The students who states " I do not believe that illegalizing abortion makes it go away. I don't believe illegalizing abortion stops it and therefore I am pro-choice." Is completely telling the truth yet is moronic! Passing laws against murder doesn't stop people from murdering. A laws consequence's may coerce but if its aim is absolute adherence every law would fail and there would be no reason to have any laws. Therefore there must be another reason for law. Lawyered!
a marriage is between a man and a woman... if they share a bond of like marriage isn't that enough? we must ask why we want recognition of marriage from others... whether it be by family friends state or religious institute... god said be fruitful and multiply, then one would like to show off that they are doing what was commanded. one might want recognition from the state to get in on tax cuts while to the state we are like assets of labor force along with the possible next generation...
Man should base its ideas in absolute principles, because when judgment becomes subjective, then it becomes too broad making itself relativistic, and if you fight for equality, then you should support this point, now the question is where does this absolute principles come from for each person? despite it is so criticized I still believe that it comes from spirituality(not religion), otherwise how can a man discern what is right and what is wrong?
"Our further appeal is its universal aspiration: the idea of treating persons as persons, without prejudice, without discrimination" -- Michael Sandel
I think most of this discussion is pointless. When these students use religion as a starting position in their argument they are starting from a point that relies on faith. That is to say they start from an unevidenced premise which has no basis in reality. We cannot have a rational discussion about what is right built on false premises. I think their religion must disqualify them from any discussion about what is right and wrong on any subject that their religion informs them on.
I'm curious as to what exactly would be the purpose of marriage outside a religious context? Does anyone really need the government to recognize that two people are in love or that they have both consented to a relationship with each other? At the base we are arguing about how we define who is in what family through exclusive relationships recognized by a government. The gov recognizes biological relationships as a proper kinship, does love really create a kinship? No, it doesn't. We impose that
offer religious marriage ability that is not state recognized but allowed to be recognized internally, and civil marriages
thus, everyone is able to retain their own definition of marriage for themselves on the matter, since maritus means union, it does not have the religious connotation christians think is owed them automatically in a secular civil society, you may not, on religious grounds, impose your will on others, this allows for declaration of lack of support but not imposition against
@noobler9 or civil unions, or whatever, under the state marriage license, even president or supreme dictator or saviour or overlord or so on, with the ad hoc declaration that it's an unimportant title, and that the values as they stand are what matter, so that it may be referenced internally as state licensed union
Looking at the top comment, idk it youtube is trolling me.
Ofc religion has to do with morality. To judge the morality of an act, you need to refer to your own belief, that is religion if you are religious. Personally, I'm not religious but the concept of religion is so vague; to me it just means to believe in something. We all believe in something, if we don't then we don't believe in anything, how can we judge the morality of an action?
maybe im shortsighted, idk, just a you-tuber here...
I don't see why people feel their religious doctrine should hold any weight on the subject of legal union. By separation of church and state, I would expect that each refrain from recognizing or dictating the other's marriage certification.
@urcorrect Well you see when you are a philosopher you are allowed to debate concepts like the separation of church and state. This isn't necessarily about solving one particular problem, but instead about finding more ways to solve many problems. You need to think outside the realm of United States law in order to get this completely.
@Ambit10n9 Sure, separation of church and state can be brought into question, but where it is already established, such as in the United States, that must be resolved in favor of the contrary before appealing to ecclesiastical authority on a legal issue is acceptable. And I'm confident that I "get this completely".
@urcorrect and i don't know why non-religious values should have any say on the subject of marriage. Why only separate church and state? we should also separate feminism and state, liberalism and state, conservatism and state... you get the idea? politicians simply cannot leave their values out of congress doors, religious or agnostic. Voters don't simply vote without putting any weight on their religious or agnostic values.
I believe that same sex marriage is fine but when these couple do not reproduce or have an off-spring, their Ancestors Genetic line or their inherited Genes get completely destroyed/ wipped off from this planet.....which sometimes is a big loss to the human gene pool...
Of course! We are deriving a lot of beliefs from our religions but that doesn’t mean that they are morally unquestionable. The act of morality needs broad and deep understanding of human values, the global picture. Ethical principles try to objectively address to lighten the conflicts come from individual's subjectivity and find out a solution that accepted to be fair for all. How can we expect this fairness from the religions?
How can if it is fundamentally composed of principles claimed to be written by god itself and are very reluctant and rigid for objective discussions. Religion and morality are verily contradictory and Religious principles should be severely discouraged in moral discussions.
Why is the featured video "How To undo Her Bra With One Hand?" lol. Either way I have really enjoyed watching this series. It has given me valuable information for my high school debate cases.
Suprising number of stupid people in this video for a Havard Lecture. The argument against gay marriage and abortion of say the first trimester are just not valid.
But if marriage is defined, as in this case by Christianity, isn't it wrong to in a sense break that definition and try to change a religious concept? Wouldn't it be just as absurd to force a Muslim community to accept homosexuals in their ranks? Another example would be legislate KKK to accept jews in their cult?
@Lockheim How about we go back to not allowing inter-racial marriage, since that was originally the "Christian thing" to do. And, on another note, marriage has existed outside of, and prior to, Christianity.
@periechontology First of all, that's poor logic. Prior to the mid 20th century you would be saying marriage was "always" in the same race, & typically religion too.19th century & prior marriages would never be for love. And, no, marriage wasn't always male/female only. There are plenty of examples of polygamy, not to mention old historical examples of same sex marriage in indigenous North America, Asia, & Africa. Not to mention vastly varying gender roles historically.
Your knowledge of history is atrocious. The history of interracial marriage dates all the way back to the ancient world. Heck, it even predates the 20th century in Colonial America.
Also, only half of the colonies even had laws against interracial marriage, and the only reason they had to be created in the first place is because it was naturally assumed that any male and female could marry.
Now please give RELIABLE sources for your spurious claims about early gay marriage.
By the way, your ability to FOLLOW logic is poor. i was not giving an argument for why same sex marriage should not be permitted, I was giving an argument for why not permitting it is not an imposition of specifically Christian values.
@periechontology Yes, not ONLY Christians have gunned for marriage being between one man and one woman; but the conversation I was in first that you jumped into was using Christianity as an example. Anyway, you did go on to say marriage was ALWAYS a male/female social institution, and that's incorrect. And, even if it weren't, we can additionally look at other historical changes to marriage over time & see arguments like yours are typically used as "proof" for why something shouldn't change.
@periechontology In the world I live in one part has almost zero tolerance towards consensual same-sex (leave alone pre-marital or extra marital sex) even having death as punishment and these regions are predominantly Moslem. I wonder sometimes whether even this freedom to talk about these issues would exist there! One might just get himself killed for voicing his opinion. I find a much greater tolerance to individuals who sympathize/practice same-sex in cultures influenced by Christianity.
@josephwdr tolerance is one of Jesus' strong points- but not of all his followers. Muslims is not the only culture that is intolerant- even Hinduism, look at the uproar in India about movies that depict homosexual relations. Yes, even the culture that brought us the Kama Sutra has its limits.
@IneffableLifestyle Well, I agree, I have no problem of a person binding himself in a union with another person lawfully. What bothers, well it doesn't really, but I can't understand why people want to do it within the boundaries of a religion that in the first place does not tolerate this certain type of union at the first place. I think it's a strange thing to commit oneself to a religion just to, moments later try to change it. I mean the choice is big when it commes to choosing a religion.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@TheAbyrwalg I agree, but in reality, most people are incapable of thinking for themselves and their moral values are completely indistinguishable from their religious ones.
@jinu4ever "morality is sourced from many different sources."
I think it's better to say that people tend to link morality to other things. There is nothing in religion that makes it a "source" or a "ground" for morality.
Also, notice how religion is not mentioned at all in all the previous lectures (which feature some very difficult questions), and how religion steps in to fuck up this lecture (in which maybe the simplest question to answer is discussed).
