He forgot Patrick, and Dah. He can remember names within one lecture, but forgets half of them by the next lecture. I'm more amazed about how we keeps track with who said what, and he can articulate it better than they can.
I can't believe philosophy professors got mad at him for releasing these lectures for free. If every professor was at least as good as Sandel, that wouldn't even be an issue.
After 13 years, watching this in my room even I couldn't stop myself from clapping to Professor Sandel. The Internet has democratized the quality of education to a great extent. Thank you, Professor, and the team who made these lectures public.
Same..clapped, laughed, gone into deep thought sitting in room alone in front of my computer screen with pen and paper in hand. Never watched something so seriously my whole life.
Seven years ago, I watched the first episode but gave up. In 2024, as a non-English speaker, it took me 2 months to finish watching the entire series. I managed to learn over 1,200 vocabulary words. It took me 7 years to say thank you, Professor Sandel, and the students of Harvard.
The whole 24 lectures seemed like a breeze. Respect to Professor Sandel and the students of Harvard for making this class so engaging for all of us watching it from home in America and abroad.
Every lecture present currently contains two classes combined into one lecture. since the comment you are referring to is 9 years old, it's possible harvard earlier uploaded them as two separate videos [hence the 24 lectures]@@manjurani1317
"Why, we asked at the outset, why do these arguments keep going? Even if they raise questions that are impossible ever finally to resolve. *The reason is that we live some answer to these questions all the time.* In our public life and in our personal lives, philosophy is inescapable, even if it sometimes seems impossible." What a beautiful end to this series. The best you can do is ignore philosophy, but in no way does it ever go away. Every conviction, every deep seated belief, every action is an answer to one of these fundamental questions in some way or the other, whether we acknowledge it or not.
This course...many tears. More powerful than anything I've ever engaged in, or maybe ever will. I've watched many of these several times over the years, and these debates will always be tattooed in my memory. Thank you so much for uploading. Bravo Michael Sandel
I’m 12 and my mom forced me to listen to one lecture a couple days ago. I’m not admitting this to her but I actually find these lectures really interesting and entertaining 😂😂
You have a good mom. You should totally admit this to her. It will at the least increase your probability to more such learning in future. Good luck :)
The final statement of Mike Sandell gave me a deep emotion. I was really moved at his high and deep educational mind and personality. I respect him deeply in my mind, even though I didn't understand all of the 12 lectures, because I am not a native speaker of English.^^
No one raises the point that marriage a is a legal framework of rights and responsibilities. It is more to ensure fairness to both parties in case of future disharmony, and also to protect the rights of children who might be affected as a result of such disharmony. People can always choose to be together and do whatever they want; marriage is a voluntary contract. If the present laws only allow for such a contract between a man and a woman, another law can be made for facilitating contracts between man and man or woman and woman. Law is supposed to serve to society's needs and continuously needs to evolve. In the year 3000 CE, people might 'marry' (I am pretty sure marriage as an institution would be dead by then) artificially created beings; the law will have to accommodate that too!
Aviram Vijh History repeats itself, that has been done before. Jasher 4:18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. Which is also recorded by the Egyptians see the statues of Anubis, Horus etc.
I've always thought the state or governments took up marriage from the church because it builds up the state, produces future citizens, etc.. I've heard a lot of arguments to those who have issues with legal or illegal immigration, depletion of social security, use of services paid for by citizens, due to lack of children born and not encouraging marriage between male and female. I wish we had more of the history of marriage up till the state than going into rampant vocalizations, harsh statements vs. arguments, reasoning or admitting they have a different view , light or other way of thinking about your previous stance.
Regulations btwn men/men, women/men, women/women can be exactly the same. No seperate laws required. What is a seperate legislation in most western jurisdictions is child care and child rights. This is seperate from marriage for a very good reason due to marriage being a voluntary contract. If children's care and rights are linked to marriage....then what happens to kids born where no voluntary marriage contract has been entered?
