Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 11: "THE CLAIMS OF COMMUNITY"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2009
- To register for the 2015 course, visit www.edx.org/course/justice-ha....
PART ONE: THE CLAIMS OF COMMUNITY
Professor Sandel presents Kants objections to Aristotles theory. Kant believes politics must respect individual freedom. People must always respect other peoples freedom to make their own choices-a universal duty to humanity-but for Kant, there is no other source of moral obligation. The discussion of Kants view leads to an introduction to the communitarian philosophy. Communitarians argue that, in addition to voluntary and universal duties, we also have obligations of membership, solidarity, and loyalty. These obligations are not necessarily based on consent. We inherit our past, and our identities, from our family, city, or country. But what happens if our obligations to our family or community come into conflict with our universal obligations to humanity?
PART TWO: WHERE OUR LOYALTY LIES
Professor Sandel leads a discussion about the arguments for and against obligations of solidarity and membership. Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for ones own kind? If our identities are defined by the particular communities we inhabit, what becomes of universal human rights? Using various scenarios, students debate whether or not obligations of loyalty can ever outweigh universal duties of justice.
yaaaasss he finally remembered Raoul's name!!
Really now I'm more excited to watch 😂
Raoul/Raul/Rahul's redemption arc let's goooo
Rahul is now recognized! lol idk why but am so happy for him
ikr I thought the same haha
These lectures are so intensely good that I fail to be unsurprised at what insights I gain every lecture. If anyone ever thought philosophy was all about empty talk, they have things the very opposite.
@Ronald Reagan then dont learn, stay ignorant
P 😔😔ppppppppppppppppppp 😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔p 😔😔😔p 😔pp 😔ppppppppp
yes, its true. That's why there is nothing right and wrong in any philosophy. it's all about what stance we are choosing and for what? these classes for knowing the different dimensions of the same issue.
Watching professors such as Sandel really make you appreciate the true quality of knowledge and teaching that’s at Harvard.
Hillel says, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14
Yeah it takes so much inner work to not be attached to your political opinions and to let students air out their still-forming thoughts. Such an inspiration.
U
its not unique to Harvard, the education is very similar across all schools, Harvard gets its reputation because of its exclusionary criteria- ppl attending and accepted to the school are all top achievers BEFORE they get there, giving a false impression that it is exclusively the school that makes these ppl. You can get this quality in most large state Universities, I've personally attended x4 of them in my life and they were all high quality with little difference.
Ppl who attended Harvard are sought because they represent a high achieving demographic which transfers to the employer
And make you appreciate that he (or Harvard) published the lectures for the benefit of anyone with enough intellectual curiousity.
Really Happy to see my boy Raul being finally recognised...
We love Raul, man
Same!
They should do a “Where are they now” episode, Raul was going places, I want to know how he’s doing
I became addicted with Professor Michael Sandel's lectures.
Dan’s dilemma and Bulger’s loyalty to his brother have no ends and soon enough they go beyond the principles of good life. It’s very important to have principles of justice in place outside of shared communitarian or sentimental ideas. Thank you Prof. Sandel. This is more pertinent as the world becomes more and more communitarian.
Watching from Isiolo Kenya,July 2023
Roundtable Dialogue of Brotherhood to resolve issues is The key towards Unity
The guy has a gift with names. I feel that gift is not something naturally acquired, but a indirect yet distinctive piece of a greater set of skills and knowledge that makes him so amazing and thought provoking for who he is.
Outstanding lectures. It's a privilege to have them available online.
It seems to me that most students feel loyalty bonds thouh they are not always able to lay out a clear warrant for them.
Good to see Raoul stuck it out. He remains an impressive young man. I wonder what he’s doing now
Rahul* And finally the professor remembers his name! lol.
Yes Raoul is very impressive.
Borana Community from Northern Kenya have a saying"When Dusty and Strong wind blow each and everyone Cover Their Eyes,Not the eye of Anyone else
Obligation to our community should be based upon more parameters than just sole membership. Absolute loyalty may lead to bad consequences and that is why principles of universal morality should also be taken into consideration. Weigh the potential consequences- damages or betterment- outcome of fulfilling the obligations. Personally I would turn in my brother/friend to authorities if he has done heinous crimes but would not do so for petty things.