Weird - after 11 episodes/lectures where things started from a secular standpoint and stayed there, people start invoking their religion as the basis of conduct. The idea was to explore the grounds for justice by considering different secular moral frameworks and principles.
We live in the natural world. Some people believe in the supernatural, but have provided no reason to believe in it. If we're to make decisions, they must happen on the terms of the natural world - our common, shared realm.
@MrNoepoe One of the points being made was that maybe moral/religious reasoning can't be ignored. What we think justice is depends on how we define the right vs wrong.
@davekeays I don't think that point was made in the lecture. Many Christians don't want gay marriage in their religious definition of marriage, but we're talking about the secular institution of marriage that the government recognizes legally. At least in the US and Finland, religion can never be a part of that process. But you mentioned "moral reasoning" for marriage. How exactly would gay marriage be "wrong"?
You cannot extend between a man and man, marriage because you cannot definine meaning .It would not any longer be possible to call marriage, marriage between two people.If a person decides to marry his dog does marriage with two dogs have the same meaning as marriage between two men?You cannot define reason to a word and hold honor of the word in dignity.It is not whether two men can marry it is whether they can change meaning to a word marriage.Call it a unique newly defined word
Definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It is in definition changing it becomes ridiculous When changing definition gov't changes meaning.Call it duoism or anything else but marriage. If you call man with man marriage you take freedom of meaning. Marriage has been held in meaning for generations man & woman Sanctity of words for male and female relationships is sacrosanct.No persons have righst of liberty to change established meaning. You want to call it duoism go ahead.
Germany injure the human rights.Rich germans fight 18 years with my family.They essay to kill my mother me and my sister.Germans give me 14 years medicals to make me sick.My poor mother cry but germans have no pitty.
@Exodarks I dont agree. That the christians impose their tilos of marriage on others should not be allowed isnt just an opinion, its against the constitution (as it should) that i know you americans love so much ;)
@IneffableLifestyle Where? Using questions of moral/religious telos (which no individual I know of can get away from) is not prohibited from the constitution- the fed government establishing a religion or prohibiting practicing a religion is unconstitutional.
It's a tricky topic. He managed to steer that beginning of an awkward situation back on track though. I'm unsure, but I think not-knowing all the answers helps us to realise a part of being human. It's the journey of discovery that will give us the best answers in the end.
Let the prejudice go and let everyone fuck everything they feel like fucking. Be it same-sex or even an animal. Or a piece of rock. They are happy. And you aren't affected. Who cares.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
we don't do things that are wrong to us. We make a decision for ourselves and allow grace to cover us. I am pro life. I am pro safe-sex, however, we all make bad choices, but that doesn't make us bad. However, life is a beautiful choice and we have to be responsible and not enable people to just do whatever. We need laws to keep us "in check" but we need to also remember we are humans under GRACE.
This argument about same-sex marriage is secondary, it's about how to reach a form a justice in a pluralistic society. The academic is a good way of distilling the argument, however the practical application is that we put the Socratic method in the hands of elected Supreme Court Justices.
I'm surprise that it never came more that the implicit rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" as the underlying principle is not reflected in Telos of this particular case.
This argument about same-sex marriage is secondary, it's about how to reach a form a justice in a pluralistic society. The academic is a good way of distilling the argument, however the practical application is that we put the Socratic method in the hands of elected Supreme Court Justices.
I'm surprise that it never came more that the implicit rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" as the underlying principle is not reflected in Telos of this particular case.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@lightandbeautiful - You may have a point but not all homosexuals behave in the same way. Some homosexuals are good people that contribute to society and other homosexuals behave in a silly, idiotic, degenerate way. So it is wrong for people to make generalizations that all homosexuals behave in the same way but I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily equate to hatred or phobia.
Yay Victoria and Sasant (sp?) for bringing a voice of reason to the marriage discussion! Government has no business in religious matters like marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract, for Christians it is much more. Other religions including Atheism may hold marriage as whatever they want.
@IneffableLifestyle But isnt it true that religion is a set of beliefs just as much as atheism also has a set of beliefs? Which basically paints atheism as a 'religion' too!
@josephwdr Your terribly wrong here. Atheism means nothing more and nothing less than the lack of faith in a supernatural deity. Atheism has no beliefs, thats the point. So you see whilst religion is a set of beliefs in a supernatural deity, atheism is the exact opposite of that.
@IneffableLifestyle I disagree. An atheist believes in the absence of supernatural deity. As you mentioned religion (one set of beliefs) is exact opposite of atheism (another set of beliefs).
@josephwdr . Atheism is not about believing in the absence of a supernatural deity. Im sorry but your flat out wrong. Many atheists, not all, belive there is no deity, but that has nothing to do with atheism or being an atheist. There is a difference between not believing in a supernatural deity and believing there is no supernatural deity. If you cant see that distinction I cant help you. You shouldnt call atheism an religion, just as you shouldnt call someone not being a pilot, a pilot.
@IneffableLifestyle unfortunately, most people I know of who claim no beliefs are some of the more combative when their non-existent beliefs are challenged. I consider myself a Deist or Unitarian/Universalist which is sometimes confused with Atheism. Just because Atheism has no belief in supernatural entities that can only be known via faith doesn't mean it is devoid of beliefs.
@HaloSlayer Nope, your wrong. Atheism is about not believing in a supernatural deity, the lack of faith, not believing there is no supernatural deity.
@TheAbyrwalg one does need faith to believe the unsubstantiated claim there is no "supernatural". This has been argued by some of the greatest philosophical minds, both atheist and not. Look it up, if you liked this video you'd probably like the content you find.
:'( I didn't want it to end! I agree with robbapb18 that every course should be like this and this series has motivated me to study harder in order to achieve, maybe not an education from Harvard per se since I am not interested in law, an education from a prestigious University. I will more than likely watch this whole series over again to let it sink in. Thank you for posting this on youtube, I appreciate this very much!
Justice demands we allow homosexuals to marry the same as heterosexuals. Morally, you should be voting against any ban on gay marriage because that is purposely & willfully thwarting & depriving other human beings from their natural end & what is due to them. All of us are entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Taking away the possibility of another to love & commit in the same way as yourself is essentially a moral evil. Stand up for true human justice so we all may know PEACE.
Pathetic religious people that give mambojambo facts for certain, their reasoning capacity extends no further than a mosquito's. Of course i can't either prove that God(s) or such do not exists, but at least I know that that possibility (as any other) is open, and don't fixate in a single idea just to avoid thinking further of it. Also, I noticed every time they try to defend their argument they end up contradicting themselves, it's lame, their behavior is no different from an herd of sheeps...
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I don't feel the government has the right to regulate peoples lives. I am a christian so I feel a marriage should be between a man and a woman. I also believe that people should live their lives the way they see fit as long as it does not violate another persons right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. I try not to judge anyone for their choices. Most religious people feel that homosexuality is an abomination to God. I will let him do the judging.
I don't think Christians actually know what marriage was like in the bible. God's laws allow you to sell your daughter as a sex slave into an unconsenting polygamous marriage.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again......If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food, clothing, *sex"
I'm all for shutting down people against same sex marriage. But what the girl at 16:00 did was uncalled for, and frankly, a bitch move. Honestly, everyone masturbates, if you deny it, you're a liar or so religiously afraid of hell you think your own shadow is satan. She should have simply acted like the ADULT she should be in college, and presented arguments against theological reasoning in social, and justice systems.
@Mdwulffy she moved on and did that after it was explained to her that singling him out would be inappropriate, don't dwell on it she made some good arguments.
SLAVES FREED, WOMEN TO VOTE and all the rest of these things we accept as ~ the KEWL liberty of our membership in being an AMerican citizen ... is a lie. The slave will be freed , and the woman to vote when doing so (even by a marginal mark)... make them "BUYERS"... or more monitarily Sound to the greater good. As we see "everyones" value slip... this QUESTION has aleady been answered. 1. you dont need marriage for bonding bliss, 2. a slipping value of the procreator need not be asked.
if marriage is just a civil union.. would people in favor of same sex marriage, also promoste marriage between a brother and sister, or and dad and his daughter?