The first episode appeared on my youtube home page yesterday. 48 hours later, I'm here. Just completed watching all the 12 episodes. It's so thought-provoking and inspiring. I realized that Kant's 'Pure Reason' is in a way similar to the 'One Mind' or 'Cosmic Consciousness' in Buddhist teachings. It's in us, but it needs an awakening. Then, all the complexities of moral desert and justice will be resolved naturally. Thanks for the wonderful lecture, Professor Sandel! I'm also very curious to learn what all the students who participated in this lecture are doing now. Peace and Joy to everyone 💜
William Lee, be very careful what you wish for. Plato thought similarly. Have you ever read _The Republic_ or _The Laws_ ? Let’s just say the result is totalitarianism on steroids.
@@Steve-hu9gw what's wrong with that wish? You mean the more intelligent has the potential to manipulate people more adversely, to the point that public will be unaware? I agree that knowing does not suffice. I mean knowing what is just and what is not does not necessarily mean just ruling. But as Socrates said, before being just, a person should know the truth, in our case just/unjust - that is the primary requirement.
Ulugbek Isakov, no, I’m thinking of something far more basic. As history has shown, “truth,” “just,” and “unjust” are very much in the eyes and experiences of the particular beholder and experiencer. When you restrict the beholders, experiencers, or rulers to a very specific kind of person, you will invariably end up screwing over everyone else. It never fails. That is why democracy, however messy, is the best as yet conceived way. All types, however inconceivable or unacceptable or incorrect to some, get a say. It’s the best safeguard, so far.
picklesandcheese25, I would take that as changing the premise of the original post. A president does not get to singlehandedly run a country-except perhaps in Russia, and you will notice how that is going.
These kids hit all the right issues and in a thoughtful, reasoned, respectful way. Proud of them. They give a good name to college students vs. the arrogant, student activist loudmouths we often see in the media, too sure of their beliefs. Very rich debate. Nice to see all perspectives represented vs. a bias toward one side or the other. That's how people learn to truly think critically and wisely.
Mike Watkins There is a big difference between measured belief derived from real life experience and thinking deeply about all sides of an issue vs. blind, fanatical belief that usually coincides with very limited experience and the need for an easy answer to cope with psychological insecurity. The latter exemplifies being "too sure" of one's belief. The former accepts other beliefs as valid and doesn't seek to repress those who disagree. E.g. ISIS vs. Pope Francis.
With gay marriage though there's not many unique perspectives out there. I have not really opened to other perspectives like you suggest however I have looked at some and none have swayed me from viewing same sec marriage as a negative form of relationship.
This is because academic debate is different from political positioning. Just look at the political campaigns toward elections. The candidates usuallly are not thoughtful, reasoned,or repectful, even when having college or university degree. What about the insulting, disrespecful, bigot, Trump. And he has a college degree.
As a non native english learner, it took two months to finish all 24 lectures. Respect to Sir Sandeal for your intellectual lectures that have changed my perception.
I have finished all the 12 episodes( in one week) the best recommendation,I have gotten from youtube. I wish the millions of people who started from the first episode had the motivation to finish. I have enjoyed the lectures so much,my reasoning has been elevated.! Michael Sandel is a great professor. I loved the debates,the students also made the lecture more fun and thought provoking. I will definitely rewatch all the episodes now that I know what they are about. Also I am going to listen to every Michael Sandel video on youtube 😊
As a random 16-year-old, I've found these lectures to be incredibly profound. I've never encountered an speaker as articulate and clear as Professor Sandel; he has made 24 lectures feel like no more than 20 minutes. I'm so grateful that these lectures were posted on RUclips because each one has left me inspired!
Finally I've completed all the lectures. Sir Michael Sandel is such an amazing professor. Hopefully all the tension that build up with these amazing knowledge would help me develop critical thinking and moral improvement.
