what does a person do for themselves then? do they have the freewill to make decisions to make themselves more likely to succeed or is it all based on factors outside of ourselves like chance and prier circumstance? won't that make the case for the people to be lazy? and is laziness okay then?
I agree with you, the one word that they have yet to mention is "accountability". Being free to choose entails you bear the consequences of you actions. Rawls's criticism seems to imply that people come with different degrees of freedom--the degree being based on your socioeconomic background. Hence accountability comes in degrees.
This is at odds with the idea of humans as rational, autonomous beings valued in-and-of themselves because it implies rational capacity exists in different degrees. I disagree with that for many reasons, laziness is such an example.
@id0lpr0ducti0ns I suppose it could make the case for permitting laziness. However if you believe in Kant's idea of duty to human dignity then I think laziness is not permitted. When laziness or sloth becomes dominant in our lives I think we are disrespecting ourselves or other people for the sake of the pleasure we derive from being lazy.
You might be born in rich or poor familys, but the education you have at the end of your life is yours to decide and it never has been as easy as now in the age of the internet to get educated very well. We all already start at the same starting point but still many of us lack the motivation we get from good parenting, which should improve in the future.
Es de gran ayuda personal si el estado decide darle beneficios a su mérito laboral, independientemente si es un favorecido por el propio nacimiento. Genética o laboralmente favorecido.
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.
To repeat while I'll soon say: I've got 5 statements to make and YT won't let me so I'll make several posts.
4- Using the example of a race. Part of issue is which race to choose? Some will do better at a sprint, others a marathon. Why make people run with lead shoes (aka taxing them) because some co-runners may have chosen the wrong race?
5- Let's keep the public sector behind the veil of ignorance and the private sector to a combination of meritocracy with categorical imperatives.
3. The goals of egalitarianism are too vague to be interpreted without bias that derails the argument. Who will decide on what is a morally just desert, what will be done to distribute it? Suddenly the ability to make those interpretations becomes a potentially unjust privileged. Both utilitarianism and egalitarianism suffer from the same fault by opening their system to such a wide field of interpretations that it is impossible to judge them in the world individuals live in.
I've got 5 statements to make and YT won't let me be that long winded so I'll make several posts.
1: Inequality during the effort to achieve isn't the same as final inequality and the flux is sometimes necessary to achieve. Therefore limiting all inequality == limiting some achievements.
2- Trying to eliminate all unfair and outside influences in life is like trying to eliminate luck from a blackjack game. Card-counters make the game unfair but don't assume all winners are card-counters.
Would we not agree that overpopulation is the hidden factor behind many of society's problems? In this case, more people are being born with lesser talents & abilities than the reverse. Think about it how many people do you know that are, for lack of a better word mediocre? Is it not painfully obvious that there are far more people of average or even subaverage intelligence? The number of college graduates can't all because of better education, some are simply smarter to begin with
@VincitOmniaVerit We have a higher population than ever, but the world is more prosperous, more technologically advanced, has a lower number of deaths per capita, higher life expectancy, and so on, than ever before. Somehow I don't think high population is the issue.
Not to mention high population means we generate geniuses that much faster. A world population of 10 million rather than 6 billion would mean you'd have to wait 2000 years rather than 30 years for someone like Steve Jobs to appear.
@sniperontheroof123 Wait, the world is more prosperous? Yes, SOME people might be more prosperous but wealth is most certainly not spread uniformly. More than 1.5 billion people live in absolute poverty and lets not even take into account those in relative poverty. As far as geniuses, do you not think that it would be far better to have considerably less people and have far more educational resources available instead of it being spread thin by overcrowded and under-funded schools?
@VincitOmniaVerit Yes, actually it is. Before the advent of modern technology, 100% of the world had life expectancies of 30, were far more likely to be killed by another person, etc etc etc. Everyone used to live on $2/day...
Geniuses aren't made with educational resources. Some kids simply don't have what it takes to be a rocket scientists. Plus, if you have half the population, you're going to have half of the taxpayers, and half as much money to fund schools, so that' wouldn't help anyway.
@VincitOmniaVerit Before the the modern age 100% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty, as well as relative poverty when compared to the few kings and the aristocracy. It's clearly better that today this percentage has fallen by 20-40%, and will continue to do so as China and India grow.
Educational resources like...teachers? A world with more people would be able to provide more teachers. Same for textbooks and really anything that requires labor to produce.
@sniperontheroof123 I think overpopulation IS a problem.It's about an exponentially growing population having exponentially growing needs and demands. As far as careers go: not a problem, we will still have as many teachers/person or lawyer/person, etc. Nevertheless, the earth resouces don't grow at all (minerals, oil, energy, water, fertile land, athmosphere, etc).
... it's a race between depleting resouces (diminishing the standard of living) and technology (improving it). In some areas tech got the upper hand and we have seen improvements, in other cases has been the other way around and we already see considerable damage (pollution, the death of species, global warming, slums, stress and mental illnesses, overcrowded cities, etc).
They are mostly independent, it's not about how well we are, imagine how well we COULD be if we had one and not the other.
what is the point of trying to become the greatest basketball player in the world, if my rewards for my training to become the best are taken away by the "weak".
I believe there is no luck, when it comes to talent. Person x is not born the best, he has worked to become the best.
I love mike, he answers everything they way i would.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Trying to become the best in the world (or just good at something or achieving something) is, to the people who strive to be the best, an end in itself.
Michael Jordan will still be the best at his respective sport, regardless of whether he makes 30 million dollars or 10 million dollars.
Nobody will be deterred from becoming the best in something just because they will be taxed more than the average working Joe if they do become the best.
what if you recieved nothing for becoming the best basketball player int the world? What would happen? People are not just going to do it for the fame, money is a large factor.
The simple rules of economics are people behave rationally, and people respond to incentives.If the reward is less, then the effort is less. I direct you to the racee anology, the man in first runs 5 seconds faster, the man behind him runs faster,ect.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You oversimplify as is the tendency of people who hold your view on this matter . Again, in the real world, no one will be deterred from anything by having their income taxed higher.
When Warren Buffet has to pay 50% of his income to the government, you know what, he doesn't feel discouraged at all, because hey, he still has 10 billion dollars.
No failure is being rewarded here, that is just a silly political talking point.
if i give money to people that dont have jobs, there will be less incentive for people to get jobs. So more people will choose to not get jobs.
If i have to work 10 times harder to recieve 10 times more pay, i will do it. But if i have to work 10 times harder to get 5 times the pay(result of taxes), it will no longer be benificial to work harder.
My main point though is that it is the libertarian view. The fruits of my labor are mine. It is not the governments to steal.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "if i give money to people that dont have jobs, there will be less incentive for people to get jobs. So more people will choose to not get jobs."
That is illogical. Unless you are giving people who do not have jobs the EXACT SAME amount of all resources and capital as you give to people who do have jobs, then it is entirely false. You also assume people work purely for resources and capital, which is demonstrably false.
if you work really hard, 80 hours a week, you earn 20 dollars a week. If you dont work at all and accept welfare you get 8 dollars a week. Thats my interpretation of welfare. You do recieve less, but the amount of effort you put in (0) is worth getting payed less.
The people that go on welfare are the types of people that are most likely not working for anything else, but money. How many industrial workers, or fast food workers love their job?