@crackerz99 genetically if u look at the children of ppl that are related, they are always deformed. so mixing genes with family is a no no. and also i dont think its too hard to see that society as a whole would disagree with family marrying each other
@Gods0n1 who says that the married brother and sister are going to have children?
I think i stated in a different comment on that if family were to marry there would have to be strict regulations against them having children, cause it would just be a burdon on the tax payer of that child were to come to term.
but should we stop a brother and sister from having consensual sex? I don't think so, no matter how fucked up that is.
@crackerz99 well no i dissagree.. animals are the property of their masters.. when u go to the pound, you pick out the animals u want and sign all the necessary papers; no consent required,, they are yours. and also its not rape, because dogs will come onto u before u come onto them... you see? anything can be logical when u try and change morality.
@crackerz99 its in the same park because it is a fact, that you will find ppl that put more value on animals then they do ppl. yes.. you can find ppl that cherish there animals and treat them better than ppl. it is also a fact that the whole movement against marriage is to make it simply a union of two individuals rather than a man and a women... therefore my argument is there will be no guidelines of what the standards and rules of marriage are; if allowed to change from what it is now!
@crackerz99 anyone who is 18 years or older who consents to marriage can marry... yes, this is good. but when a brother and sister marry each other, this causes lots of genetic deformations if they ever have kids. and society views its as immoral for family members to marry each other. if the guidlines for marriage are changed from what they are now, then marriage will no longer be sacred.
@Gods0n1 Well, it would have to be illegal for family members to have children, because those deformations end up being a heavy burden on the taxpayer.
If marriage changes to allow LGBT to marry, it won't be a sacrilege because marriage is already a desecrated institution by the 52% of straight marriages that end in divorce, and 60% of the 48% who admit to cheating, or wanting to cheat, or seriously disliking their spouse.
@crackerz99 i blame those statistics of divorce on the advertisment and objectification of women... when u exploit women and publicize them as fantasy then its no wonder ppl are not happy with the person they marry.. they are always looking for something better.. compare those same statistics with marriages outside of the united states, or even arranged marriages.. the divorce rates are pratically zero. ..so we know that appealing to the demands of the ppl dont always benefit a society does it?
@Gods0n1 Well, usually teh divorce rate for arranged marriages is about 0% because in most of hte time in countries that still practice arranged marriages, would probably stone the woman to death if she got divorced.
And the men in those marriages don't want to divorce, because their wives are practically slaves.
@crackerz99 arranged marriages like in india would serve a better example. but my argument is still sound. if were comparing divorce rates of the united states over other countries... my position is to keep marriage traditionally the way it has been. this is a moral argument. and i just feel homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. everyone is entitled to their opinion
"but when a brother and sister marry each other, this causes lots of genetic deformations if they ever have kids."
1-That is none of your business.
2-Non-blood related humans can also give birth to babies with genetic deformations. (we don't make it illegal for them to breed)
3-Humans over the age of 30 also have an increase rate of give birth to babies with genetic deformations, the older the woman having the baby, the higher the risk. (we also don't make it illegal for them to breed)
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo incestous reproduction results in the offspring to carry more recessive traits than any other type of reproduction. in other words, it is almost ensured that there will be multiple birth defects with the child. the risk of having a birth defect in an incestous relationship is not even comprable to the risk of people over thirty reproducing
But it some people even if non-blood related, can have a higher risk of giving a terrible birth defect to their children, yet, it is legal for them to breed.
My point is, make it legal for everyone to breed as they want OR, make it illegal for everyone to breed if you haven't got a genetic test first and after the baby is a few weeks old, another genetic text or the baby, if the baby has any genetic defect, then mandatory abortion.
"Or consent to sex for that matter? Thats why bestiality is basically the rape of animals"←Is only rape if the humans ignore the animal consent and rapes the animal against their will.
Animals can give consent for sex and for other non-sexual activities.
Animals use body language to communicate implicit or explicit non-verbal consent. If you don't know what non-verbal consent is, you can Google it, you can also Google how 90% of human communication is non-verbal, even during sex. ;)
@Gods0n1 Same sex marriage has no genetic effect on kids, since they cant even have kids. family does and it would be very dangerous to. and it wouldnt be permitted, it would simply be permitted. so literally yes, it would have to be permitted
@conejita995 related indivials that have children end up with kids that have missing toes and fingers.. there is not enough diversity in the genes to have a normal child... this should encourage interracial couples. because genes are like DVDs, and when u copy the same dvd over and over again, you lose quality. and if your all for familys getting married, then thats another step in the opposite direction from what society has built as a moral standpoint. and everything becomes permissible.
@jscott181 true ppl do get married for other reasons.. but marriage is sacred, and so are the guidlines.., ppl are not dvd players, but our genes are like dvds or CDs if u will. i say that because reproduction of our genes results in a downgrade in quality somewhat like dvds.
@Gods0n1 No. Your marriage might be sacred and your guidelines might be sacred but that doesn't mean that mine have to be. I may want to marry someone for other reasons and it's no one else's business. Just as it isn't my business what guidelines you want for yours. I think you need to (re)take a biology course. Human reproduction is nothing like burning CDs. I know the point your trying to make but your analogy doesn't work because it isn't accurate.
@jscott181 well at least u understood my concept.. well then so be it.. the government i live in recognizes that it is sacred and should involve a man and a woman... until that law changes then i will stick to it and support that proposition. if u feel i am immoral in taking that position, then likewise i feel its immoral to change it.
@Gods0n1 What government is that? If your in the US than that isn't the case, despite what some pandering politicians yell all day for the past couple of election cycles. The purpose of government recognized marriage is to acknowledge the pooling of resources and the lessened burden that such a household has on the whole. Hence the tax benefits. It also acts as a contract, hence the legal protections of a commingled life. No one comes around with a sacred meter or love test before your married.
The true reason we oppose gay marriage is because we know it would legitimize homosexuality in people's minds, and the reason why we oppose the legitimization of homosexuality is because we believe it's an appealing yet self-destructive behavior, much like drug abuse or coprophilia. It has nothing to do with their inability to procreate. People only say that when they can't articulate their feelings.
for good. Religion may be a hot button topic as far as philosophy goes and it may even be difficult to accept, but religion has had so much influence on the ways we have built philosophy that by removing all the jibber-jabber of stories and supremacy you will find philosophy at its base. The Koran, the Bible, the Torah (and anything other scripture I may have missed) have philosophy and the base principles of "good" in them. Man may sometimes confuse the messages, but the roadmaps are there.
for good. Religion may be a hot button topic as far as philosophy goes and it may even be difficult to accept, but religion has had so much influence on the ways we have built philosophy that removing all the jibber-jabber of stories and supremacy you will find philosophy at its base. The Koran, the Bible, the Torah (and anything other scripture I may have missed) have philosophy and the base principles of "good" in them. Man may sometimes confuse the messages, but the roadmaps are there.
Man has no aptitude to determine what is right or wrong. As we have been raised to be selfish and self-preserving; our idea of right and wrong is subjective. My right and your wrong may be similar in some aspects, but it will undoubtedly be different. Right and wrong, what may or may not have been said before the eruption of an ultimate judgment, is the creation of religion. All religions made their versions of Heaven and Hell and their god(s) to move humanity in a direction to have the capacity
Overall, mankind finding the moral and good life is like insane asylum patients trying to decide fact from fiction alone. We are evil people with the bent to do wrong.(Just look at how many children have to be taught to lie, fight others or disobey their parents!) Only by a relationship with our creator can we understand morality, who we are and what we are to do. Unfortunately, without going to the creator, we just are left with haziness and question marks.
This was a very good class with a nice ending. I really expected to hear a very politically liberal, atheistic perspective after reading things from many Harvard profs but was pleased to see a nice balanced perspective. He is right that to allow something is to make a moral decision which is not entirely neutral. Society should not allow murder even if some believe it is right to kill certain people.
