Morality and the Free Market - Michael Sandel

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/07/20/Michael_San...

Political philosopher Michael Sandel argues that free market economics have affected American perceptions of ethics, morality, and value. By emphasizing the monetary value of human goods, says Sandel, Americans may be moving away from notions of emotional and social worth.

-----

Harvard Professor Michael Sandel deliveres a speech titled "Markets and Morals" as part of the Chautauqua Institution 2009 Summer Lecture Series. He tackles some of economics' toughest ethical questions, such as the business of commercial surrogacy and the price of citizenship. - Chautauqua Institution

Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980.

He is the author of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982, 2nd edition, 1997; translated into eight foreign languages), Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1996), Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics (Harvard University Press, 2005), and The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Harvard University Press, 2007).

His writings also appear in general publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and The New York Times.

• Category

  News & Politics

[darkfirezero]

I fail to understand how anyone could dislike this. The man has an amazing grasp on philosophy, politics and ethics and is a brilliant teacher. I wish I lived in America jsut so I could apply to Harvard. Keep teaching the world!

[justnotcricket]

I appreciate Professor Sandel's commitment to open education. However, the comments on these pages just go to show the limits of such an endeavour...

... Or the need for more, damn I hate philosophy :s

[420xHustlerxB0SS]

Neither do they mean what the libertarian so conveniently defines them as. If there is a state or any violence that protects individual rights "force" is used, while "aggression" is (allegedly) not used.

It's the non-aggression-principle, not the non-force-principle.

[trucid2]

Words have meaning. They don't mean what you want them to mean.

"Economic incentives are maintained by force"? "No libertarian has an issue with force"?

You're off your rocker.

[420xHustlerxB0SS]

Economic incentives are maintained by force in the first place. No libertarian has an issue with force. It is required to attain and preserve whatever idea of freedom one may have.

[trucid2]

How do you propose to remove the economic incentives of the free market if not through the government, that is, by force? That's not libertarian at all. It's the opposite of libertarian.

[420xHustlerxB0SS]

On the contrary, markets undermine a persons intrinsic sense of what's good. In a free market, those own goods can use the power of inducement to "bribe" people to act differently.

Sandel thinks this is necessary in many cases, but some things are best handled by people acting free from the influence of others. It is a perfectly libertarian, not a statist, idea.

[sudsboy]

You are entirely missing his point, and misrepresenting what he's saying.

[ElectricQualia]

the free market itself is defined , maintained and structured by government force. Its quite an oxymoron, look at Singapore, which rates at the top of the food chain in regards to "freedom of market indicators", it happens to be one of the most authoritarian governments in the world. In other words, when you say let the free market work, is like saying let the machine build itself.