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp People on welfare get compensation that is a tiny fraction of those who truly pay into the welfare system. A tiny, tiny fraction. Barely enough to survive. Nobody ACTUALLY wants to be in that position. It is a very, very bad situation to be in with absolutely no benefits of any kind. It is ignorant, at best, to suggest that people in that position are comfortable.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp No, the numbers are key. The point is quite simple: Nobody can survive comfortably and happily off of welfare. You suggest that people on welfare have little reason to get a job, which is entirely false. People on welfare, if anything, have MORE of a reason to get a job than anyone else in society, because they barely have enough to survive, let alone be comfortable.
When you add the medicaid, housing, food, and monthly stipend it equals about $43,000 per year tax free. so add tax works out to $55,000. The average household income in the US is $52000 for a worker now how is this fair. Copy and pasted from wiki answers.
people on welfare have less incentive then people not on welfare, because they have an income. There is tons and tons of welfare fraud, the actual numbers are probably far more. they are ignorant thieves
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Oh great, so you are comparing a TINY ITTY BITTY FRACTION of people on welfare (has to be a family of 4, you forgot to mention that) to ALL people who are on welfare? Sounds like a logical argument, right? You are essentially saying a rectangle is a square, because it has four sides.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Also, just as a basic fact check, there are about 53 million people on welfare. If people actually received the money you are saying, the budget would have to be 2.272 trillion. Except it isn't, it is 500 billion. Oops. Math doesn't add up, does it?
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Federal government reports 15.1% of Americans are in poverty. I would assume mostly unemployment compensation. There is also a few percent of nonimpoverished people who qualify for welfare to some degree. Which gets you about 53 million Americans using welfare. But, if you want to use purely those who are impoverished, then it is about 47 million. Either way, your number is completely off.
God help the elite in knowledge in money Rawls fails to reconize suicide among educated and wealthy are higher than among the poor. Establish your race its quality what is important to you. Autonomy from norms makes individuals rich educated unique.This is classic establisment based philosophy begining with the best; Best? whom society says are best ?. Individuals must eliminate tags people put on them. Don't run the world's race and you can't lose. Run your own race make your own story.
I'm actually volunteering as a Teacher's Aide, so I see myself as a person or "institution" that helps get everyone up to the same starting point, after that it's someone else's job to make things fair :P
any harvard student isn't going to be match of a decently intellectual business employer who's been in the society for couple of years and actually have to solve problems every day based on merit based systems.. i can understand why the woman in the video doesn't understand.. there is limitation with sitting at a desk and talking about things you don't really get, no matter how smart 'you think' you are
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.
I don't know if it's just me, but I think this is the best lecture so far of the first 8 episodes I've seen. My mind was blown! I look forward to episode 9.
Question...what is it about being first born that gives people that edge, gives them that Type A personality? Is it a genetic thing, or an environmental thing, where the first born is naturally pushed harder by parents than the younger ones?
Rawls Theory of Justice made Aristotle's illiberal authoritarianism compulsoryTJ65: TJ1 Rule behaviorism TJ2 System-emergent duty motivation pretended not to exist 3 Tabula rasa(a pseudoscientific hoax) 11 Trickledown 11 No meritocracy 17 Eugenics against ability 18 Raise-the-bottomism 30 Sacrifice 35 Demonizing 50 Slavery 54 Demoncracy 54 Market fundamentalism 66.6 Meaning well 66.6 Criticism taboo for rule of law 67 PCness 67 Ends-blindness. Fall of America trick cull-down in one personage?
Mike is mistaken because behind the veil of ignorance we are equals which means we all have put in the same effort so it's impossible to even start with the idea that someone should be rewearded with more. I mean, how can you even begin to imagine that someone is clearly superior to you when everyone is equal? That's a ridiculous stance to take and he's clearly just a douche and thinks he "deserves" to be a Harvard when none of us even "deserve" to exist. What right do we have to existence?
I think he should use a better example than Letterman... How about someone making 30k a year... Wouldn't we all agree that taxing that person is wrong?
@toshzpelta No. If the person was above a certain threshold ('ahead' in the race) then they would be taxed a small amount on their earnings to help the ones below. It wouldn't be the same amount as Letterman of course.
Egalitariasm is a nice though that like comunism and socialism can not work. The problem - someone has to be in the middle to distribute the goods. And everytime a buroucrat gets involve none is happy, but the buroucrat. Sorry, but I think we can not fix the inaqulityes - it is called fate.
Robert Nozick represent the ''justice'' in USA and John Rawls represent the justice of Canada. I'm so proud of beeing in that last kind of justice (I'm from Québec don't worry about my english)
@xXQuebecRebelXx If you enjoy Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," I'd also recommend Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice," which is a good addition to Rawls work. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize economist.
fantastic lecture, but i have one question. in light of the reason financial crisis, bankers in the uk are still being paid rather substantial bonuses. in relation to the topics discussed in this lecture, are these bonuses just, or deserved? and if not, under what circumstances would they ever be?
I'm not too surprised first in birth order work harder. Parents of all stripes usually give the younger kids more slack than their big siblings. Or at least that's the way it seems.
The people who reward people for hard work, what are they rewarding them with? Their money. So since it's their money they're paying out shouldn't they decide what factors they think are relevant.
That's the thing, no one can be truly complimented/reprimanded for anything because everything about us and our decisions are pre-determined by where we brought up and who raised us. Even the small minor things which are a consequence of our genes can not be complimented because it was just a coincidence that we were born with such genes.
We also don't truly have free-will. As our personalities are pre-determined, so are our actions which lead off from our personalities.
@AnonymouslyFaceless I don't think the argument of determinism (although I'm with you about the world being ultimately deterministic) applies to ethics. Saying that our choices don't matter is an error of transcendence. Imagine that the world is a computer program and we are huge groupings of evolving algorithms. Our intentions, "should"s and "must"s ARE that program. As pieces of software, we struggle for our interests. David Hume's notion of responsibility extends this, read if interested. :)
@Bobstew68 Oh our ethics and choices do matter, no doubt about that. However I think determinism applies to everything, including ethics. The only work I've read by David Hume is 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'. o.O I will definitely read his ideas on compatibilism and determinism.
@AnonymouslyFaceless Have fun with it! He makes a compelling argument that a deterministic world is not just compatible, but *necessary* in order for anyone to be responsible for their actions, and thus to justify punishment.
Okay but effort still makes up some of it. If the richest kid with the perfect evironment just sat back, he would still not get anywhere. Also about self-ownership. Basically he says; "you just don't own yourself". And then its defended by the fact that not all rights are infringed. So just because I don't infringe your right to freedom of speech means I can infringe your physical integrity, or in this case your property right? Wrong, you are initially free, and give up limited freedom yourself.
Even if I home schooled my children I'd pay taxes towards public schools because they equip people with the skills to perform all kinds of jobs in the society I live in that I do benefit from. Every social sphere is interrelated in such a complex way that one can't fairly participate in some and opt out of others. And it took political reforms in the early 20th century to improve the lot of the working class, before that most were virtual slaves to entrepeneurs and their industrial machinery.
Letterman's pay is fair because as far as I know he has not stolen from anyone to get that income. Meanwhile a public school teacher gets her money from an institution that steals. If a poor family chooses to home school their kids and declines to pay for the public school system they will be thrown out of their home. A TV watcher can choose to watch Letterman or not. A parent has little to no choice about who their child's teacher is, and has no control of paying her.
The system that helps the poor as much as possible is the free market. I would much rather be poor in a free market society than a medium wealthy person in a communist society. The inventor, scientist or entrepreneur has done more to lift up the poor than any government ever could. Nothing good can come out of stealing. Did you know that the income tax was originally sold as a tax on only the rich? Did you know that the poor pay more taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle?