Thank you michael, it was wonderful course by A+ teacher! I just wished I would disagree (we all know what ideology is michael inclining towards, even tough he tries to be neutral) with you more. Is there a similar lecture by conservative professeur? I was not persued by conservative/libertarian ideology one bit (well, teleological reasoning and Communitarians had some points here and there, but they are not exactly "partisan" ideologies)
Would just like to say thank you for this excellent series! Very interesting and, as mentioned in other comments, the structure of the lectures are very well thought out and informative. Big thanks from Sweden!
Out of all the people pointed out in this series, once it got to this awkward point of who would reply, I knew Hannah would be the first to jump (based on her overaggressive, overblown ego and opinions) .
Seriously popped out of my seat when he said her name.
They couldn't agree on the telos of golf, but a large amount of people in the class seem to think they'll be able to figure out the telos of marriage ;D
@mroconnell lol. but in practice, they probably will figure out less about marriage than golf. Maybe fiances/fiancees should take a justice course... then again, arguments would probably still be just as long, just more interesting. ^.^
Wow!!! I've learned more about myself from watching the Justice videos than I could ever have imagined. Professor Sandel is an ambassador of reason and truth. Life changing information, simply amazing.... Anyone who has an ear, let him hear this amazing series.
what the hell? the point of marriage is to have kids?? If that were true, it's not just homosexuals who shouldn't be able to marry, but also infertile couples or even straight couples who don't want to have children. Hey, assholes in suits, you don't need to be able/want to have children in order to marry someone, you only need love
@danielfact There should be love between a man and a woman. If we allow love to be the only criteria, one could marry a dog out of love or several people could marry. As a society, we have to decide these things.
@46plato The difference is that the dog can't love you back (not in the sense of marriage, anyways), whereas a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman can love each other mutually.
@46plato While love is (often) a factor in marriage, I'd say the most important criteria for marriage is that all parties understand what they're doing and have a mutual consent about it. Children and animals don't understand how marriage bonds individuals. Inanimate objects like chairs lack any capability of thought to begin with.
Sure, there should be discussion about what marriage is meant for. But one thing we know is that marriage isn't just a mere license to set up a baby making factory.
Every course in the world HAS TO BE LIKE THIS ONE. Because it's not just about learning things, but -most important- it's about create your personal idea about things. It's about the most old, interesting, useful approach to the culture and ideas: the Debate.
I once had a course just like this, in my first semester in a non-ivy university. Problem: The topic, the students, all these play a part. I was thoroughly engaged and "famous" in class, but I was going solo and soon didn't wanna talk anymore - because I started to look like the class geeky suck-up snob. It wasn't me being a level above the rest, but the rest not interested, not trying, and dampening the class environment. The prof was great like sandel, his efforts unappreciated.
@fuck192ass Hello. Your comment on Sandel's philosophical labors are on point. Students despite their IQ, or economic status arrive at any college with their own view and beliefs of the world. Professor Sandel is teaching these young students how to think outside of their own belief system rather than regurgitating back at exam the ideas of a prof. Have a heart. Again, some students never truly grasp Philosophy-it forces one to challenge their own belief and is an uncomfortable subject at best.
fucking religious people. They shouldn't base ANY argument on this subject just based on religion
pleuriskip 5 days ago in playlist Meer video's van Harvard
I cant believe the top comment is not about that girl's masturbation question.
.
ahorrell 1 week ago
Excellent. Sandel is genius.
jimmypagepkr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The students who states " I do not believe that illegalizing abortion makes it go away. I don't believe illegalizing abortion stops it and therefore I am pro-choice." Is completely telling the truth yet is moronic! Passing laws against murder doesn't stop people from murdering. A laws consequence's may coerce but if its aim is absolute adherence every law would fail and there would be no reason to have any laws. Therefore there must be another reason for law. Lawyered!
id0lpr0ducti0ns 1 week ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
Comment removed
id0lpr0ducti0ns 1 week ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
a marriage is between a man and a woman... if they share a bond of like marriage isn't that enough? we must ask why we want recognition of marriage from others... whether it be by family friends state or religious institute... god said be fruitful and multiply, then one would like to show off that they are doing what was commanded. one might want recognition from the state to get in on tax cuts while to the state we are like assets of labor force along with the possible next generation...
krisptreats 1 week ago
Man should base its ideas in absolute principles, because when judgment becomes subjective, then it becomes too broad making itself relativistic, and if you fight for equality, then you should support this point, now the question is where does this absolute principles come from for each person? despite it is so criticized I still believe that it comes from spirituality(not religion), otherwise how can a man discern what is right and what is wrong?
salles105 2 weeks ago
"Our further appeal is its universal aspiration: the idea of treating persons as persons, without prejudice, without discrimination" -- Michael Sandel
nadirairdiana 2 weeks ago
45:11 - Adam Sandler
stratomaster136 1 month ago
Victoria is so hot, 22:00
stratomaster136 1 month ago
I think most of this discussion is pointless. When these students use religion as a starting position in their argument they are starting from a point that relies on faith. That is to say they start from an unevidenced premise which has no basis in reality. We cannot have a rational discussion about what is right built on false premises. I think their religion must disqualify them from any discussion about what is right and wrong on any subject that their religion informs them on.
drunkrtard 1 month ago 4
I'm curious as to what exactly would be the purpose of marriage outside a religious context? Does anyone really need the government to recognize that two people are in love or that they have both consented to a relationship with each other? At the base we are arguing about how we define who is in what family through exclusive relationships recognized by a government. The gov recognizes biological relationships as a proper kinship, does love really create a kinship? No, it doesn't. We impose that
godswordsheal 1 month ago
offer religious marriage ability that is not state recognized but allowed to be recognized internally, and civil marriages
thus, everyone is able to retain their own definition of marriage for themselves on the matter, since maritus means union, it does not have the religious connotation christians think is owed them automatically in a secular civil society, you may not, on religious grounds, impose your will on others, this allows for declaration of lack of support but not imposition against
noobler9 1 month ago
@noobler9 or civil unions, or whatever, under the state marriage license, even president or supreme dictator or saviour or overlord or so on, with the ad hoc declaration that it's an unimportant title, and that the values as they stand are what matter, so that it may be referenced internally as state licensed union
noobler9 1 month ago
The only true justice is "An Eye For An Eye".
While this may be a "Religious" concept it still holds true.
No other Philosophy has ever confronted the question of Justice any better.
hammerogod 2 months ago
Looking at the top comment, idk it youtube is trolling me.
Ofc religion has to do with morality. To judge the morality of an act, you need to refer to your own belief, that is religion if you are religious. Personally, I'm not religious but the concept of religion is so vague; to me it just means to believe in something. We all believe in something, if we don't then we don't believe in anything, how can we judge the morality of an action?
maybe im shortsighted, idk, just a you-tuber here...
kotofu 2 months ago
I don't see why people feel their religious doctrine should hold any weight on the subject of legal union. By separation of church and state, I would expect that each refrain from recognizing or dictating the other's marriage certification.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect Well you see when you are a philosopher you are allowed to debate concepts like the separation of church and state. This isn't necessarily about solving one particular problem, but instead about finding more ways to solve many problems. You need to think outside the realm of United States law in order to get this completely.
Ambit10n9 2 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
@Ambit10n9 Sure, separation of church and state can be brought into question, but where it is already established, such as in the United States, that must be resolved in favor of the contrary before appealing to ecclesiastical authority on a legal issue is acceptable. And I'm confident that I "get this completely".