This is one of the most difficult questions I've been trying to tackle. Remarkable insights.
You are a citizen of a Democracy. You have a responsibility to be informed, educated, and understand why you have power over the government. If you neglect that responsibility, autocracy begins. If you neglect your responsibility, you sacrifice freedoms and power. Freedom is not free.
I love how I don't have to do homework after watching these.
Ep. 8 (Fair Start) and 11 are my favourites. The latter part of Ep.11 is thought-provoking!
Nods of approval from the guy passing on the mic @23:19
Every day i think ..... If in the. World .
Existen many Teacher the sean you. Mr teacher Michael Sandel. WOW!! The earth Is much better for every younger people. You are the best.
I m happy hear every class how you spockeng with filosófia to the estudents .how they participación
That wonderful.for open mind.
Thankyou. For sharing with us congratulation to Harvard. Univercity
God bless USA
EPISODE 11: A wonderfully engaging lecture. I think this episode has important implications for people viewing it in 2020. Online communities have disrupted the traditional sense of loyalty based on locality. Intellectual ramparts are rapidly being erected around ideologies, rather than aligned with arbitrary birthrights. Combined with the polarizing effect of the echo chamber and sentimental allegiances, there is a real potential for impassioned anarchy and wide spread civil unrest, as online influence becomes a source of political power.
You're really a credit to all of us;
we do treasure every letter, word , even pause you produce!!!!
Thanks to your talks we're really enriched
hence intellectually empowered.
God bless you!
What a Great teacher, M.Sandel !
Thank you...and also no ads. That's amazing.
This is the first time that i was really upset with how the students answered ... they are ok with cheating to pass a university course, and therefore a degree.... what if that person was the doctor who delivers their baby?... its endangering the community, and themselves...
Best thing to do in 2020! Truly time well spent.
The Commonality of Human is the driving force towards their relationship and Kind of support we give each other
This Lecture Course on Community has open my thought
process, the Professor is so precise I learned a lot on this course.
So, Itachi Uchiha seems to have acted under the communitarian citizenship obligation during the massacre that night after all...
:D
Finally, the important stuff is being discussed
A Naruto Reference: Ahh I see a Man of culture...
He chose his village over his clan.
We all would love to speak to him about right and wrong 😂
Love Your Country and STAND for What You believe is right
I was pretty appalled too to learn how many people favored what they called "loyalty" instead of weighing the negative and positive consequences on a greater scale. Mostly because it brings to my mind to many examples not mentioned in the discussion, essentially regarding sexual violence, as I volunteer in the field, such as : do not denounce an abusive husband because he is your husband and you should "unconditionally love them" (even if they tried to kill you, I guess), do not denounce case of incest because they concern your family, do not denounce a friend who would have roopied someone because they are your friend... All situations that are way too common and very likely to ruin someone's life and perpetuate generational trauma, when denouncing the offender would be beneficial in that they are less likely to do it again, and the punition often not as negative for them than it would be for the victim. Now I understand more why these situations are so common.
Other than sexual violence, I also think, obviously, about war. Nations fights way too often to get unfair advantages over other they don't care about, and vice versa, and it has the unnecessary consequences of sacrificing several lives, and sometimes several cultures too (colonialism or genocide).
And it seems to me that the underlying reason could have also something to do with benefice, like the benefice of sensing that we belong in a community, that people would also favor us unfairly, etc. For example, I would offer way more money to my family than I'd do to a stranger, not because of loyalty but because they are part of my life - but as one of the communitarian critics puts it, I would know it's ultimately not the most moral thing to do, but, if I may add, a human weakness on my part. And I would probably not denounce a roommate if they cheated but just because it would cause too much problems with someone I'd have to see everyday, not because of loyalty - and because cheating in a test doesn't seem big enough to me for that. But I probably wouldn't want to be friend with someone who did something I deemed immoral anyway.