What about people who choose to specifically develop talents that society praise and value in abundance? Could it be said that the development and practice of these talents are in our control? Take for example a person who could choose between teaching and singing, but choose singing because of the larger economic benefits that result from it.
Sometimes taking the time and effort to hone your natural talents to a competitive standard is something that should be rewarded. We all have certain innate talents, and at varying levels, but I think those that reach excellence (Michael Jordan, etc) are the ones that have taken the time, often at the sacrifice of other things (perhaps family, etc) to take what they have been given naturally and take it to the next level. Talents need developing before they can become a commodity.
If superior attributes or superior socio-economic status are matters of luck and have nothing to do with justice, then why is it unjust to not be taxed to atone for them? I didn't chose to be cursed with these advantages!
Thanks for this great series, my wife and me love it! One small point of improvement. This episode somehow is protected, and I can't view it on my tv through my mediaplayer. This is the only episode that seems to be protected.
Meritocracy is basicly a society that gives a positive moral judgement if you work hard, but fails to see that the financial rewards of those efforts depend on a wider set of conditions than just those efforts.
@bernd9000 To be fair, he does make some relevant points but it does sound as though he has spent too much time reading motivational/self-help/sports-psy books. I do not agree with him but I do think that his personal outlook on life is something which deserves credit. He's a confident young man. Can't take that away from anyone regardless of their background.
the rich should be taxed because most of them (but not all) already had a better start in life and also for the fact that history has shown that the rich tend to want more and more and more....their is a finite amount of resources and money and the rich hoard far more than their fair share (even if their share is 250x more than the average)
@blau2102 Yes, with a surprise party. Balloons, candles, cake, party hats, the lot. Thats how Sloth should be rewarded. And the party should be invite only. Thanks everyone
@blau2102 Rawl's makes a strong argument for genetics and effort as elements that we cannot claim credit for. However, like all ethical frameworks, it does not cover every single case; but I would be hard pressed to say I find it better than utilitarian :)
I have a medical degree, but not from Harvard. That limits my potential for achievement compared to those that did graduated Harvard Medical School.
So, do those fortunate doctors owe me some compensation for their access that makes the playing field unlevel?
Or, if I choose to not practice medicine at all, divesting myself of possessions... does society owe me the basics of human existence? Food/shelter/clothing/medical care, etc?
@Leonid3s Or if I should choose to only provide my services, at no cost, to those I choose as "worthy", either by political ideology or any other criteria... do I still "deserve" society's largess?
Would Rawls support forcing me to provide my services under his conception of "fair", thus making me a slave?
Rawls spoke of the moral obligations of the top toward the bottom, but I have not seen the opposite, the moral obligations of the bottow toward the top.
@Leonid3s By negating "effort" as merit, Rawls effectively removed its opposite from punitive recourse.
IMO, a society based on these principles will eventually destroy itself; as the 'bottom' becomes ever more entitled and increases in size, while the top becomes smaller as greater demands are placed upon it.
Feel free to discuss via private mail.
PS, I am throughly enjoying the series by Dr. Sandel. I regret I cannot see his lectures in person.
@Leonid3s if you are providing services to certain people you deem worthy, then you place yourself in the position of judge over other people's , you put yourself above anoter, so morally it would be wrong.
And forcing you to become a slave..well
Think about it, if you want to be a part of society you will have to put in your worth. if your worth happens to be more then that of others then you will have to contribure more then others, because you can. if you consider that slavery, wikipedia
Some people should not be worth more than others simply b/c the government or commercial industry would allow them to obtain greater wealth (such as Letterman or Judy). But since this is the case then there should not be an objection that the same government, when it distributes wealth more equally, be labeled as theft. B/c it is the same original source which has this system put in the first place(2 judges, one earning more than other simply b/c she’s on TV).
Can someone please explain why a well of person would/should care about the veil of ignorance perspective? Sure, if there was such a situation in reality, equality would be good, but there there is no such veil. Seems to me that once the veil is uncovered, the people who turns out to be well-off (smart, rich, good looking etc) wouldn't have any reason to care about the less well off anymore, except for our natural empathy which is limited.
looks like the first-born people overweight at harvard? but i m the firstborn and i soooo lazy and by younger brother is the ambitios one. (and in psychology i learned that the younger people tend to be more ambitios..)
Rawls says that it's unfair for the less talented not to get the same opportuneties as those who are naturally talented. The same goes the other way around, why should someone with minor intelligence get to Harvard even if it is completely arbitrary that he has such traits. The idea of the system is to favor those who are able, even if it is in the ultimate sense "unfair". Besides you cannot get everyone to the same starting point.
@FutureHyperion You've just missed Rawls' whole point. From his perspective justice is fairness. What's the use of talking about justice if you wish merely to preserve an inegalitarian system that masquarades as a fair one. The point is not to get dummies into Harvard, but to acknowledge that getting into Harvard itself is not entirely a reflection of ones moral virtue, but a reflection of a host of circumstances that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.
@luckspice Fairness is a nice word but that's just about it. World isn't a fair place and people don't all get the same traits or opportunities. That's just the way the world is. It may be unpleasant but it's true. You can't base justice on some ideal that never quite works in real life. If you want to actually get justice to happen in practice you have to abandon the idea that it bases itself on absolute fairness or somthing like that. Any thouhts?
@FutureHyperion your point is addressed at 32:00. Rawls never claims unintelligent people should be admitted to top schools. Rather, he would say that top schools should be reserved for those with superior intellects. Behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls contends we would all agree to taxation. So the successful should be taxed, but not so high that they don't work hard or develop their skills. Otherwise there would be no tax revenues for redistribution to the poor.
@bshapka Veil of ignorance isn's working. It is supposed to demonstrate that we should act upon principles that give everyone a fair start but it doesn't. It merely ASSUMES that people act according to egalitarian principles when behind the veil of ignorance. Why should they? Someone would perhaps like to gamble and take chance. This person may end up being part of lower class but then again he may not. The veil of ignorance is assuming what it is supposed to prove, it's a circular argument.
@FutureHyperion The veil does not assume we act according to egalitarian motives. Rather, it assumes self-interest. Behind the veil, one would choose to not discriminate against females *not* for the sake of egalitarian ideals, but because one would not want to chance being born a female and being discriminated against. The result is egalitarian, but the motive is selfish. Thus Rawls never takes egalitarian motives as an assumed premise, so his argument is not circular.
@FutureHyperion Perhaps some would choose to gamble behind the veil, but research by Kahneman implies most would not. Kahneman has found that people take fewer risks to make gains but take more risks to avoid losses (which supports Rawls' argument). Also as Sandel notes, the veil is one of Rawls' two arguments for progressive taxation. Even if the veil fails for those that gamble, Rawls' (edible/yummy sounding) desert based argument still poses a challenge.
@bshapka It is arbitrary that some people rather take bigger risks in hope of bigger prizes as some try to minimize the losses by making the prizes smaller. There are many ways of being selfish - Rawls simply picks the one way that suits his egalitarian views, doesn't prove anything, I'd still say it's circular logic but even if it's not it doesn't get you anywhere. If the "veil of ignorance argument" is accepted then the moral dilemma about the organization of society still remains.
@FutureHyperion You seem to be saying that since Rawls was egalitarian and the veil ends up justifying egalitarianism, it's circular logic. I was under the impression that an argument is circular when a premise of the argument is repeated as the argument's conclusion. Rawls conclusion is egalitarian, but none of his premises are. Rather they concern self-interest, abstracting away personal details and risk aversion. Rawls' personal values are irrelevant to the merits of his argument.