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect and i don't know why non-religious values should have any say on the subject of marriage. Why only separate church and state? we should also separate feminism and state, liberalism and state, conservatism and state... you get the idea? politicians simply cannot leave their values out of congress doors, religious or agnostic. Voters don't simply vote without putting any weight on their religious or agnostic values.
jinu4ever 2 months ago
I believe that same sex marriage is fine but when these couple do not reproduce or have an off-spring, their Ancestors Genetic line or their inherited Genes get completely destroyed/ wipped off from this planet.....which sometimes is a big loss to the human gene pool...
sai242488 2 months ago
i think islam is the true religion of all and the humanity waste time with the non god rules with the others fiction religion
offshall 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course! We are deriving a lot of beliefs from our religions but that doesn’t mean that they are morally unquestionable. The act of morality needs broad and deep understanding of human values, the global picture. Ethical principles try to objectively address to lighten the conflicts come from individual's subjectivity and find out a solution that accepted to be fair for all. How can we expect this fairness from the religions?
TheVastEmptiness 2 months ago
How can if it is fundamentally composed of principles claimed to be written by god itself and are very reluctant and rigid for objective discussions. Religion and morality are verily contradictory and Religious principles should be severely discouraged in moral discussions.
TheVastEmptiness 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheVastEmptiness 2 months ago
An amazing course. I watched every episode.
sotweeddude 3 months ago
@sotweeddude I wondering where the exam is so I can get my well earned credits- of course without having to pay tuition.
davekeays 1 month ago
Why is the featured video "How To undo Her Bra With One Hand?" lol. Either way I have really enjoyed watching this series. It has given me valuable information for my high school debate cases.
Conner20D 3 months ago
go team mark!
caitychic 3 months ago
that dude is a fawking hero !
MapleWorry 3 months ago
Does ''Harvard'' ever comment on the comments here?
MapleWorry 3 months ago
T-E-L-E-O-L-O-G-Y.
Teleology IS NOT theology.
ignatius320 3 months ago
Suprising number of stupid people in this video for a Havard Lecture. The argument against gay marriage and abortion of say the first trimester are just not valid.
jwlbailey 3 months ago
these student's minds are full of mush and this prof is going to warp them at will.
lewistown78 3 months ago
Are u saying that Harvard students minds' are full of mush? Really?
Melia1190 3 months ago
@Melia1190: It matters not where they are from. Harvard students are not necessarily any smarter than those at a community college.
@jwbailey: Just because you disagree with some of them doesn't mean they are stupid.
davekeays 1 month ago
But if marriage is defined, as in this case by Christianity, isn't it wrong to in a sense break that definition and try to change a religious concept? Wouldn't it be just as absurd to force a Muslim community to accept homosexuals in their ranks? Another example would be legislate KKK to accept jews in their cult?
Lockheim 3 months ago
@Lockheim How about we go back to not allowing inter-racial marriage, since that was originally the "Christian thing" to do. And, on another note, marriage has existed outside of, and prior to, Christianity.
AlexMoensChannel 3 months ago 2
@AlexMoensChannel your using the word wrong lol.
IneffableLifestyle 3 months ago
@IneffableLifestyle using what word incorrectly? Marriage?
AlexMoensChannel 3 months ago
@AlexMoensChannel
Uhh yes, and it was always male/female as a social institution, which is why i don't know why you folks keep bringing up Christianity.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology First of all, that's poor logic. Prior to the mid 20th century you would be saying marriage was "always" in the same race, & typically religion too.19th century & prior marriages would never be for love. And, no, marriage wasn't always male/female only. There are plenty of examples of polygamy, not to mention old historical examples of same sex marriage in indigenous North America, Asia, & Africa. Not to mention vastly varying gender roles historically.
AlexMoensChannel 3 months ago
@AlexMoensChannel
Your knowledge of history is atrocious. The history of interracial marriage dates all the way back to the ancient world. Heck, it even predates the 20th century in Colonial America.
Also, only half of the colonies even had laws against interracial marriage, and the only reason they had to be created in the first place is because it was naturally assumed that any male and female could marry.
Now please give RELIABLE sources for your spurious claims about early gay marriage.
periechontology 3 months ago
By the way, your ability to FOLLOW logic is poor. i was not giving an argument for why same sex marriage should not be permitted, I was giving an argument for why not permitting it is not an imposition of specifically Christian values.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology Yes, not ONLY Christians have gunned for marriage being between one man and one woman; but the conversation I was in first that you jumped into was using Christianity as an example. Anyway, you did go on to say marriage was ALWAYS a male/female social institution, and that's incorrect. And, even if it weren't, we can additionally look at other historical changes to marriage over time & see arguments like yours are typically used as "proof" for why something shouldn't change.
AlexMoensChannel 2 months ago
@periechontology In the world I live in one part has almost zero tolerance towards consensual same-sex (leave alone pre-marital or extra marital sex) even having death as punishment and these regions are predominantly Moslem. I wonder sometimes whether even this freedom to talk about these issues would exist there! One might just get himself killed for voicing his opinion. I find a much greater tolerance to individuals who sympathize/practice same-sex in cultures influenced by Christianity.
josephwdr 3 months ago
@josephwdr tolerance is one of Jesus' strong points- but not of all his followers. Muslims is not the only culture that is intolerant- even Hinduism, look at the uproar in India about movies that depict homosexual relations. Yes, even the culture that brought us the Kama Sutra has its limits.
davekeays 1 month ago
@Lockheim if you go for the solution with sivil unions you dont have any problem as far as i can see? Whats ur point?
IneffableLifestyle 3 months ago
@IneffableLifestyle Well, I agree, I have no problem of a person binding himself in a union with another person lawfully. What bothers, well it doesn't really, but I can't understand why people want to do it within the boundaries of a religion that in the first place does not tolerate this certain type of union at the first place. I think it's a strange thing to commit oneself to a religion just to, moments later try to change it. I mean the choice is big when it commes to choosing a religion.
Lockheim 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
I dislike how "religion" is going with "morality" all the time in this lecture. Religion as a concept has nothing to do with morality as a concept.
TheAbyrwalg 3 months ago 25
@TheAbyrwalg Yeah it is really fucked up...
FoggyFishburne 3 months ago
@TheAbyrwalg I agree, but in reality, most people are incapable of thinking for themselves and their moral values are completely indistinguishable from their religious ones.
ixfluffxi 2 months ago
@ixfluffxi Well yeah, but this is a university lecture. These lectures should liberate people from their wrong opinions, not reinforce them.
TheAbyrwalg 2 months ago
@TheAbyrwalg how can you qualify that? morality is sourced from many different sources. Religion is one of them. Relax.
jinu4ever 2 months ago
@jinu4ever "morality is sourced from many different sources."
I think it's better to say that people tend to link morality to other things. There is nothing in religion that makes it a "source" or a "ground" for morality.
Also, notice how religion is not mentioned at all in all the previous lectures (which feature some very difficult questions), and how religion steps in to fuck up this lecture (in which maybe the simplest question to answer is discussed).
TheAbyrwalg 1 month ago
Weird - after 11 episodes/lectures where things started from a secular standpoint and stayed there, people start invoking their religion as the basis of conduct. The idea was to explore the grounds for justice by considering different secular moral frameworks and principles.
We live in the natural world. Some people believe in the supernatural, but have provided no reason to believe in it. If we're to make decisions, they must happen on the terms of the natural world - our common, shared realm.
MrNoepoe 3 months ago
@MrNoepoe One of the points being made was that maybe moral/religious reasoning can't be ignored. What we think justice is depends on how we define the right vs wrong.
davekeays 1 month ago
@davekeays I don't think that point was made in the lecture. Many Christians don't want gay marriage in their religious definition of marriage, but we're talking about the secular institution of marriage that the government recognizes legally. At least in the US and Finland, religion can never be a part of that process. But you mentioned "moral reasoning" for marriage. How exactly would gay marriage be "wrong"?