Maybe that there is also in communitarianism the idea that it is fair after all if everyone do favor their own community, it would make it even. But they aren't all the same size, for one thing.
Loyalty for me doesn't include protecting people who did wrongs to other people - who also have friends, family, etc., and who could have been me if the situation was reversed -, but would mainly consist of being honest and transparent to them. And here, I would agree that the closer the bond, the more important it gets.
same feeling here, esp. given this is a Harvard class. There seems to miss a sense of right vs. wrong / sense of justice which should serve as the universal rock-bottom of human behavior.
When humanity is not the rock-bottom of human behavior, all evilness can happen under justified names, resulting in people feeling legitimate and justified when they behave evil ---that is disasterous
Totally agree. Unconditional loyalty is a hindrance to a more just society IMO.
There's a difference in personalities. Social people tend to look the other way to keep a bond intact. Self-preservation/individualist people don't feel the bonds as intensely, but would probably have a better sense for how it affects the individual who tried hard and didn't cheat.
I'm self-pres. I wouldn't tell, but I'd get mad at my roommate and make them undo what they did/fix it.
You are missing the point of communitarian ethics. In cases of domestic violence, the offending party is the one going against the ethics of the community. The hypothetical wife that you bring up would have an extra reason to go to the police because her husband has not only violated her personal freedom but has violated his duty towards the greater society. A society must, in order to be just, value the individual freedom of its citizens, therefore the citizens have a duty not only to other citizens but also to the society that has afforded them the space in which justice is possible. The ethical life lies in the harmony between the interests of the individual and those of civil society, mediated by the state.
I love how everyone didn't raise there hand because they don't want to be known as the sntich. COMPLIANCE CONFORMITY AT ITS FINEST!
the cameraman seems to have a crush on Julia, not that I blame him
Harvard I need more of such lectures please! I am mesmerized.
He doesn't mention orphans, foster or adopted people.
in this forum nicola is my hero. You need the whole humanity to support particular communities. If some communities won't support the whole existence of us, then they were not participating in the sustainability of not only us but also themselves.
In the epic of Mahabharata, Karna stood with Duryodhana even in the immoral thing done by him on the ground that duryodhana is his friend......Krishna replied to that argument that Karna, you are not being loyal to your friend as being a loyal friend you should drive him towards the path of goodness, truth and justice but you are actually sending him, by supporting him in his wrong deeds, towards the path of destruction. And so you are not showing loyalty but enmity. ........ This exactly is similar to the dilemma /questions asked in this lecture and no one replied.
although,
Krishna has no philosophy why "destruction" is bad,
this affirmation only applies, if we as humans consider that "to live" is in it's root a good thing !
BUT ! other philosophies affirm that the whole goal of living, is to die, the meaning of life, is to one day reach death,
and so none of the two, life and death, is good nor bad...
so, Krishna, may be thinking that he's the only one spiritually evolved enough to enter death, out of free will, and so without reincarnation... but maybe, he doesn't understand that Duryodhana is just as grown up, just as spiritually mature, waiting for his own death, committing slow suicide...
and if that's the case, well then there is no such thing as a "wrong deed", there is only support in relationship, or absence of support, and Karna is not supporting the will of his friend
Karna is not prioritizing his relationship with his friend !
Karna has downgraded his relationship with Duryodhana in his priority hierarchy !
Karna is prioritizing his subjective living standards, his beliefs, to his friendship with Duryodhana
Karna is openly showing, that his relationship with Duryodhana is not his highest priority
There is no such thing as "truth"...
There is only respect for the will of the other, however crazy the others decision might seem, and it's sad that this is being debated in a western University
I thought the whole difference between the West and the despotic East was that, in the East people can by forced to GOOD THINGS by their governments through a gun barrel placed to their head
and in the West, the individuals choice ( INDIVIDUALISM !!! ) is the priority !