@bshapka No, I'm saying that because Rawls argues egalitarianism behind the veil to be the best way to ensure self-interest and his argument ends up justifying egalitarianism his logic is circular. He already assumes egalitarian principles in this hypothetical case to be the best principles and concludes them therefore to be the best principles in real life. Seems like a circle to me. And I don't really believe in objective moral truths but it's a fun debate.
@FutureHyperion Rawls doesn't assume egalitarian principles in the hypothetical situation behind the veil. He argues that we would choose egalitarianism from the motivation of self interest. His argument is that we wouldn't gamble our life prospects without more knowledge than is available behind the veil. Moreover he isn't concluding that egalitarianism is the 'best principles in real life', he is setting up an ideal of fairness that laws and society can then base policies on.
@FutureHyperion Your argument equivocates between different meanings of the word egalitarian. In the original postion, the people are equal in having no rights or money. With the first principle, the people are equal in having equal rights. With the second principle people are equal in having equal opportunity. There is nothing about equal distributions of money in the second principle. Your argument jumps around between different meanings of the word "egalitarian."
@FutureHyperion It also may be a mistake to call the OP egalitarian. In the OP, there are no rights or money to distribute equally. Everyone shares equally in lacking these things. But "egalitarian" typically refers to an equal distribution of some quantity of things (rights, money etc.). At the very least, your argument equivocates because being equal through a mutual lack of something is different than "egalitarianism" which typically refers to a (man-made) equal distribution of something.
@bshapka People have very different conceptions about the nature of fairness - it is hard to draw a clear line between equality and merits. Michael Jordan deserves his millions? Some egalitarians say he does because he earned them and others say he doesn't and therefore you should tax him more. "People may benefit from their good fortune, from their luck in a genetic lottery, but only in terms that were to the advantage of the least well off."
@bshapka How can we say that only under these circumstances can we allow people to benefit from something? By what right? What is for the advantage of the least well off? How we decide it? Who is to decide in the first place? A lot of unanswered questions. Rawls' arguments aren't a solution to these questions - but rather a way of posing the question. I still don't think these arguments give any solid solutions to these moral dilemmas.
@FutureHyperion I don't recall ever explicitly or implicitly claiming that Rawls offers complete solutions. Just because I defended him a few times dosen't mean I think he is the Yoda of ethics. Rawls has holes, but I can assure you that the philosophers you favor have holes too. If you have studied meta-ethics, then you know there is a lot to be said about asking if rational "ethical truths" even exist.
@bshapka@bshapka Besides, even if you do agree with the premise that behind the veil of ignorance everyone chooses a fair society instead of unfair one, you're not getting anywhere because people have very, very different conceptions about fairness. Then we're simply left with the original moral debate about fairness and justice to which the "veil of ignorance" was supposed to be an answer for. It clearly isn't because it runs in circles.
Would like to see subtitles, as you did for the first six episodes. It's very helpful for foreign English speakers.
ciarpametube 4 days ago
Wow. Just wow. My whole life is going to change because of this. I'm 18.
ImbAHaM 1 month ago
@ImbAHaM Careful. Rawls was writing in the seventies. Many thinkers have developed and rethought his theories since then.
EkstasisWarwick 1 month ago
Comment removed
SKCunited 1 month ago
what does a person do for themselves then? do they have the freewill to make decisions to make themselves more likely to succeed or is it all based on factors outside of ourselves like chance and prier circumstance? won't that make the case for the people to be lazy? and is laziness okay then?
id0lpr0ducti0ns 1 month ago
@id0lpr0ducti0ns
I agree with you, the one word that they have yet to mention is "accountability". Being free to choose entails you bear the consequences of you actions. Rawls's criticism seems to imply that people come with different degrees of freedom--the degree being based on your socioeconomic background. Hence accountability comes in degrees.
jrstanczyk 1 month ago
@jrstanczyk
This is at odds with the idea of humans as rational, autonomous beings valued in-and-of themselves because it implies rational capacity exists in different degrees. I disagree with that for many reasons, laziness is such an example.
jrstanczyk 1 month ago
@id0lpr0ducti0ns I suppose it could make the case for permitting laziness. However if you believe in Kant's idea of duty to human dignity then I think laziness is not permitted. When laziness or sloth becomes dominant in our lives I think we are disrespecting ourselves or other people for the sake of the pleasure we derive from being lazy.
ThePureEast 1 month ago
Please live and teach for a long time, I really would love to be your student some day <3
MignonetteVarisa 2 months ago 7
@MignonetteVarisa Why? You just got his course for free online.
Aassymcass 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel 3
You might be born in rich or poor familys, but the education you have at the end of your life is yours to decide and it never has been as easy as now in the age of the internet to get educated very well. We all already start at the same starting point but still many of us lack the motivation we get from good parenting, which should improve in the future.
Gamorreaner 2 months ago
Es de gran ayuda personal si el estado decide darle beneficios a su mérito laboral, independientemente si es un favorecido por el propio nacimiento. Genética o laboralmente favorecido.
walterbonny 2 months ago
-
Actually the real trick is to avoid dilemma's this great guys is talking about.
-
This is not always possible, but often it is.
-
The monetary system we live in with greedy bankers and corrupt politicians is are examples of situations we must avoid.
-
-0-
MrCally1 3 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
2200
hustler2300 3 months ago
To repeat while I'll soon say: I've got 5 statements to make and YT won't let me so I'll make several posts.
4- Using the example of a race. Part of issue is which race to choose? Some will do better at a sprint, others a marathon. Why make people run with lead shoes (aka taxing them) because some co-runners may have chosen the wrong race?
5- Let's keep the public sector behind the veil of ignorance and the private sector to a combination of meritocracy with categorical imperatives.
davekeays 3 months ago
3. The goals of egalitarianism are too vague to be interpreted without bias that derails the argument. Who will decide on what is a morally just desert, what will be done to distribute it? Suddenly the ability to make those interpretations becomes a potentially unjust privileged. Both utilitarianism and egalitarianism suffer from the same fault by opening their system to such a wide field of interpretations that it is impossible to judge them in the world individuals live in.
davekeays 3 months ago
I've got 5 statements to make and YT won't let me be that long winded so I'll make several posts.
1: Inequality during the effort to achieve isn't the same as final inequality and the flux is sometimes necessary to achieve. Therefore limiting all inequality == limiting some achievements.
2- Trying to eliminate all unfair and outside influences in life is like trying to eliminate luck from a blackjack game. Card-counters make the game unfair but don't assume all winners are card-counters.
davekeays 3 months ago
Would we not agree that overpopulation is the hidden factor behind many of society's problems? In this case, more people are being born with lesser talents & abilities than the reverse. Think about it how many people do you know that are, for lack of a better word mediocre? Is it not painfully obvious that there are far more people of average or even subaverage intelligence? The number of college graduates can't all because of better education, some are simply smarter to begin with
VincitOmniaVerit 3 months ago
@VincitOmniaVerit We have a higher population than ever, but the world is more prosperous, more technologically advanced, has a lower number of deaths per capita, higher life expectancy, and so on, than ever before. Somehow I don't think high population is the issue.
Not to mention high population means we generate geniuses that much faster. A world population of 10 million rather than 6 billion would mean you'd have to wait 2000 years rather than 30 years for someone like Steve Jobs to appear.
sniperontheroof123 3 months ago
@sniperontheroof123 Wait, the world is more prosperous? Yes, SOME people might be more prosperous but wealth is most certainly not spread uniformly. More than 1.5 billion people live in absolute poverty and lets not even take into account those in relative poverty. As far as geniuses, do you not think that it would be far better to have considerably less people and have far more educational resources available instead of it being spread thin by overcrowded and under-funded schools?