MrNoepoe 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
You cannot extend between a man and man, marriage because you cannot definine meaning .It would not any longer be possible to call marriage, marriage between two people.If a person decides to marry his dog does marriage with two dogs have the same meaning as marriage between two men?You cannot define reason to a word and hold honor of the word in dignity.It is not whether two men can marry it is whether they can change meaning to a word marriage.Call it a unique newly defined word
polopowers1 4 months ago
Definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It is in definition changing it becomes ridiculous When changing definition gov't changes meaning.Call it duoism or anything else but marriage. If you call man with man marriage you take freedom of meaning. Marriage has been held in meaning for generations man & woman Sanctity of words for male and female relationships is sacrosanct.No persons have righst of liberty to change established meaning. You want to call it duoism go ahead.
polopowers1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
Germany injure the human rights.Rich germans fight 18 years with my family.They essay to kill my mother me and my sister.Germans give me 14 years medicals to make me sick.My poor mother cry but germans have no pitty.
Devranderya 4 months ago
The topic is almost completely opinionated. Both sides have pros and cons and neither are completely correct. That is what makes us human beings.
Exodarks 4 months ago
@Exodarks I dont agree. That the christians impose their tilos of marriage on others should not be allowed isnt just an opinion, its against the constitution (as it should) that i know you americans love so much ;)
IneffableLifestyle 3 months ago
@IneffableLifestyle Where? Using questions of moral/religious telos (which no individual I know of can get away from) is not prohibited from the constitution- the fed government establishing a religion or prohibiting practicing a religion is unconstitutional.
davekeays 1 month ago
It's a tricky topic. He managed to steer that beginning of an awkward situation back on track though. I'm unsure, but I think not-knowing all the answers helps us to realise a part of being human. It's the journey of discovery that will give us the best answers in the end.
davorunner 4 months ago
Let the prejudice go and let everyone fuck everything they feel like fucking. Be it same-sex or even an animal. Or a piece of rock. They are happy. And you aren't affected. Who cares.
TriEdgeAI 4 months ago
@TriEdgeAI
Thanks for the smart comment. :)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago
26:27
That girl twitched her nose. I've never seen nose move that much.
Nexgcs 4 months ago in playlist Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
we don't do things that are wrong to us. We make a decision for ourselves and allow grace to cover us. I am pro life. I am pro safe-sex, however, we all make bad choices, but that doesn't make us bad. However, life is a beautiful choice and we have to be responsible and not enable people to just do whatever. We need laws to keep us "in check" but we need to also remember we are humans under GRACE.
IamamejustameIam 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This argument about same-sex marriage is secondary, it's about how to reach a form a justice in a pluralistic society. The academic is a good way of distilling the argument, however the practical application is that we put the Socratic method in the hands of elected Supreme Court Justices.
I'm surprise that it never came more that the implicit rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" as the underlying principle is not reflected in Telos of this particular case.
sgdluu 4 months ago
This argument about same-sex marriage is secondary, it's about how to reach a form a justice in a pluralistic society. The academic is a good way of distilling the argument, however the practical application is that we put the Socratic method in the hands of elected Supreme Court Justices.
I'm surprise that it never came more that the implicit rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" as the underlying principle is not reflected in Telos of this particular case.
sgdluu 4 months ago
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Comment removed
Steven170890 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lightandbeautiful - You may have a point but not all homosexuals behave in the same way. Some homosexuals are good people that contribute to society and other homosexuals behave in a silly, idiotic, degenerate way. So it is wrong for people to make generalizations that all homosexuals behave in the same way but I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily equate to hatred or phobia.
Steven170890 4 months ago
Yay Victoria and Sasant (sp?) for bringing a voice of reason to the marriage discussion! Government has no business in religious matters like marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract, for Christians it is much more. Other religions including Atheism may hold marriage as whatever they want.
HaloSlayer 4 months ago
@HaloSlayer i agree, but just to point out, atheism isnt an religion.
IneffableLifestyle 3 months ago
@IneffableLifestyle But isnt it true that religion is a set of beliefs just as much as atheism also has a set of beliefs? Which basically paints atheism as a 'religion' too!
josephwdr 3 months ago
@josephwdr Your terribly wrong here. Atheism means nothing more and nothing less than the lack of faith in a supernatural deity. Atheism has no beliefs, thats the point. So you see whilst religion is a set of beliefs in a supernatural deity, atheism is the exact opposite of that.
IneffableLifestyle 3 months ago
@IneffableLifestyle I disagree. An atheist believes in the absence of supernatural deity. As you mentioned religion (one set of beliefs) is exact opposite of atheism (another set of beliefs).
josephwdr 2 months ago
@josephwdr . Atheism is not about believing in the absence of a supernatural deity. Im sorry but your flat out wrong. Many atheists, not all, belive there is no deity, but that has nothing to do with atheism or being an atheist. There is a difference between not believing in a supernatural deity and believing there is no supernatural deity. If you cant see that distinction I cant help you. You shouldnt call atheism an religion, just as you shouldnt call someone not being a pilot, a pilot.
IneffableLifestyle 2 months ago 2
@IneffableLifestyle unfortunately, most people I know of who claim no beliefs are some of the more combative when their non-existent beliefs are challenged. I consider myself a Deist or Unitarian/Universalist which is sometimes confused with Atheism. Just because Atheism has no belief in supernatural entities that can only be known via faith doesn't mean it is devoid of beliefs.
davekeays 1 month ago
@IneffableLifestyle yes, Atheism is a religion. Although there isn't worship, there is belief and faith that there is no deities.
HaloSlayer 2 months ago
@HaloSlayer Nope, your wrong. Atheism is about not believing in a supernatural deity, the lack of faith, not believing there is no supernatural deity.
IneffableLifestyle 2 months ago
@HaloSlayer One doesn't need faith to dismiss unsubstantiated claims.
TheAbyrwalg 2 months ago
@TheAbyrwalg one does need faith to believe the unsubstantiated claim there is no "supernatural". This has been argued by some of the greatest philosophical minds, both atheist and not. Look it up, if you liked this video you'd probably like the content you find.
HaloSlayer 2 months ago 2
@HaloSlayer First define "supernatural", then we'll be able to talk about unsubstantiatedness of claims.
TheAbyrwalg 2 months ago
anybody know what books he assigned to this class?
if he picked, they were probably some interesting books
matereymate 4 months ago
@matereymate I'd like to know too, actually.
JayHyphenMichael 4 months ago
:'( I didn't want it to end! I agree with robbapb18 that every course should be like this and this series has motivated me to study harder in order to achieve, maybe not an education from Harvard per se since I am not interested in law, an education from a prestigious University. I will more than likely watch this whole series over again to let it sink in. Thank you for posting this on youtube, I appreciate this very much!
DaveAp7 4 months ago in playlist Harvard Moral Philosophy
This has been flagged as spam show
Justice demands we allow homosexuals to marry the same as heterosexuals. Morally, you should be voting against any ban on gay marriage because that is purposely & willfully thwarting & depriving other human beings from their natural end & what is due to them. All of us are entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Taking away the possibility of another to love & commit in the same way as yourself is essentially a moral evil. Stand up for true human justice so we all may know PEACE.
tytheeman20 4 months ago
Hannah married himself and not worth having a child but your idea is unfortunately not possible then always be masturbation?
gzachew 4 months ago
acutually dayday is hanna (the idiot)
idontcarei 4 months ago
Pathetic religious people that give mambojambo facts for certain, their reasoning capacity extends no further than a mosquito's. Of course i can't either prove that God(s) or such do not exists, but at least I know that that possibility (as any other) is open, and don't fixate in a single idea just to avoid thinking further of it. Also, I noticed every time they try to defend their argument they end up contradicting themselves, it's lame, their behavior is no different from an herd of sheeps...
rodriplada 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
16:05 HANNA ROCKS!
daydayhyphy 4 months ago
@daydayhyphy HANNA IS THE STUPIDEST FOR GETTING PERSONAL IN A PUBLIC DEBATE
idontcarei 4 months ago
@idontcarei HATE MUCH?
daydayhyphy 4 months ago
@daydayhyphy what hate much? can't u write a full sentence
idontcarei 4 months ago
@idontcarei can't you understand simple text?
daydayhyphy 4 months ago
I don't feel the government has the right to regulate peoples lives. I am a christian so I feel a marriage should be between a man and a woman. I also believe that people should live their lives the way they see fit as long as it does not violate another persons right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. I try not to judge anyone for their choices. Most religious people feel that homosexuality is an abomination to God. I will let him do the judging.
gasmaskinfidel 4 months ago
31:08 is it really so cold in the room? :)))
sauleivars 4 months ago
I don't think Christians actually know what marriage was like in the bible. God's laws allow you to sell your daughter as a sex slave into an unconsenting polygamous marriage.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again......If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food, clothing, *sex"
mrpayne123 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
fuckkk...wen r they gonna talk about pot? lmao
peasinacan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
I'm all for shutting down people against same sex marriage. But what the girl at 16:00 did was uncalled for, and frankly, a bitch move. Honestly, everyone masturbates, if you deny it, you're a liar or so religiously afraid of hell you think your own shadow is satan. She should have simply acted like the ADULT she should be in college, and presented arguments against theological reasoning in social, and justice systems.
