve it? What did they DO to deserve having more favorable traits? Why do they deserve it any more than someone would deserve to have won the lottery?
What a great lecture from a great man!
Thanks for this great series, my wife and me love it! One small point of improvement. This episode somehow is protected, and I can't view it on my tv through my mediaplayer. This is the only episode that seems to be protected.
My problem with equal opportunity is that it's not very efficient, or at least opens the door to ineffectiveness.
In our post agricultural society, intelligence and hard-work are the two important traits. Intelligence is largelly genetic, and hard-workedness... also is. Studies of attention deficit suggest that there is a genetic element to that, and that people don't generally decide to work hard or to procrastinate. Work ethics can be taught to children, but that will depend on the familly they are born to.
So in a way, it is also arbitrary to reward hard work.
But it is necessairy. There's only so many intelligent people, and they... have to run everything. Make every decision, view every patient, make all the software, so on. It would be inefficient to let people of lesser intelligence work these jobs, as unfair as it is, and it would be inefficient to let them study these areas only for them to become useless after having spent years getting "equal opportunity education". We need to motivate the talented with incentives: prestige, wealth, power. It's the most efficient way to run society, both for them, and for the untalented.
+GregTom2 it is a very good thing they cannot redistribute our intelligence. They have tried and failed with AA but they keep trying to dig up another way to "redistribute". lol
I agree. That's also getting into Affirmative Action issues. I went to grad school with a woman that got in under AA. The first term she got a C & was placed on academic probation. Second term she was suspended over grades but was let back in after a threat of suing the school. Long story short, she spent tens of thousands in tuition & 4 years of her life & she was never able to pass the clinical licensing exam. That doesn't help anyone & I think that happens frequently. Entrance exams etc are highly predictive of success in any given program. We should strive to give everyone the opportunity to thrive but if we end up hurting as many as we help if we go beyond that.
That does not collide with Rawls' theory of justice. He isn't saying that equal opporunity is the "only just thing". He just says that one should not feel entitled to the earnings of his/her genetic advantages, which is why there is a need for higher taxes on those who have prospered from their genetic advantages.
GregTom2 ok but how exactly do you determine who is fit to succeed and who is not if equal opportunity isn't applied? Are you suggesting that we somehow find a way to test a child's genetic material from a young age and if the child doesn't have the genetics to succeed we just don't bother giving them education or teaching them hard work?
Do you think if Bill Gates was born in Somalia during war he would be where he is today?
Do you understand that there's kids who's parents pay thousands of dollars in ACT prep just so they can go to these "prestigious" colleges meanwhile some kids go to school struggling to survive?
Point is when you say that equal opportunity should be discouraged , you are basically saying everybody should accept their social economic status because let's be honest, without public education most parents including mine wouldn't afford school and I would forever remain as dumb as I was born.
Right, and running the world this way would benefit even the least fortunate in society. So incentive is taken into account. But as soon as it no longer benefits the least fortunate, he would say it is unjust.
Mike is me,
before watching this.
mike was right and Rawls would agree, the professor is corrupting Rawls work for some personal agenda
superdupper hayseedfarmboy No? Rawls explicitly criticized meritocracy in his book.
@@Rudi361 he speak out against merit badges such as phd's, and so on but if you have specific passage please enlighten me, though im sure he wouldnt agree with the more modern idea of meritocracy, which has been rewritten so as to dumb people down, in a real meritocracy the people at McDonalds would be making more than a Banker, thats definition im using
Veil of ignorance is an ignorant test. Because your envision of a perfect world has nothing to do with reality. In reality, people has to work harder to make wealth, and if you are in the "fortunate" ones who have capability to make astounding wealth, but that still requires tremendous work and efforts, would you be willing to give it all away based on the faulty premise that "everything is pre-determined"?
No, people rejected that, Rawls is a hypocrite and he rejected it.
It's easy to do good at the expense of others.
Failing to accept imperfection in the world means you've already lost any sense of reality. Let it go, hypocrites.
@@markarmage3776 im not sure i get your point, though i'd say you hit a 100% accuracy with your statements, but don't understand how Rawls rejection of these concepts would make him a hypocrite, by my view rejecting these concepts gives a person an advantage overcoming social norms that trick people in to believing that are basically locked into a quality of life similar to what have seen on a regular basis , im actually very interested in your response, as what you said shows solid insight, but can't understand how you put the pieces together
Rawls ideas are appealing, but those of us who grew up in Eastern Europe have first hand experience of what that looks like in practice. Prof SandeI brushes off the concern about incentives, with kind of "it is just a technical detail" response, but if you look at human history as an experimental ground you will find evidence that doesn't match that easiness.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a very often used motto in USSR, but the reality was that economy productiveness was extremely low and everyone was very poor by any reasonable standard except for bureaucratic elites. There are many other examples of failures and none of successful implementation of those principles at least to my knowledge. I would be grateful if someone named a prosperous society based on Rawls principles.
I don't think they strictly adhered to this principle in USSR. Soviet Union declared a lot of good principles but rarely sticked to them. Maybe it was a poor implementation of good ideas(or at least ideas which seem good) or in principle those ideas were not viable though the mere failure of Soviet Union doesn't prove it. Moreover I don't see that Rawls suggests to take everything away and divide it(soviet style). What he is saying seems to be very similar to social inclined systems in Western European countries like Germany or Sweden. They have a progressive tax scale and the taxes then redistributed to benefit those less fortunate. The incentive to be productive is still there because the taxation won't take away all the increase(a significant portion though). That could be an example of [at least partial] implementation of these ideas.
Best jester lecture is the first one in which became an important aspect nice one"
11 years ago so I want to know the percentage of the audience who graduated and got the job. Anyone here?
Mike's (student) smirk at 15:09 is nauseating
He's right.
so amazing lecture!!!
Well presented, quality talk :)
"Bring Michael Jordan here Im sure you can get him" LOOL
kind of contradicts his argument right there
He just acted like a brat.
21:38 Dat Sandel lip bite
Peace Love and Freedom 💜☮️💜 Mises, Hayek and Rawls forever ☮️
Nothing happens naturally gifted, it’s your abilities, and your capability, your knowledge, experience, philosophy, morality, and lots more , to make it huge success