The whole 12 lectures were beautiful, and have awoken in me new thoughts and ideas , now i see why some issues cause so much trouble and are not that simple, a brilliant lecturer and smart audience
"Once the familiar turns strange, once we begin to reflect on our circumstance, it is never quite the same again." I think I first experienced this restlessness and uneasiness when I was in college. I was looking for truths and with a friend started discussing if there was any truth whatsoever in religion. I being quite religious at the time and I started actually thinking about god and religion, determinism and free will, I started to question things I took for granted. Doing just that and finding inconsistencies with my past views, I started to feel quite uneasy for days. This uneasiness motivated to understand and revise my past beliefs and find the truth of the matter. Suffice to say after some time I turned agnostic. Once I turned agnostic (mostly atheist) I didn't feel bad anymore. However, I feel unease whenever I hear interesting religious beliefs and the good consequences of such beliefs. But interestingly enough, this uneasiness doesn't quite really motivate to look into religion again much (the stuff I have already dealt with). I wonder if this what Sandel means partly by the uneasiness. I also find it interesting that even at Harvard people will believe in god and I also find it interesting how Sandel talked about the many different experiences that a human being can have. And I quote "John Rawls is also suggesting that there may be persisting disagreements about the good life and about moral and religious questions." Therefore, people might just think differently on certain subjects being supported by equal sound arguments. Sandel then encourages to not ignore people with different beliefs as us but to engage them by sometimes challenging their beliefs and sometimes listening to their beliefs. I used to do that a lot once I was a new converted agnostic but then it lost the novelty of it. Perhaps not because it got repetitive (which it did) but because I tried to respect the wrong other people's belief systems. I just tried to somehow defend my position and I never really did challenge religious people's beliefs which might have been somewhat more interesting for me and for them since they might learn something new. i might have been too focus on defending my beliefs and feeling uneasiness because I am afraid they would disagree and/or also feel the uneasiness which I did not want for some reason for people to feel that uneasiness I first experienced when I started to question religion.
Gnostic and agnostic are terms for the level of certainty. Theist and atheists are describing what you believe to be true. So stop dodging the term atheist by using agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist. Nearly all atheists are agnostics. And most theists too. Gnostic level certainty is both rare and dangerous. So if you use the word agnostic you are not saying that much. Atheist might invoke thoughts about gnostic or extreme atheists. But that's mostly because non-extreme atheists most often dodge the question by calling them agnostics.
Skepticism is a resting place for human reason where it can reflect on dogmatic wandering but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement to allow ourselves simple acquiesce in Skepticism or in complacency can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason. Kant words. Aim of this course to awaken the restlessness of reasons and see where it might leads and if we have done that and if the restlessness continues to afflict you in the days and years to come then we together have achieved no small thing. Thank you, Sir, for your lectures. I have prepared full notes of all 24 classes topicwise. 🙏
who knew that a random click on the first episode could bring me to the end with a newly found interest in political philosophy as well as made me unsettled with my settled judgements. my journey with these lectures end here. thank you prof michael sandel!
I found these last few classes a little dry. The rest of the class however has made it fully worth it and I'm proud to have completed my first full harvard class!
The best thing about his teaching is that he does not force his view or opinion, he just let there be discussion among students which create the perfect place for healthy debate which is the main objective of philosophy.
Yay. Finally completed the series. Thanks Harvard for uploading this amazing content. Loved how Sandel uses different kind of arguments backing them up with great thinkers and ultimately coming up with a cyclical learning.
Thank you, this has really given me a different perspective of life, which I personally think everyone should try getting. You may not get the answers to all your queries in life but at least you can go through all the possible solutions or view-points. Thank you Prof. Michael Sandel.
This was one of the most satisfying courses I've ever watched. Even better than the classes I'm taking currently at my university. I love how it feels like we've come full circle yet we're now equipped with a new understanding of morality, justice and philosophy. At least it's new to me. Thank you Michael Sandel.
Your Influence today is sure to have a tremendous bearing upon the total work of the world. Your Influence upon other people and the Influence of other people upon you is sure to become a Force and a Factor in the complete work of your day and theirs. See that your Influence is kept true and wholesome and it will remain to refresh you, again and again. Just as soon as you begin to Think or Do something, you begin to have Influence. Influence is something you can't keep at home. And when it gets away from you, you can never call it back. Your Influence makes you Something of Somebody else. Influence has no boundaries. Once, started, thought it may seem ever so trifling, yet it may have as its destination the farthemost corners of the Earth. If you would get a conception of Power, realize the Influence of a Strong Man. It is well to remember that what you have that you can't help but give away is your Influence.❤❤❤❤❤
The introduction looked as though it was put together in the 90s.