Mdwulffy 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
@Mdwulffy she moved on and did that after it was explained to her that singling him out would be inappropriate, don't dwell on it she made some good arguments.
51488100 4 months ago
Comment removed
RJFlashCOM 4 months ago
16:00
Awkwaaaaaaaaard.
Drecker225 4 months ago
Fuck you Mark, fuck you Ryan. Your religious beliefs don't belong in our legislation.
crackerz99 4 months ago
SLAVES FREED, WOMEN TO VOTE and all the rest of these things we accept as ~ the KEWL liberty of our membership in being an AMerican citizen ... is a lie. The slave will be freed , and the woman to vote when doing so (even by a marginal mark)... make them "BUYERS"... or more monitarily Sound to the greater good. As we see "everyones" value slip... this QUESTION has aleady been answered. 1. you dont need marriage for bonding bliss, 2. a slipping value of the procreator need not be asked.
MC2233z 4 months ago 2
Go Steve!
oneteaspoon10 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard 2
if marriage is just a civil union.. would people in favor of same sex marriage, also promoste marriage between a brother and sister, or and dad and his daughter?
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 Yes, in fact, I do, I advocate for marriage between brother and sister, dads and daughters.
If it is a consensual marriage, why should we not recognize the marriage?
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 so your saying you wouldnt mind if your mom married your brother or your dad married your sister? hmmm, seems a little immoral to me.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@crackerz99 genetically if u look at the children of ppl that are related, they are always deformed. so mixing genes with family is a no no. and also i dont think its too hard to see that society as a whole would disagree with family marrying each other
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 who says that the married brother and sister are going to have children?
I think i stated in a different comment on that if family were to marry there would have to be strict regulations against them having children, cause it would just be a burdon on the tax payer of that child were to come to term.
but should we stop a brother and sister from having consensual sex? I don't think so, no matter how fucked up that is.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 under those same standards, do u think it is right or wrong for people to marry their animals and commit bestiality?
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 no thats not even in the same ball park, how can a fuckin beast consent to marriage and sign a contract?
Or consent to sex for that matter? Thats why bestiality is basically the rape of animals.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 well no i dissagree.. animals are the property of their masters.. when u go to the pound, you pick out the animals u want and sign all the necessary papers; no consent required,, they are yours. and also its not rape, because dogs will come onto u before u come onto them... you see? anything can be logical when u try and change morality.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@crackerz99 also, i dont think its a different ball park, because beastiality is VERY real. and i sure u will find ppl that do commit such things.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 how is bestiality in the same ball park as marrying a family member without any sexual relationtions?
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 its in the same park because it is a fact, that you will find ppl that put more value on animals then they do ppl. yes.. you can find ppl that cherish there animals and treat them better than ppl. it is also a fact that the whole movement against marriage is to make it simply a union of two individuals rather than a man and a women... therefore my argument is there will be no guidelines of what the standards and rules of marriage are; if allowed to change from what it is now!
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 and your agreement of daughter and father marrying each other only proves my point.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 thats the most retarded argument I've ever heard. Why would there be no guildlines if its no longer a man and a woman?
heres the guidelines, anyone who is 18 years or older who consents to marriage, can marry.
this does not make human and animal marriages legal. How does a dog sign a contract? or a giraffe?
When a dog is as smart as a human, can speak human languages, and know the ins and outs of legal contracts, then fuck it, let the dog marry a man.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 anyone who is 18 years or older who consents to marriage can marry... yes, this is good. but when a brother and sister marry each other, this causes lots of genetic deformations if they ever have kids. and society views its as immoral for family members to marry each other. if the guidlines for marriage are changed from what they are now, then marriage will no longer be sacred.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 Well, it would have to be illegal for family members to have children, because those deformations end up being a heavy burden on the taxpayer.
If marriage changes to allow LGBT to marry, it won't be a sacrilege because marriage is already a desecrated institution by the 52% of straight marriages that end in divorce, and 60% of the 48% who admit to cheating, or wanting to cheat, or seriously disliking their spouse.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 i blame those statistics of divorce on the advertisment and objectification of women... when u exploit women and publicize them as fantasy then its no wonder ppl are not happy with the person they marry.. they are always looking for something better.. compare those same statistics with marriages outside of the united states, or even arranged marriages.. the divorce rates are pratically zero. ..so we know that appealing to the demands of the ppl dont always benefit a society does it?
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 Well, usually teh divorce rate for arranged marriages is about 0% because in most of hte time in countries that still practice arranged marriages, would probably stone the woman to death if she got divorced.
And the men in those marriages don't want to divorce, because their wives are practically slaves.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@crackerz99 arranged marriages like in india would serve a better example. but my argument is still sound. if were comparing divorce rates of the united states over other countries... my position is to keep marriage traditionally the way it has been. this is a moral argument. and i just feel homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. everyone is entitled to their opinion
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 Well your opinion is wrong and hateful.
I don't think White people should get married because I feel that being white is unnatural and wrong.
crackerz99 4 months ago
@Gods0n1
"but when a brother and sister marry each other, this causes lots of genetic deformations if they ever have kids."
1-That is none of your business.
2-Non-blood related humans can also give birth to babies with genetic deformations. (we don't make it illegal for them to breed)
3-Humans over the age of 30 also have an increase rate of give birth to babies with genetic deformations, the older the woman having the baby, the higher the risk. (we also don't make it illegal for them to breed)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo incestous reproduction results in the offspring to carry more recessive traits than any other type of reproduction. in other words, it is almost ensured that there will be multiple birth defects with the child. the risk of having a birth defect in an incestous relationship is not even comprable to the risk of people over thirty reproducing
coolbeans135 2 months ago
@coolbeans135
Yes, it is more risky.
But it some people even if non-blood related, can have a higher risk of giving a terrible birth defect to their children, yet, it is legal for them to breed.
My point is, make it legal for everyone to breed as they want OR, make it illegal for everyone to breed if you haven't got a genetic test first and after the baby is a few weeks old, another genetic text or the baby, if the baby has any genetic defect, then mandatory abortion.
Fair is fair.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 1 month ago
@crackerz99
"Or consent to sex for that matter? Thats why bestiality is basically the rape of animals"←Is only rape if the humans ignore the animal consent and rapes the animal against their will.
Animals can give consent for sex and for other non-sexual activities.
