Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?"

ART ONE: WHATS A FAIR START?
Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.

PART TWO: WHAT DO WE DESERVE?

Professor Sandel recaps how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed, according to the three different theories raised so far in class. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and John Rawlss egalitarian theory. Sandel then launches a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor ($200,000) with the salary of televisions Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not. Rawls argues that an individuals personal success is often a function of morally arbitrary facts—luck, genes, and family circumstances—for which he or she can claim no credit. Those at the bottom are no less worthy simply because they werent born with the talents a particular society rewards, Rawls argues, and the only just way to deal with societys inequalities is for the naturally advantaged to share their wealth with those less fortunate.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Harvard University
• Michael Sandel
• WGBH
• Justice

[Skippa1986]

I like how the camera man never fails to give the hot chicks a quick shot once in a while.

[MignonetteVarisa]

Please live and teach for a long time, I really would love to be your student some day <3

[loneDreamer0]

... 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]

@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)...

[ciarpametube]

Would like to see subtitles, as you did for the first six episodes. It's very helpful for foreign English speakers.

[EkstasisWarwick]

@ImbAHaM Careful. Rawls was writing in the seventies. Many thinkers have developed and rethought his theories since then.

[ImbAHaM]

Wow. Just wow. My whole life is going to change because of this. I'm 18.

[ThePureEast]

@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.

[Aassymcass]

@MignonetteVarisa Why? You just got his course for free online.

[jrstanczyk]

@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]

@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.