9 лет назад+42
what an amazing class! Now I'm forever unsettled. That's tiring, but I really believe worth it, like Micahel Sandel said we find some truths on the way, not written on stone one's but the sort os that says a lot about us! A teacher showed me a part of one of this videos and I had to watch it all, so glad I did! Thank you Harvard for sharing it! :D
Just finished watching all 12 episodes and I feel like I am philosophy and justice. it definitely opened my eyes and helped me to have a better understanding of life. Thanks to Professor Michael Sandel, the students, and RUclips. it's sad to know my journey with these lectures ends here.
Great series of videos. While I'm already familiar with most of the political and ethical philosophies introduced here, I found Professor Sandel's engagement of the class and the student's thought-provoking responses incredibly satisfying means for rethinking these important and ever-relevant theories.
I am pleased to see that professor Sandel embraces Socrate's philosophy both in his method of teaching and in his conclusion about the best way to address moral issues.
Thank you Harvard University, thank you, Michael Sandel, and thank you to all of you who studied in the course discussed and shared your opinion. I appreciate you so much! It is a really amazing journey for video episodes 1 to 12! Thank you so so much!
The series ended... and suddenly idk what to do anymore..it's like it gave me this sense of purpose each day..now I think of being at Harvard one day..I really do..
Let's explore the telos of this course. The purpose of episode 1 was to get me to episode 2, and to episode 3,etc..while expanding my knowledge and perceptions of philosophy, justice, and morality. Since these societal perceptions and applications of these views are ever changing this course could never be completed let alone in 12 episodes. Therefore, Harvard is morally responsible to post further episodes indefinitely . I thank you in advance. Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle would be proud
Wtf, how come this course thrown for free. This is life man. Great respect for the guy who brought light into our lives. I am speechless. Watching with my smart TV I literally stood up and clapped with Goosebumps along with harverd student. This guy made my year 2022.
Love watching this. Michael Sanders delivers his presentations well. He remembers his students' names and is very accommodating of each and every one's opinions. I would love to have a professor like him.
This has been a very interesting and educational series to watch for a first-year law student such as myself. I would advise anyone in a similar situation to watch the entire thing as well and I think there should be more emphasis on this subject in Law schools (at least the one I'm in).
Great series, I respect Michael Sandel as I do with other modern Philosophers such as Peter Singer (despite their differences in views!). I also believe that there simply is no debate to be made about whether same-sex marriage should be recognized or not, similar to how we have no reason today to debate about whether we should re-invoke segregation. I live in Canada and we recognize same-sex marriage here, country-wide. No one should be discriminated against because of the way they were born.
These are the core issues which should be openly tackled when debating same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, because they take us back to the ground rules of the society in which we all want to live.
Professor Sandel and Harvard - thank You for that course. It really changed my life. Wonderful and unique in the Internet. I will miss you and I will come back to this course again I hope.
The whole debate is based on the assumption that sex should and has only one purpose, which is reproduction. However, in society, we use our feelings such as fear to enjoy horror movies for example. Why can't we invent purposes for things? Is nature the only authority that can say what's purpose is which?
Jon Based on your argument, then a conventional couple who know that they are infertile would fall in the same category as homosexuals since they can no longer attain the telos of reproduction, and should hence not be allowed to marry. Is that a fair conjecture of your argument?
@Jon 1. What about old people? (Almost) no women above 50 years of age can procreate, so should new marriages be banned for people older than 50? 2. Why is more reproduction even a good thing considering that the amount of people on our planet is still growing? 3. Are there enough sufficiently cheap resources for all the people on our planet, and will that continue to be the case? 4. Do you know what the is-ought problem is? 5. Should marriage be just like it is (or was in developed countries ten to twenty years ago) because it has always been like it is? 6. Has marriage even always been between a man and women? 7. Why should you decide what the goal of someones marriage is? 8. Doesn't everything that has meaning come down to one thing, which is happiness? 9. What do you think about arranged marriages? 10. Wouldn't the (or better: your) 'telos' become even a more prominent part of marriage if people really have to be able to reproduce to enter a marriage? Quote: "The telos of the engine of a car is to make the car move. If the engine malfunctions it doesn't lose it's telos. It's still for making the car move. It just cannot actualize its telos." Yes, and if it malfunctions and is beyond repair you'll eventually 'throw' it away. Thus, according to that same logic, a marriage of an infertile couple should be declared null and void after some time if they don't succeed in getting at least one child. But, of course, that would not be the right thing to do, because such couples might still have other reasons to stay married.