Animals use body language to communicate implicit or explicit non-verbal consent. If you don't know what non-verbal consent is, you can Google it, you can also Google how 90% of human communication is non-verbal, even during sex. ;)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 2 months ago
@Gods0n1 Same sex marriage has no genetic effect on kids, since they cant even have kids. family does and it would be very dangerous to. and it wouldnt be permitted, it would simply be permitted. so literally yes, it would have to be permitted
conejita995 4 months ago
@conejita995 related indivials that have children end up with kids that have missing toes and fingers.. there is not enough diversity in the genes to have a normal child... this should encourage interracial couples. because genes are like DVDs, and when u copy the same dvd over and over again, you lose quality. and if your all for familys getting married, then thats another step in the opposite direction from what society has built as a moral standpoint. and everything becomes permissible.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 People get married for reasons other than having children. People are not DVD players. I never thought I'd have to explain that to someone.
jscott181 4 months ago
@jscott181 true ppl do get married for other reasons.. but marriage is sacred, and so are the guidlines.., ppl are not dvd players, but our genes are like dvds or CDs if u will. i say that because reproduction of our genes results in a downgrade in quality somewhat like dvds.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 No. Your marriage might be sacred and your guidelines might be sacred but that doesn't mean that mine have to be. I may want to marry someone for other reasons and it's no one else's business. Just as it isn't my business what guidelines you want for yours. I think you need to (re)take a biology course. Human reproduction is nothing like burning CDs. I know the point your trying to make but your analogy doesn't work because it isn't accurate.
jscott181 4 months ago
@jscott181 well at least u understood my concept.. well then so be it.. the government i live in recognizes that it is sacred and should involve a man and a woman... until that law changes then i will stick to it and support that proposition. if u feel i am immoral in taking that position, then likewise i feel its immoral to change it.
Gods0n1 4 months ago
@Gods0n1 What government is that? If your in the US than that isn't the case, despite what some pandering politicians yell all day for the past couple of election cycles. The purpose of government recognized marriage is to acknowledge the pooling of resources and the lessened burden that such a household has on the whole. Hence the tax benefits. It also acts as a contract, hence the legal protections of a commingled life. No one comes around with a sacred meter or love test before your married.
jscott181 4 months ago
The true reason we oppose gay marriage is because we know it would legitimize homosexuality in people's minds, and the reason why we oppose the legitimization of homosexuality is because we believe it's an appealing yet self-destructive behavior, much like drug abuse or coprophilia. It has nothing to do with their inability to procreate. People only say that when they can't articulate their feelings.
AgentOfVirtue 4 months ago
for good. Religion may be a hot button topic as far as philosophy goes and it may even be difficult to accept, but religion has had so much influence on the ways we have built philosophy that by removing all the jibber-jabber of stories and supremacy you will find philosophy at its base. The Koran, the Bible, the Torah (and anything other scripture I may have missed) have philosophy and the base principles of "good" in them. Man may sometimes confuse the messages, but the roadmaps are there.
bahamuttamer597 4 months ago
for good. Religion may be a hot button topic as far as philosophy goes and it may even be difficult to accept, but religion has had so much influence on the ways we have built philosophy that removing all the jibber-jabber of stories and supremacy you will find philosophy at its base. The Koran, the Bible, the Torah (and anything other scripture I may have missed) have philosophy and the base principles of "good" in them. Man may sometimes confuse the messages, but the roadmaps are there.
bahamuttamer597 4 months ago
Man has no aptitude to determine what is right or wrong. As we have been raised to be selfish and self-preserving; our idea of right and wrong is subjective. My right and your wrong may be similar in some aspects, but it will undoubtedly be different. Right and wrong, what may or may not have been said before the eruption of an ultimate judgment, is the creation of religion. All religions made their versions of Heaven and Hell and their god(s) to move humanity in a direction to have the capacity
bahamuttamer597 4 months ago
Overall, mankind finding the moral and good life is like insane asylum patients trying to decide fact from fiction alone. We are evil people with the bent to do wrong.(Just look at how many children have to be taught to lie, fight others or disobey their parents!) Only by a relationship with our creator can we understand morality, who we are and what we are to do. Unfortunately, without going to the creator, we just are left with haziness and question marks.
mundering1 5 months ago
This was a very good class with a nice ending. I really expected to hear a very politically liberal, atheistic perspective after reading things from many Harvard profs but was pleased to see a nice balanced perspective. He is right that to allow something is to make a moral decision which is not entirely neutral. Society should not allow murder even if some believe it is right to kill certain people.
mundering1 5 months ago 2
@mundering1 It's a myth that most college professors are atheists. -> watch?v=Urv-bqYrbfA&feature=channel_video_title
Drgamedood 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
Thumbs up for Michael Sandel for president 2012!
guittarmaster 5 months ago
Thank you michael, it was wonderful course by A+ teacher! I just wished I would disagree (we all know what ideology is michael inclining towards, even tough he tries to be neutral) with you more. Is there a similar lecture by conservative professeur? I was not persued by conservative/libertarian ideology one bit (well, teleological reasoning and Communitarians had some points here and there, but they are not exactly "partisan" ideologies)
Lius525 5 months ago
Comment removed
Lius525 5 months ago
Would just like to say thank you for this excellent series! Very interesting and, as mentioned in other comments, the structure of the lectures are very well thought out and informative. Big thanks from Sweden!
theed111 5 months ago in playlist Justice Harvard Ethics Course
LOLOLOL @ 15:26
Out of all the people pointed out in this series, once it got to this awkward point of who would reply, I knew Hannah would be the first to jump (based on her overaggressive, overblown ego and opinions) .
Seriously popped out of my seat when he said her name.
Iguessijustdontknow 5 months ago
I seriously LOVE Havard and WGBH for putting this up for everyone to see. THANK YOU HARVARD <3
NoSyMan 6 months ago
They couldn't agree on the telos of golf, but a large amount of people in the class seem to think they'll be able to figure out the telos of marriage ;D
mroconnell 6 months ago 2
@mroconnell lol. but in practice, they probably will figure out less about marriage than golf. Maybe fiances/fiancees should take a justice course... then again, arguments would probably still be just as long, just more interesting. ^.^
iNESADRIenne 6 months ago
Wow!!! I've learned more about myself from watching the Justice videos than I could ever have imagined. Professor Sandel is an ambassador of reason and truth. Life changing information, simply amazing.... Anyone who has an ear, let him hear this amazing series.
mortician96 6 months ago
i read the book before watching all of these--made it even better. there should be more professors like him
clintm359 6 months ago
what the hell? the point of marriage is to have kids?? If that were true, it's not just homosexuals who shouldn't be able to marry, but also infertile couples or even straight couples who don't want to have children. Hey, assholes in suits, you don't need to be able/want to have children in order to marry someone, you only need love
danielfact 6 months ago 17
@danielfact There should be love between a man and a woman. If we allow love to be the only criteria, one could marry a dog out of love or several people could marry. As a society, we have to decide these things.
46plato 3 months ago
@46plato The difference is that the dog can't love you back (not in the sense of marriage, anyways), whereas a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman can love each other mutually.
MarvellousMachine 3 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
@46plato While love is (often) a factor in marriage, I'd say the most important criteria for marriage is that all parties understand what they're doing and have a mutual consent about it. Children and animals don't understand how marriage bonds individuals. Inanimate objects like chairs lack any capability of thought to begin with.
Sure, there should be discussion about what marriage is meant for. But one thing we know is that marriage isn't just a mere license to set up a baby making factory.
MrNoepoe 3 months ago 18
Every course in the world HAS TO BE LIKE THIS ONE. Because it's not just about learning things, but -most important- it's about create your personal idea about things. It's about the most old, interesting, useful approach to the culture and ideas: the Debate.
robbapb18 7 months ago 59
@robbapb18
I once had a course just like this, in my first semester in a non-ivy university. Problem: The topic, the students, all these play a part. I was thoroughly engaged and "famous" in class, but I was going solo and soon didn't wanna talk anymore - because I started to look like the class geeky suck-up snob. It wasn't me being a level above the rest, but the rest not interested, not trying, and dampening the class environment. The prof was great like sandel, his efforts unappreciated.
matthewpng 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 3 months ago
@fuck192ass Hello. Your comment on Sandel's philosophical labors are on point. Students despite their IQ, or economic status arrive at any college with their own view and beliefs of the world. Professor Sandel is teaching these young students how to think outside of their own belief system rather than regurgitating back at exam the ideas of a prof. Have a heart. Again, some students never truly grasp Philosophy-it forces one to challenge their own belief and is an uncomfortable subject at best.
Monjinou 7 months ago
God that Black girl didn't know what she was talking about. Every time she's talked on this course she's said something retarded.
nedwarp 7 months ago 4