Go back to your despotic India if you dont like that
Exactly my thoughts bro sankalp sadly nobody thought of it in that class
David Copperfield......Seems You have not studied World History. Otherwise you would have got the clarity that Western history is full of despotism. They occupied America Africa and Asia. Both the world wars started from west. So don’t call despotic India. Also if you really respect free will then why west tries to interfere in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq etc. As per your philosophy we should respect the free will of terrorists and should not use force to stop them.
David Copperfield... If you try to understand philosophy only by reading books, you won’t get it correctly as you will be confused. It’s better to learn it with understanding your experiences. Destruction is bad because it causes suffering to the innocents. The ultimate goal of life is not death as it’s very easy to reach that goal as one can die as early as one is born. Committing suicide is not good as the purpose of life is to explore the life while doing good for others. Even if you think Duryodhan was committing suicides slowly and you think that it’s not wrong then also he was doing a wrong action as his suicide led to death of many others. So I don’t think he was that much spiritually mature. There is a saying in India “Vidya dadati viniyam” means maturity brings humility.
I share Nikola's point. Looking at the world as a human citizen is a higher form of morality. And even better as just a living being because the latter includes animal lives as well.
this is the best episode of the series
Watching this with my blue light glasses.
I feel so smart.
If you are free to choose whatever it is that you want to do, you will become undeserving to carry the nature of righteousness for the reason that you let go the other side of freedom which is wisdom... If you are wise enough to choose not to do evil, then, you are bound by your wisdom that dictates "you are not ought to do evil" which will make you not free to choose what is it that you want to do due to the fact that your wisdom dictates you not to... This is the limit of freedom, you cannot give up wisdom simply because you just want to be totally free... There is no such a thing that "you can do whatever you want to do" without considering the moral worth of this will of yours... Freedom must co-exist with wisdom, this is how justice works, you must always strive to achieve the balance of the scale, you cannot separate loyalty and liberty, it must co-exist with one another... Hence, justice had been served.
The connection of justice to the rightful judgement was seen only when we see the bigger picture of the story... If we are not omniscient enough to know the possible consequences of our actions, then maybe we can say that "may God forgive us for our ignorance for we do not know what we are doing simply because we are ignorant", if this is not enough, then, "may the will of Him who has no sin be cast upon us to satisfy the righteous judgement of perfect justice..." "Let your will be done oh LORD of real and true righteousness for only you knows what is right and what is wrong, we are simply your mere created creatures/characters whose purpose was to satisfy the fate you had destined for us..." In this way we can only show a sincere humility...
I see my children with a great teacher.
It’s pride/love of a country that creates changes to a government that dissatisfies the populace it serves.
Choices have consequences but any way make the right choice
I loveThanks Harvard for teaching justice and love for humanities and science 🔬 in uk 🇬🇧 2023
Ajay Kumar got great understanding, of obligations of community for doing duty for the country!!!
Great interactive lectures of the professor from Harvard University!
26:40 When he says the word, "Reciprocity", I was pausing the video as he got out the, "rec" part of the word.
Watching this on PBS years ago, I knew what he was about to say.
This is such a fun/thought stimulating program. Makes me wish I'd taken that path, and participated in the college scene. 👨🏼🎓👨🏽🔬🧾🖋️📖🏛️🎇🎈📹🧐
Not only Dan's dilemma reminds me of Scent of a Woman, but also the 'report' system on each other during the Culture Revolution in China which I believe the given patriotic obligation did to people with harm and dehumanization.
Fantastic presentation
I don't mean to gush.....but sir, you are just the coolest professor ever!
Hillel says, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14
These lectures are so intensely good that I fail to be unsurprised at what insights I gain every lecture. If anyone ever thought philosophy was all about empty talk, they have things the very opposite.
I like how the students give good answers
Your Country is Greater than individual interest
These lectures brought me Profound Thinking " about the meaning of life, , Thank,s Harvard for make it free ❤💙 🎉
This lecture is great for citizenship and the immigrants coming to the U.S.A.
Would be great for most of U.S. citizens also...