Today is my last lecture in Harvard Justice course . Am saying that to Harvard university and professor Michael Sandel thank you for making knowledge free
Thanks Professor sandel and the entire team for providing such a lovely series for us . Watched all the 12 lectures in this (corona) lockdown. Thank you once again.
In listening to the 12 part lecture series I am constantly brought back to the thoughts of Will Herberg in very incite article "What Is The Moral Crisis Of Our Time." He makes a very convincing argument that it not a lack of morals that afflicts our society and for that matter the whole world but a redefining of those morals so that they become an exceptable alternative to some pre-existing ones.
Thank you for these episodes: 1-12 - of which I caught the last 8. Interesting, except for the terminologies that tend to impede clarity of reasoning. Generally, it wasn't difficult for me to embrace and appreciate clearly the arguments of KANT AND ARISTOTLE, with my exposure to how we came to be and for what purpose are we here. I simplify your discussions about our dignity, God's 10 Commandments, our freedom of choice and accountability, and God's purpose for our creation. These knowledge are experienced and tested as I grow in seeing these unfold to manifest themselves. I find your lectures on Philosphy and Justice and the terminologies involved towards a good preparation for dissertation purposes and debate. God bless you for your lectures especially for enlightening minds towards discussions, debate, and morality. 🎉
Loved these classes. Many thanks to Michael Sandel and the students for teaching me, entertaining me, and giving me a bit of hope for the future of USA.
I feel like weeping after this course has ended. It was such a beautiful experience and a journey worth it. Also, What all these students might be doing right now?? Thank you...☺😇
this course is a piece of art to contemplate, appreciate and acknowledge in every aspect of life . I feel exhilarated just by watching it, if i only had the privilege of attending live!;). Also one powerful professor that these students are lucky to have.
Complex, intellectual course, to conclude the old "I know, that I don't know". We all a stupid in some parts of life. But last word gives us some hope, that if we try to achieve compromise then we somehow can go further together as a society. Thank you! Outstanding teacher!
If the telos of marriage is reproduction, thus same-sex marriage should not be recognized, then, consequently, contraception should also be illegal between married couples. On the other side, marriage is an artificial social institution, there is no such thing as marriage in nature, and what its purpose is up to people to decide. Yes, I agree marriage, historically/generally, has been assumed, and meant for, reproduction. But hey, as I said it is an artificial institution and its purpose could be subject to changes. Like, for example, take taxation. It, as marriage is, is an artificial institution. And taxation historically was meant to be for the good of the ruling elite. But now its purpose has quietly has changed and now has quite different telos. Therefore, arguments provided against sam-sex marriage on the ground of "reproduction purpose" is invalid per se.
21:00 that student spoke very well & progressively. I hope they’re doing great things 11 years later. They should do a ‘where are they now’ of the featured students from this series.