VincitOmniaVerit 3 months ago
@VincitOmniaVerit Yes, actually it is. Before the advent of modern technology, 100% of the world had life expectancies of 30, were far more likely to be killed by another person, etc etc etc. Everyone used to live on $2/day...
Geniuses aren't made with educational resources. Some kids simply don't have what it takes to be a rocket scientists. Plus, if you have half the population, you're going to have half of the taxpayers, and half as much money to fund schools, so that' wouldn't help anyway.
sniperontheroof123 3 months ago
@VincitOmniaVerit Before the the modern age 100% of the world's population lived in absolute poverty, as well as relative poverty when compared to the few kings and the aristocracy. It's clearly better that today this percentage has fallen by 20-40%, and will continue to do so as China and India grow.
Educational resources like...teachers? A world with more people would be able to provide more teachers. Same for textbooks and really anything that requires labor to produce.
sniperontheroof123 2 months ago
@sniperontheroof123 I think overpopulation IS a problem.It's about an exponentially growing population having exponentially growing needs and demands. As far as careers go: not a problem, we will still have as many teachers/person or lawyer/person, etc. Nevertheless, the earth resouces don't grow at all (minerals, oil, energy, water, fertile land, athmosphere, etc).
...(to continue)...
loneDreamer0 2 days ago
... it's a race between depleting resouces (diminishing the standard of living) and technology (improving it). In some areas tech got the upper hand and we have seen improvements, in other cases has been the other way around and we already see considerable damage (pollution, the death of species, global warming, slums, stress and mental illnesses, overcrowded cities, etc).
They are mostly independent, it's not about how well we are, imagine how well we COULD be if we had one and not the other.
loneDreamer0 2 days ago
Marcus...
jimmypagepkr 3 months ago
mike and kate are gonna fuck
Taqu3 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
Taqu3 3 months ago
brad is an asshole
DexterDAntonio 3 months ago
i disagree with John rawls,
what is the point of trying to become the greatest basketball player in the world, if my rewards for my training to become the best are taken away by the "weak".
I believe there is no luck, when it comes to talent. Person x is not born the best, he has worked to become the best.
I love mike, he answers everything they way i would.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Trying to become the best in the world (or just good at something or achieving something) is, to the people who strive to be the best, an end in itself.
Michael Jordan will still be the best at his respective sport, regardless of whether he makes 30 million dollars or 10 million dollars.
Nobody will be deterred from becoming the best in something just because they will be taxed more than the average working Joe if they do become the best.
TheSpiritOfTheTimes 3 months ago
@TheSpiritOfTheTimes
what if you recieved nothing for becoming the best basketball player int the world? What would happen? People are not just going to do it for the fame, money is a large factor.
The simple rules of economics are people behave rationally, and people respond to incentives.If the reward is less, then the effort is less. I direct you to the racee anology, the man in first runs 5 seconds faster, the man behind him runs faster,ect.
You cant reward failure, or there will be more
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You oversimplify as is the tendency of people who hold your view on this matter . Again, in the real world, no one will be deterred from anything by having their income taxed higher.
When Warren Buffet has to pay 50% of his income to the government, you know what, he doesn't feel discouraged at all, because hey, he still has 10 billion dollars.
No failure is being rewarded here, that is just a silly political talking point.
TheSpiritOfTheTimes 3 months ago
@TheSpiritOfTheTimes
if i give money to people that dont have jobs, there will be less incentive for people to get jobs. So more people will choose to not get jobs.
If i have to work 10 times harder to recieve 10 times more pay, i will do it. But if i have to work 10 times harder to get 5 times the pay(result of taxes), it will no longer be benificial to work harder.
My main point though is that it is the libertarian view. The fruits of my labor are mine. It is not the governments to steal.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp "if i give money to people that dont have jobs, there will be less incentive for people to get jobs. So more people will choose to not get jobs."
That is illogical. Unless you are giving people who do not have jobs the EXACT SAME amount of all resources and capital as you give to people who do have jobs, then it is entirely false. You also assume people work purely for resources and capital, which is demonstrably false.
Melthornal 3 months ago
@Melthornal
if you work really hard, 80 hours a week, you earn 20 dollars a week. If you dont work at all and accept welfare you get 8 dollars a week. Thats my interpretation of welfare. You do recieve less, but the amount of effort you put in (0) is worth getting payed less.
The people that go on welfare are the types of people that are most likely not working for anything else, but money. How many industrial workers, or fast food workers love their job?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp People on welfare get compensation that is a tiny fraction of those who truly pay into the welfare system. A tiny, tiny fraction. Barely enough to survive. Nobody ACTUALLY wants to be in that position. It is a very, very bad situation to be in with absolutely no benefits of any kind. It is ignorant, at best, to suggest that people in that position are comfortable.
Melthornal 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp People on welfare get 200-300$ per month. People who pay into welfare get that much, if not more, per DAY.
Melthornal 3 months ago
@Melthornal
the numbers are unimportant to my point. Clearly no one works 80 hours for 20 dollars in america
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp No, the numbers are key. The point is quite simple: Nobody can survive comfortably and happily off of welfare. You suggest that people on welfare have little reason to get a job, which is entirely false. People on welfare, if anything, have MORE of a reason to get a job than anyone else in society, because they barely have enough to survive, let alone be comfortable.
Melthornal 3 months ago
@Melthornal
When you add the medicaid, housing, food, and monthly stipend it equals about $43,000 per year tax free. so add tax works out to $55,000. The average household income in the US is $52000 for a worker now how is this fair. Copy and pasted from wiki answers.
people on welfare have less incentive then people not on welfare, because they have an income. There is tons and tons of welfare fraud, the actual numbers are probably far more. they are ignorant thieves
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Oh great, so you are comparing a TINY ITTY BITTY FRACTION of people on welfare (has to be a family of 4, you forgot to mention that) to ALL people who are on welfare? Sounds like a logical argument, right? You are essentially saying a rectangle is a square, because it has four sides.
Melthornal 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Also, just as a basic fact check, there are about 53 million people on welfare. If people actually received the money you are saying, the budget would have to be 2.272 trillion. Except it isn't, it is 500 billion. Oops. Math doesn't add up, does it?
Melthornal 3 months ago
@Melthornal
i was not even close on that number, my bad.
500 billion includes medicaid, welfare, food stamps and other safety net programs, how are you finding the number of people on welfare?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 3 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Federal government reports 15.1% of Americans are in poverty. I would assume mostly unemployment compensation. There is also a few percent of nonimpoverished people who qualify for welfare to some degree. Which gets you about 53 million Americans using welfare. But, if you want to use purely those who are impoverished, then it is about 47 million. Either way, your number is completely off.
Melthornal 3 months ago
Guy at 8:00...what a fucking asshole.
YawnGod 3 months ago
God help the elite in knowledge in money Rawls fails to reconize suicide among educated and wealthy are higher than among the poor. Establish your race its quality what is important to you. Autonomy from norms makes individuals rich educated unique.This is classic establisment based philosophy begining with the best; Best? whom society says are best ?. Individuals must eliminate tags people put on them. Don't run the world's race and you can't lose. Run your own race make your own story.
polopowers1 3 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 3 months ago
I'm actually volunteering as a Teacher's Aide, so I see myself as a person or "institution" that helps get everyone up to the same starting point, after that it's someone else's job to make things fair :P
davorunner 3 months ago
He is a great speaker.