I'm kind of disappointed in how many of the students would choose loyalty, no matter how immoral the person they're trying to protect may be, over doing the morally right thing.
When criminals speak of morals, look out !
Me too. I mean, think of it this way - what if your family member is the one being murdered by the criminal? There would be no hesitation to send him to jail for what he's done on multiple heinous crimes. But because YOUR own brother is the criminal, who has viciously murdered innocent people, you would allow him the benefit of familial loyalty? This is basically acting on the side of the oppressor, BECAUSE your own skin wasn't touched. It is failing to see yourself in other people's shoes. I for one, would personally report my family member if they have done such heinous crimes on multiple ocassions. I honestly dont think I can help change my family member through talking or discourse, evident by the number of times he's committed the crimes. Yes, he may be my own blood sibling, but no one is actually gonna say "i am gonna leave this wound to grow even bigger or worse and not take action to completely remove it once and for all, because it would hurt for me." ?? That idea of forgiving someone of your own kind, no matter how immoral he may become, is absolutely toxic and dangerous.
Mystery Face X I think it depends on case by case. There is no one way of determining one or two criteria to follow when it comes to obligation. It's not as easy as x+y = something
"No matter how immoral" - I think this is a good point. What if we extend the claim to its extreme: If my room mate cheated, I wouldn't report him; if my room mate raped somebody... What's the difference and where do we draw the line?
Women just dont know what loyality is.
man i love this guy, u saved my tok
One also has an obligation to love himself/herself and develop our talents and become a responsible for the expectations of life: like being successful in school, build a career, get a job, and form a family first to ourself. Then we extent towards the community, parents etc.
Raul really is the real one.
Why can philosophy lectures at public universities not be like this?
* Communitarianism: I think ultimately it boils down to selfishness, you help those who can help you... and/or through reciprocity you help those who’ve helped you...
the commenters seem to me more enthusiastic than most of class participants - i must say i'm a bit surprised by the level of engagement of the students in such a fantastic class, was expecting to see a much more passionate class, after all this is Harvard! thought no one could enter there without passion for learning,or am i too naive? LOL
I would choose stranger over brother if my brother has treated me in bad way. So, it's beneficial choice for me. I think we lean over close people because it only benefits us.
Brilliant! Anna C Young
To think that some of these students are definitely professors themselves now...this was recorded 13 years ago.
The Judiciary is independent and separate from the legislature and the Executive. This is because,its main function is to protect people against unjust rule. It also watches whether the laws of the government are being obeyed or not,or if laws are being violated. It punishes the offenders according to the provisions of the law. It protects the fundamental rights of the people as granted by the Constitution to them. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
loyalty for the interest of Bigger Majority
just to think that maybe 1 or 2 students in this lecture will go on to represent us the people while the rest will follow a career for the money. These kids have new ideas and old perspectives which is great.
Somalia, Thank you for your sharing
There will be societal growing pains as there are philosophical growing pains. Both search for Truth. Change is inevitable. Mistakes are inevitable. We all live in the search for Truth and the pursuit of happiness.
This all debate but no conclusion was drawn. Maybe justice should act according to community affiliations and maybe not. I
would think the family is the group that deserves the most of your loyalty. But loyalty is less binding to a country. It would be easier to change your nationality if you don't agree with values of your nation. Morally speaking I will put more weight of loyalty in family, community, humanity, city, and finally country. The danger with caring more about your city or country more than humanity is how more likely you are to commit atrocious acts such as genocide.
I would say there is more difference in having loyalty to your country in comparison to your family than it is suggested in the lecture. They are almost different topics.
I wouldn't think patriotism is a higher moral ground than say doing what it is actually morally right according to Kant or Aristotle. It would make sense to feel patriotic if you country has a good moral standing but it wouldn't make sense to stand with your country if it is committing unmoral acts such as slavery or the holocaust.
Robert E. Lee probably chose to go to war not because he felt loyalty to Virginia but because his family and friends were supporting secession and he wanted to support his family and community.