This shows why Harvard is one of the most prominent college out there..i wonder how many people like Sandel might be present ..I wanna go to Harvard so bad 😭.. great job in revolutionizing education to its ultimate🙌 excellence
To Siyu Liu, During the debate, the court defines marriage as a union of two human beings based on love and commitment. Yet it does not exclude the option for some couples to procreate. I think what makes you feel uneasy is that the court does not encourage procreation and uphold it as an essential of marriage. The exclusion of procreation as an essential condition of human marriage is a vital change resulting from our self reflection on the meaning of human sexuality. If procreation is really that important to the point that it is held as the priority of all other meanings embedded in marriage, then I guess it would be much more efficient to go back to the ages when parents arranged the marriage for us and married someone we never met at 16，right after we reach sexual maturity. The reason that we replace arranged marriage with free dating is the same as we redefine the meaning of marriage in modern society, which is to degrade procreation as something optional rather than mandatory. By degrading procreation, we actually dignify ourselves as human beings: this might be a bit odd to but hold on ---- if procreation is essential to marriage, then we are reducing males and females as labors who sell their fertility in marriage market. Whoever loses his or her fertility is useless. However it is clear that humans are not commodities (at least I guess you don't want to be treated as one), we marry another one for him or her as a person, that is, his or her body (presumably including the sexual organs) as well as mind, the latter obviously is occupying a more and more heavier portion of weight nowadays. Child can be a product as well as a piece of evidence of the love between two people, but do not fantasize that a man and a woman will necessarily fall in love with each other because they have a shared child, that is to say procreation does not guarantee love and commitment, which derives that procreation is not a guarantee of marriage redefined in the modern era. If marriage does not necessarily mean procreation and procreation does not guarantee marriage, I would argue the two concepts, though used to be closely associated, is actually de-linked in the modern time. The passing down of human race is a crucial issue, I admit, yet the reason that justifies its vitality is that you assume that something real, like love and commitment, will finally be within your reach, or to be specific within your child's reach and you the phantom imagine that you can also enjoy that real through a fantasy of immortality symbolized by your child. This is a beautiful, fragile yet pathetic fantasy for every one is unique and your child is another unique being independent of you. If you really want to get the love and commitment so cherished by human beings, why don't you just love another one unconditionally, disregard of his or her procreation ability, for it is in this way that the redefined modern marriage at least offers a possibility for every individual to hold love and commitment in his or her own hands rather than in the fantasized little hands of their child. The person who regrets most is not the one with no child when getting old but the one who finds that there is no love and commitment but only an obligation to procreate in his or her marriage when he or she gets old. P. S. Like any student and professor, I make a living by selling my thoughts and arguments, so please do not plagiarize the above paragraphs. Your unique point and academic integrity is far more valuable to yourself than my little essay. Another word for Liu, I hope you do not take my argument as a personal attack. I am grateful that you inspired me to think this issue on marriage and procreation over.
Thank you Professor Sandel. And I hope this restlessness of reason continues to afflict me, like it did to other people over a decade, and to generations of other students whom you'll continue to forever inspire.
One thing that I absolutely love about this professor is how he remembers and uses the students' names, even from lecture to lecture. It's amazing.
Not consistently. He asked Nicola's name three times throughout the series.
He forgot Patrick, and Dah. He can remember names within one lecture, but forgets half of them by the next lecture. I'm more amazed about how we keeps track with who said what, and he can articulate it better than they can.
Because he checks their written assignments over time, probably.
What is the point behind asking their names, and calling students by name?
@@IMALISTAAVAILABLE because he's a good teacher
I can't believe philosophy professors got mad at him for releasing these lectures for free. If every professor was at least as good as Sandel, that wouldn't even be an issue.
I am so glad this is free on RUclips!
They did? Oh lala
@hitomi that's interesting! Can you post some relevant links?
It’s an honor to have the privilege to watch and listen to them
@@hitomi7922 I wonder what moral stance they take to defend their reasoning 😁
Who and why did they get mad? This is the whole purpose of philosophy, to share knowledge and challenge each other
After 13 years, watching this in my room even I couldn't stop myself from clapping to Professor Sandel. The Internet has democratized the quality of education to a great extent. Thank you, Professor, and the team who made these lectures public.
Same..clapped, laughed, gone into deep thought sitting in room alone in front of my computer screen with pen and paper in hand. Never watched something so seriously my whole life.
@@architpawar6419 Yes, bro. Keep growing!
Seven years ago, I watched the first episode but gave up. In 2024, as a non-English speaker, it took me 2 months to finish watching the entire series. I managed to learn over 1,200 vocabulary words. It took me 7 years to say thank you, Professor Sandel, and the students of Harvard.
Congratulations on your journey!
❤
amazing! what’s your native language?
the same boat. It took me 6 years but there we are
The whole 24 lectures seemed like a breeze. Respect to Professor Sandel and the students of Harvard for making this class so engaging for all of us watching it from home in America and abroad.
Share the playlist
There are 12 lectures right?