Lockheim 4 months ago
15:07 Ahaha, look how happy Mike is.
YouFaceRead 4 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
28:53 Lawyer or model??
TokyNeg 4 months ago
no more on student's take after professor got schooled, i see
spyletu 4 months ago
any harvard student isn't going to be match of a decently intellectual business employer who's been in the society for couple of years and actually have to solve problems every day based on merit based systems.. i can understand why the woman in the video doesn't understand.. there is limitation with sitting at a desk and talking about things you don't really get, no matter how smart 'you think' you are
spyletu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spyletu Sure, but who do you think you are to know that?
TheAssesKicker 4 months ago
Comment removed
spyletu 4 months ago
Comment removed
spyletu 4 months ago
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
Mike is HOT
josenavarrojr 4 months ago in playlist justice - Harvard
I don't know if it's just me, but I think this is the best lecture so far of the first 8 episodes I've seen. My mind was blown! I look forward to episode 9.
Question...what is it about being first born that gives people that edge, gives them that Type A personality? Is it a genetic thing, or an environmental thing, where the first born is naturally pushed harder by parents than the younger ones?
Nextbigching 4 months ago
45:05 = Game face.
BelievingEmerald 5 months ago
brilliant lecture ! Just brilliant.
Now, Is this in the same country as sarah palin michelle bachman and other republicans?
hard to believe !
nevertheless123 5 months ago
@nevertheless123 You know you're an ass if you can't help but express your political bias on every Youtube video you watch
OiClatan2 4 months ago in playlist Morale Murder
@OiClatan2 And you know you are an ass if you write your unsolicited opinions to others.
bye bye you stupid YT troll !
nevertheless123 4 months ago
@nevertheless123 what did he do?
phantomofthedrivein 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nevertheless123 Right... which is why I called you out on it...
OiClatan2 4 months ago in playlist Morale Murder
cloudbusterman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
will you please explain this ? Milind ,. milind.murugkar@gmail.com
milind62 4 months ago
@cloudbusterman what?
Sandcat87 3 months ago
I like how the camera man never fails to give the hot chicks a quick shot once in a while.
Skippa1986 5 months ago 55
@Skippa1986 just a s I read you comment ...girl at 28:50 came up
sled1950 3 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
@Skippa1986 EXACTLY:D
orchoose 3 months ago
Hahaha, soooo many Asians..
Phalanx3800 5 months ago
Comment removed
SyncopatedNightmares 6 months ago
29:56 You can see that Ron Wesley is sitting at the front row...
CONANLI12 6 months ago
Mike has persuaded me... that Red Bull should be made a controlled substance.
Yikes, can you imagine getting trapped on an elevator with that guy?
grapefruitgrove 6 months ago
@grapefruitgrove um...I'd love to be trapped in an elevator with that guy.
josenavarrojr 4 months ago in playlist justice - Harvard
That was a very theatrical demonstration but very powerful nonetheless.
PktMma 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mike is mistaken because behind the veil of ignorance we are equals which means we all have put in the same effort so it's impossible to even start with the idea that someone should be rewearded with more. I mean, how can you even begin to imagine that someone is clearly superior to you when everyone is equal? That's a ridiculous stance to take and he's clearly just a douche and thinks he "deserves" to be a Harvard when none of us even "deserve" to exist. What right do we have to existence?
wonsuksong592 7 months ago
I think he should use a better example than Letterman... How about someone making 30k a year... Wouldn't we all agree that taxing that person is wrong?
toshzpelta 7 months ago
@toshzpelta No. If the person was above a certain threshold ('ahead' in the race) then they would be taxed a small amount on their earnings to help the ones below. It wouldn't be the same amount as Letterman of course.
Sandcat87 3 months ago
Comment removed
RavingDissension 7 months ago
Egalitariasm is a nice though that like comunism and socialism can not work. The problem - someone has to be in the middle to distribute the goods. And everytime a buroucrat gets involve none is happy, but the buroucrat. Sorry, but I think we can not fix the inaqulityes - it is called fate.
slonamu 7 months ago in playlist Justice: What is the right thing to do?
This was fantastic. Thanks for making this available!
nomnomdeguerre 8 months ago
That guy in the front row picking his nose @12:41 , absolutely disguisting...
unapologeticmind 8 months ago in playlist Justice Series: What's the Right thing to do?
Robert Nozick represent the ''justice'' in USA and John Rawls represent the justice of Canada. I'm so proud of beeing in that last kind of justice (I'm from Québec don't worry about my english)
xXQuebecRebelXx 8 months ago 18
@xXQuebecRebelXx If you enjoy Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," I'd also recommend Amartya Sen's "The Idea of Justice," which is a good addition to Rawls work. Amartya Sen is a nobel prize economist.
andyx1205 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mick is such a douche
mcgussy 8 months ago 16
@mcgussy he's just a kid.. he'll come around .. give him a chance
vijaymd44 7 months ago
@mcgussy hahaha
soulseeker300 6 months ago
Where is Matt Damon?
thorn5 9 months ago
jeah,,, then distribution of GPA would be fair?? i don't think so
dannyrunny 9 months ago
@dannyrunny Why dont you think so?
HellisListening1 9 months ago
fantastic lecture, but i have one question. in light of the reason financial crisis, bankers in the uk are still being paid rather substantial bonuses. in relation to the topics discussed in this lecture, are these bonuses just, or deserved? and if not, under what circumstances would they ever be?
richardjamair 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not too surprised first in birth order work harder. Parents of all stripes usually give the younger kids more slack than their big siblings. Or at least that's the way it seems.
FatherTime89 9 months ago
I think I have an answer for him.
The people who reward people for hard work, what are they rewarding them with? Their money. So since it's their money they're paying out shouldn't they decide what factors they think are relevant.
FatherTime89 9 months ago
Comment removed
FatherTime89 9 months ago
That's the thing, no one can be truly complimented/reprimanded for anything because everything about us and our decisions are pre-determined by where we brought up and who raised us. Even the small minor things which are a consequence of our genes can not be complimented because it was just a coincidence that we were born with such genes.
We also don't truly have free-will. As our personalities are pre-determined, so are our actions which lead off from our personalities.
AnonymouslyFaceless 9 months ago
@AnonymouslyFaceless I don't think the argument of determinism (although I'm with you about the world being ultimately deterministic) applies to ethics. Saying that our choices don't matter is an error of transcendence. Imagine that the world is a computer program and we are huge groupings of evolving algorithms. Our intentions, "should"s and "must"s ARE that program. As pieces of software, we struggle for our interests. David Hume's notion of responsibility extends this, read if interested. :)
Bobstew68 9 months ago
@Bobstew68 Oh our ethics and choices do matter, no doubt about that. However I think determinism applies to everything, including ethics. The only work I've read by David Hume is 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'. o.O I will definitely read his ideas on compatibilism and determinism.
AnonymouslyFaceless 8 months ago
@AnonymouslyFaceless Have fun with it! He makes a compelling argument that a deterministic world is not just compatible, but *necessary* in order for anyone to be responsible for their actions, and thus to justify punishment.