By now if you don't know Raul then you didn't watched it seriously..
lol indians commenting on raul
this is ur patriotism bruh
Or Julia lol
Or Andrew
Or Patrick
Wow Raoul Finally remembered 🤣
I disagree with the concept that loyalty to the most immediate community they are a part has more value than other loyalties.
As someone who was treated very poorly by the community I was raised in as well as by my parents and betrayed by my friends, If they could even be called such.
I feel absolutely no loyalty whatsoever to those people or communities.
I would like to propose that loyalty is not weighed by the vicinity or familiarity of the community. But rather loyalty is something which a community earns in a person through the interactions that person has with the community.
The more the person agrees with how that community treats them, the more loyal to that community they will be.
Let me put it this way, as we know that Kant is a post renaissance philosopher and during his time most of classic philosopher arguments (such as Aristotle's arguments) were tested back and forth and up side down again and again by post renaissance philosophers. Look for example at Geocentric versus Heliocentric theory; Deductive reasoning of Aristoteles versus Inductive reasoning of Locke, Hume etc or Rasionalisme versus Empirisme. The same thing apply for freedom, Aristoteles argument about freedom is "Polis-centris" meaning that it will put people only those who fit for that honor to get a "polis" job serving society and that is the basis for every virtue including freedom. Kant on the other side place freedom on one's being or over an individu, or on an autonomous being. As a consequence, Aristoteles argument about freedom is static and rigid whereas Kant's freedom is something that is more dynamic and will be easily adjustable for a changing society.
Guys I saw a Sandel from 2017-18 online. I crie T_T
I want him to remain timeless TT
This particular lecture is like discussion of Gita 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 biggest loyalty is towards Dharma but what is your dharma depends on you. Karan never broke a promise, it was his Dharma and he reached heaven.
this is so great....
Patriotism is not equivalent to allegiance to a particular political condition. It is, instead, a loyalty to the welfare of the citizens. Undermining or voicing opposition to unjust government action is in accordance with true patriotism.
Interesting, Thank you.
True you look ,you come from my mamas land....
Profound, invoking tradition, Still!
Loyalty for loyalty's sake is blind loyalty, and blind loyalty is morally bankrupt. You can not be moral as long as you are blindly loyal or blindly anything.
Why would you want someone that you supposedly care for to be a cheater or a gangster? That's not true "loyalty", that's just loyalty for loyalty's sake, which is more self-interested than anything. You are loyal because you want to be "loyal", not because you FEEL loyal or you FEEL that you want to do the right thing or even care about others that you are supposedly loyal to.
I would have commented on each statement. however, it's incredible how "The Bubble Mentality" is Taught... WOW!!!
Harvard need to bring this back!
Would a person with a bad parent owe them less?
Yeah, absolutely! Why spend your adult years caring for someone who never cared for you? No one’s going to write a book about how selfless I am, and resources are scarce.
There is no discussion about orphans, adopted or foster people.
20:15 Elizabeth! Now that's brilliancy...
Behavioral psychology has shown us that there are many innate discriminatory thought processes that are applied to out-group people which are not applied to in-group people, and this is very subconscious. Historically, as well as _prehistorically_ , these heuristics have resulted in conflict, which was useful since other groups needed to be erradicated to facilitate competition for ressources.
Consequentialism, regular deontologic codes, or indeed the notion of freedom of life found in liberalism all agree that this subhuman behavior is not desirable. Familly would be very hard to do away with, but tribal appartenance, or ethnics appartenance, or racial, nationnal appartenances have all been shown to be the cause of violence, of dehumanisation, of apathy for the suffering of others, and of unjust distribution of ressources.
Clearly the _good_ thing to do for mankind is to do away with those over time.
Don't worry the internet will work.
"Appartenances" ?... You're french...
There is nothing "sub-human" in what you described; rather those behavior patterns are quintessentially human. Human nature is not going to be erased by some abstract moral philosophy, tribalism is not going anyware anytime soon.
There is no individual without a community. And you cannot suppress the desire for community even with all the liberal indoctrination the world has provided for the past 3 centuries
Freedom not gone be temporary
Thanks for the video glhf
Told my Son, I will give him up in an heartbeat, if he breaks the law!
The moral value placed upon patriotism depends on the tightness of that social community and what it gives, its fairness, if each citizen can practice their. capacity to vote and actively have an effect on their community then there is a certain level of partaking in that. In families that effect is big, we have a voice, more so if its a good family where our opinions are valued and listened equally. The bigger the group gets, smaller that effect is and at times like dictatorships and non socialist societies, corruption exists and there exist no consent from the citizen, votes are stolen etc, violence exist. Than, if possible, the citizen can either have a contribution by either neutralizing that effect ( however that may be ) or leave that society to a more morally fitting one to not partake in the crimes of it.
Loyalty should be given to the most immediate community.
I think one can have a loyalty to culture because culture is what shapes a person’s beliefs and habits; but politics are different.
Leadership at the time can be opposed and one shouldn’t feel obligated to the leadership that one doesn’t agree with. Even in a dictatorship, leadership changes over time...
Doing wrong to an outside group is an entirely different conversation...
Still waiting since 1964 to have my adoption nullified, and take back my legal birth certificate. And not have that authority or custody given back to my biological relatives, or their relatives.
As a child I was legally removed from an abusive and dysfunctional group of people. And placed into another group of dysfunctional and abusive group of people.
I am in need of a lawyer to represent me. I am okay with going to the United States Supreme Court. This is as important as: Brown vs The Board Education.
There should have been federal legislation written centuries ago; that allowed adopted people to have their adopted to have their adoption nullified. There should have been legislation in the United States Constitution or in the Ammendments; that allowed adopted people to have their adoption nullified. Regardless of their age.
Several law enforcements, the AG of CA., and the ACLU are a few organizations that have been informed.
Why doesn't my birth certificate have the word: Adopted? This should be mandatory for all adopted people.
The United States government and the judiciary system failed to inform adopted people; upon being adopted their legal problems would begin.
Why should any community or entity be given automatic loyalty? Especially if they are in the wrong or doing things that are not advantageous to you as an individual to the point of being detrimental to health and well-being?
Some cultures, quite frankly are hideous, barbaric, misogynistic or archaic in terms of the rights afforded to its members. Why should I have loyalty to someone simply because they have proximity to me or share a culture that was imposed upon me but Is not necessarily good or worth defending?
Loyalty is something that should be earned through demonstration and investment, not given without question or reservation.
I think that we should view ourselves as humans first rather than adhering to compartmentalism, because at the end of the day the world is much smaller than we think and humans need each other to survive and thrive with different cultures and groups feeding off of and into one another.
Thoses videos are entertainement for me
Justice is justice be it family or friend or stranger. If someone cheats on a test and you know it and do nothing how is that just to those who have worked hard to pass the test? If a family member is accused of murder how is it just to protect them? If there innocent they have the right to prove that. Loyalty should be the justice.
having seen the example of the president of the university in the video, i immediately associated it with a law that almost every ancient chinese dynasties would make from about 200 AD ,namely "a son could protect his father who has commited a crime by hiding him ,and the officers mustn't force the son to provide any imfomation of where his father are"
It would be nice see the last choice of Sandel in Life is Strange =)
He'll probably learn how to code and then changing the game according to the principle of freedom. I've heard Harvard has a few books on coding
It can be said that between individual autonomy and collectivism stands communitarianism. Communitarianism, as Prof. Clifford G. Christians maintains, does not lead to relativism but to humanism.
Finally Rahul is getting recognised
Yay!!! I got it professor! Thats y neither works here in america and we are so awesome. One cannot singly define self on a single history in America because we are too mixed. Genetically and culturally. To accuse another american is to accuse oneself therefore a false relevant argument. OMG i think we got it finally. Seeding with intelligence ;) true patriot.
Great lectures
Where in god's name can I find more videos of this excellent professor lecturing and directing debate?!
:-D
There's a course with him on edx for free.
We are natural inclined because of self interest and presevation
@Maria Callous why?