Bobstew68 8 months ago
@Bobstew68 That sounds very interesting, can't wait to read it in more depth. Thanks. :)
AnonymouslyFaceless 8 months ago
Comment removed
AnonymouslyFaceless 8 months ago
Okay but effort still makes up some of it. If the richest kid with the perfect evironment just sat back, he would still not get anywhere. Also about self-ownership. Basically he says; "you just don't own yourself". And then its defended by the fact that not all rights are infringed. So just because I don't infringe your right to freedom of speech means I can infringe your physical integrity, or in this case your property right? Wrong, you are initially free, and give up limited freedom yourself.
itgsweb 9 months ago
Even if I home schooled my children I'd pay taxes towards public schools because they equip people with the skills to perform all kinds of jobs in the society I live in that I do benefit from. Every social sphere is interrelated in such a complex way that one can't fairly participate in some and opt out of others. And it took political reforms in the early 20th century to improve the lot of the working class, before that most were virtual slaves to entrepeneurs and their industrial machinery.
NoAdditves 9 months ago
Mike is a smug little cawk.
Ilissill 9 months ago
Letterman's pay is fair because as far as I know he has not stolen from anyone to get that income. Meanwhile a public school teacher gets her money from an institution that steals. If a poor family chooses to home school their kids and declines to pay for the public school system they will be thrown out of their home. A TV watcher can choose to watch Letterman or not. A parent has little to no choice about who their child's teacher is, and has no control of paying her.
shelly8510 9 months ago
The system that helps the poor as much as possible is the free market. I would much rather be poor in a free market society than a medium wealthy person in a communist society. The inventor, scientist or entrepreneur has done more to lift up the poor than any government ever could. Nothing good can come out of stealing. Did you know that the income tax was originally sold as a tax on only the rich? Did you know that the poor pay more taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle?
shelly8510 9 months ago
What about people who choose to specifically develop talents that society praise and value in abundance? Could it be said that the development and practice of these talents are in our control? Take for example a person who could choose between teaching and singing, but choose singing because of the larger economic benefits that result from it.
Deltoidz 9 months ago
They have 25 minutes classes?
bonheurbrun 9 months ago
@bonheurbrun I was wondering that too
laihan8787 9 months ago
Is it just me or does Kate look like hermoine from the Harry potter movies?
ajaxhobbit 10 months ago
Lets just say it as Marx: "From anyone by his ability, to anyone by his need".
slonamu 11 months ago
Sometimes taking the time and effort to hone your natural talents to a competitive standard is something that should be rewarded. We all have certain innate talents, and at varying levels, but I think those that reach excellence (Michael Jordan, etc) are the ones that have taken the time, often at the sacrifice of other things (perhaps family, etc) to take what they have been given naturally and take it to the next level. Talents need developing before they can become a commodity.
synerjizzm 11 months ago
If superior attributes or superior socio-economic status are matters of luck and have nothing to do with justice, then why is it unjust to not be taxed to atone for them? I didn't chose to be cursed with these advantages!
grantsinmypants2 11 months ago
Thanks for this great series, my wife and me love it! One small point of improvement. This episode somehow is protected, and I can't view it on my tv through my mediaplayer. This is the only episode that seems to be protected.
arjanharing 11 months ago
Meritocracy is basicly a society that gives a positive moral judgement if you work hard, but fails to see that the financial rewards of those efforts depend on a wider set of conditions than just those efforts.
drummerponsi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Norwegian translation at Framgraving:
framgraving.blogspot.com/2010/12/john-rawls-rettferdig-fordeling.html
TheMalene2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMalene2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMalene2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMalene2010 1 year ago
guy at 21:10, i cannot express how disgusting i find you. so proud to be where you are, but have not understood a thing
bernd9000 1 year ago
@bernd9000 To be fair, he does make some relevant points but it does sound as though he has spent too much time reading motivational/self-help/sports-psy books. I do not agree with him but I do think that his personal outlook on life is something which deserves credit. He's a confident young man. Can't take that away from anyone regardless of their background.
graw81 1 year ago
the rich should be taxed because most of them (but not all) already had a better start in life and also for the fact that history has shown that the rich tend to want more and more and more....their is a finite amount of resources and money and the rich hoard far more than their fair share (even if their share is 250x more than the average)
merrittolsen 1 year ago
É imensamente gratificante assistir a este curso da Harvard. Parabenizo esta brilhante iniciativa.
TheEcodireito 1 year ago
how could youtube track at what minute did I ended my watch the last time?
Melki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Помощь. Кредит 17%. М МО. Без справок и поручителей. Консалтинг 25%. Другие варианты. (495)2200660 2200660@mail.ru
tiblon1 1 year ago
Should sloth be rewarded?
blau2102 1 year ago
@blau2102 Yes, with a surprise party. Balloons, candles, cake, party hats, the lot. Thats how Sloth should be rewarded. And the party should be invite only. Thanks everyone
horselesssleigh 1 year ago
@blau2102 Rawl's makes a strong argument for genetics and effort as elements that we cannot claim credit for. However, like all ethical frameworks, it does not cover every single case; but I would be hard pressed to say I find it better than utilitarian :)
Deltoidz 9 months ago
I have a medical degree, but not from Harvard. That limits my potential for achievement compared to those that did graduated Harvard Medical School.
So, do those fortunate doctors owe me some compensation for their access that makes the playing field unlevel?
Or, if I choose to not practice medicine at all, divesting myself of possessions... does society owe me the basics of human existence? Food/shelter/clothing/medical care, etc?
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@Leonid3s Or if I should choose to only provide my services, at no cost, to those I choose as "worthy", either by political ideology or any other criteria... do I still "deserve" society's largess?
Would Rawls support forcing me to provide my services under his conception of "fair", thus making me a slave?
Rawls spoke of the moral obligations of the top toward the bottom, but I have not seen the opposite, the moral obligations of the bottow toward the top.
Are there any?
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@Leonid3s By negating "effort" as merit, Rawls effectively removed its opposite from punitive recourse.
IMO, a society based on these principles will eventually destroy itself; as the 'bottom' becomes ever more entitled and increases in size, while the top becomes smaller as greater demands are placed upon it.
Feel free to discuss via private mail.
PS, I am throughly enjoying the series by Dr. Sandel. I regret I cannot see his lectures in person.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@Leonid3s if you are providing services to certain people you deem worthy, then you place yourself in the position of judge over other people's , you put yourself above anoter, so morally it would be wrong.
And forcing you to become a slave..well
Think about it, if you want to be a part of society you will have to put in your worth. if your worth happens to be more then that of others then you will have to contribure more then others, because you can. if you consider that slavery, wikipedia
shorun666 1 year ago
@shorun666
Those that would enslave me are also acting as judge over other people.
Therefore, by your own logic, they are immoral.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@Leonid3s I dont think you actually got the message..
shorun666 1 year ago
@Leonid3s I dont think you actually got the message..
shorun666 1 year ago
@shorun666
I heard the message. Just didnt drink the Kool-Aid.
I find philosophy interesting and am more than willing to consider any given point. But you have to follow the philosophy to its rational conclusion.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
Introduce a little anarchy into the situation...
I'm an agent of chaos, and you know what they say about chaos... it's the only thing that is "fair."
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Rawls' argument against libertarianism is anything but strong.
tommyplastino 1 year ago
I agree with Rawls.
Some people should not be worth more than others simply b/c the government or commercial industry would allow them to obtain greater wealth (such as Letterman or Judy). But since this is the case then there should not be an objection that the same government, when it distributes wealth more equally, be labeled as theft. B/c it is the same original source which has this system put in the first place(2 judges, one earning more than other simply b/c she’s on TV).
TheMeganicenick 1 year ago
Can someone please explain why a well of person would/should care about the veil of ignorance perspective? Sure, if there was such a situation in reality, equality would be good, but there there is no such veil. Seems to me that once the veil is uncovered, the people who turns out to be well-off (smart, rich, good looking etc) wouldn't have any reason to care about the less well off anymore, except for our natural empathy which is limited.
MartenThuren 1 year ago
This is my favorite so far.
FIRSTGLADI8R 1 year ago
looks like the first-born people overweight at harvard? but i m the firstborn and i soooo lazy and by younger brother is the ambitios one. (and in psychology i learned that the younger people tend to be more ambitios..)
johmarie7 1 year ago
I like Mike. Call me! lol
nzbestari 1 year ago
Hey harvard you spelled part wrong in the description box
awesome lecture by the way
tijnerkamp1 1 year ago
Hey harvard you spelled part wrong in the description box
tijnerkamp1 1 year ago
sounds like a bunch of communist..uh i mean communitarian bullshit to me!!
psyhobill5150 1 year ago
Comment removed
psyhobill5150 1 year ago
excellent and very very much supporting lectures for law students or are not even part of harvard school .
m rahail zafar adv
rahailful 1 year ago
5 dislikes? 5 youtube idiots.
TIKOMIX 1 year ago
Rawls says that it's unfair for the less talented not to get the same opportuneties as those who are naturally talented. The same goes the other way around, why should someone with minor intelligence get to Harvard even if it is completely arbitrary that he has such traits. The idea of the system is to favor those who are able, even if it is in the ultimate sense "unfair". Besides you cannot get everyone to the same starting point.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion You've just missed Rawls' whole point. From his perspective justice is fairness. What's the use of talking about justice if you wish merely to preserve an inegalitarian system that masquarades as a fair one. The point is not to get dummies into Harvard, but to acknowledge that getting into Harvard itself is not entirely a reflection of ones moral virtue, but a reflection of a host of circumstances that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.
luckspice 1 year ago
@luckspice Fairness is a nice word but that's just about it. World isn't a fair place and people don't all get the same traits or opportunities. That's just the way the world is. It may be unpleasant but it's true. You can't base justice on some ideal that never quite works in real life. If you want to actually get justice to happen in practice you have to abandon the idea that it bases itself on absolute fairness or somthing like that. Any thouhts?
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion your point is addressed at 32:00. Rawls never claims unintelligent people should be admitted to top schools. Rather, he would say that top schools should be reserved for those with superior intellects. Behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls contends we would all agree to taxation. So the successful should be taxed, but not so high that they don't work hard or develop their skills. Otherwise there would be no tax revenues for redistribution to the poor.
bshapka 1 year ago
@bshapka Veil of ignorance isn's working. It is supposed to demonstrate that we should act upon principles that give everyone a fair start but it doesn't. It merely ASSUMES that people act according to egalitarian principles when behind the veil of ignorance. Why should they? Someone would perhaps like to gamble and take chance. This person may end up being part of lower class but then again he may not. The veil of ignorance is assuming what it is supposed to prove, it's a circular argument.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion The veil does not assume we act according to egalitarian motives. Rather, it assumes self-interest. Behind the veil, one would choose to not discriminate against females *not* for the sake of egalitarian ideals, but because one would not want to chance being born a female and being discriminated against. The result is egalitarian, but the motive is selfish. Thus Rawls never takes egalitarian motives as an assumed premise, so his argument is not circular.
bshapka 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion Perhaps some would choose to gamble behind the veil, but research by Kahneman implies most would not. Kahneman has found that people take fewer risks to make gains but take more risks to avoid losses (which supports Rawls' argument). Also as Sandel notes, the veil is one of Rawls' two arguments for progressive taxation. Even if the veil fails for those that gamble, Rawls' (edible/yummy sounding) desert based argument still poses a challenge.
bshapka 1 year ago
@bshapka It is arbitrary that some people rather take bigger risks in hope of bigger prizes as some try to minimize the losses by making the prizes smaller. There are many ways of being selfish - Rawls simply picks the one way that suits his egalitarian views, doesn't prove anything, I'd still say it's circular logic but even if it's not it doesn't get you anywhere. If the "veil of ignorance argument" is accepted then the moral dilemma about the organization of society still remains.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion You seem to be saying that since Rawls was egalitarian and the veil ends up justifying egalitarianism, it's circular logic. I was under the impression that an argument is circular when a premise of the argument is repeated as the argument's conclusion. Rawls conclusion is egalitarian, but none of his premises are. Rather they concern self-interest, abstracting away personal details and risk aversion. Rawls' personal values are irrelevant to the merits of his argument.
bshapka 1 year ago
@bshapka No, I'm saying that because Rawls argues egalitarianism behind the veil to be the best way to ensure self-interest and his argument ends up justifying egalitarianism his logic is circular. He already assumes egalitarian principles in this hypothetical case to be the best principles and concludes them therefore to be the best principles in real life. Seems like a circle to me. And I don't really believe in objective moral truths but it's a fun debate.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion Rawls doesn't assume egalitarian principles in the hypothetical situation behind the veil. He argues that we would choose egalitarianism from the motivation of self interest. His argument is that we wouldn't gamble our life prospects without more knowledge than is available behind the veil. Moreover he isn't concluding that egalitarianism is the 'best principles in real life', he is setting up an ideal of fairness that laws and society can then base policies on.
Cyrusjle 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion Your argument equivocates between different meanings of the word egalitarian. In the original postion, the people are equal in having no rights or money. With the first principle, the people are equal in having equal rights. With the second principle people are equal in having equal opportunity. There is nothing about equal distributions of money in the second principle. Your argument jumps around between different meanings of the word "egalitarian."
bshapka 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion It also may be a mistake to call the OP egalitarian. In the OP, there are no rights or money to distribute equally. Everyone shares equally in lacking these things. But "egalitarian" typically refers to an equal distribution of some quantity of things (rights, money etc.). At the very least, your argument equivocates because being equal through a mutual lack of something is different than "egalitarianism" which typically refers to a (man-made) equal distribution of something.
bshapka 1 year ago
@bshapka People have very different conceptions about the nature of fairness - it is hard to draw a clear line between equality and merits. Michael Jordan deserves his millions? Some egalitarians say he does because he earned them and others say he doesn't and therefore you should tax him more. "People may benefit from their good fortune, from their luck in a genetic lottery, but only in terms that were to the advantage of the least well off."
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@bshapka How can we say that only under these circumstances can we allow people to benefit from something? By what right? What is for the advantage of the least well off? How we decide it? Who is to decide in the first place? A lot of unanswered questions. Rawls' arguments aren't a solution to these questions - but rather a way of posing the question. I still don't think these arguments give any solid solutions to these moral dilemmas.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
@FutureHyperion I don't recall ever explicitly or implicitly claiming that Rawls offers complete solutions. Just because I defended him a few times dosen't mean I think he is the Yoda of ethics. Rawls has holes, but I can assure you that the philosophers you favor have holes too. If you have studied meta-ethics, then you know there is a lot to be said about asking if rational "ethical truths" even exist.
bshapka 1 year ago
Comment removed
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bshapka @bshapka Besides, even if you do agree with the premise that behind the veil of ignorance everyone chooses a fair society instead of unfair one, you're not getting anywhere because people have very, very different conceptions about fairness. Then we're simply left with the original moral debate about fairness and justice to which the "veil of ignorance" was supposed to be an answer for. It clearly isn't because it runs in circles.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
It such a privilege for me to sit in my house in Ireland and watch this enlightening lecture from Harvard in America.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago 65
@EclecticSceptic funny
luckspice 1 year ago