@@manjurani1317 each episode consists 2 lecture
Every lecture present currently contains two classes combined into one lecture. since the comment you are referring to is 9 years old, it's possible harvard earlier uploaded them as two separate videos [hence the 24 lectures]@@manjurani1317
Each video actually has two lectures combined. So 12 videos is 24 lectures. @@manjurani1317
"Why, we asked at the outset, why do these arguments keep going? Even if they raise questions that are impossible ever finally to resolve. *The reason is that we live some answer to these questions all the time.* In our public life and in our personal lives, philosophy is inescapable, even if it sometimes seems impossible." What a beautiful end to this series. The best you can do is ignore philosophy, but in no way does it ever go away. Every conviction, every deep seated belief, every action is an answer to one of these fundamental questions in some way or the other, whether we acknowledge it or not.
This course...many tears. More powerful than anything I've ever engaged in, or maybe ever will. I've watched many of these several times over the years, and these debates will always be tattooed in my memory.
Thank you so much for uploading.
Bravo Michael Sandel
@Stinkin Joe gay
I teared up in that end quote myself, what a teacher, what a person.
You should read more then man shit.
Made me cry 2. It was so incredibly stupid. 😢
Thumbs up if you watched all 12 episodes!
And not wanting it to end.
DarkFireTaker even looking here and there if some more series around by chance
I’m watching them third time. I will never get bored with them.
I am going in reverse order is that okay
I binge watched this in one day. If I had shown half as much enthusiasm in 1983 when I was studying jurisprudence, who knows where I would be today.
Been lying in my bed, and felt the need to actually stand up and applaud this teacher.
I’m 12 and my mom forced me to listen to one lecture a couple days ago. I’m not admitting this to her but I actually find these lectures really interesting and entertaining 😂😂
You have a good mom. You should totally admit this to her. It will at the least increase your probability to more such learning in future. Good luck :)
I wish I listened to these when I was 12!
Im 14 and am choosing to watch a lot of these courses as I am preparing my future lmao
@@AngelaPanArt yes,me too!
Good for you, keep going
The final statement of Mike Sandell gave me a deep emotion. I was really moved at his high and deep educational mind and personality. I respect him deeply in my mind, even though I didn't understand all of the 12 lectures, because I am not a native speaker of English.^^
Not a bar
No one raises the point that marriage a is a legal framework of rights and responsibilities. It is more to ensure fairness to both parties in case of future disharmony, and also to protect the rights of children who might be affected as a result of such disharmony. People can always choose to be together and do whatever they want; marriage is a voluntary contract. If the present laws only allow for such a contract between a man and a woman, another law can be made for facilitating contracts between man and man or woman and woman. Law is supposed to serve to society's needs and continuously needs to evolve. In the year 3000 CE, people might 'marry' (I am pretty sure marriage as an institution would be dead by then) artificially created beings; the law will have to accommodate that too!
Aviram Vijh History repeats itself, that has been done before. Jasher 4:18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. Which is also recorded by the Egyptians see the statues of Anubis, Horus etc.
I've always thought the state or governments took up marriage from the church because it builds up the state, produces future citizens, etc.. I've heard a lot of arguments to those who have issues with legal or illegal immigration, depletion of social security, use of services paid for by citizens, due to lack of children born and not encouraging marriage between male and female. I wish we had more of the history of marriage up till the state than going into rampant vocalizations, harsh statements vs. arguments, reasoning or admitting they have a different view , light or other way of thinking about your previous stance.
Regulations btwn men/men, women/men, women/women can be exactly the same. No seperate laws required.
What is a seperate legislation in most western jurisdictions is child care and child rights. This is seperate from marriage for a very good reason due to marriage being a voluntary contract. If children's care and rights are linked to marriage....then what happens to kids born where no voluntary marriage contract has been entered?
Marriage is a symbol of Christ (bridegroom) and his bride (the church)
The first episode appeared on my youtube home page yesterday. 48 hours later, I'm here. Just completed watching all the 12 episodes. It's so thought-provoking and inspiring. I realized that Kant's 'Pure Reason' is in a way similar to the 'One Mind' or 'Cosmic Consciousness' in Buddhist teachings. It's in us, but it needs an awakening. Then, all the complexities of moral desert and justice will be resolved naturally. Thanks for the wonderful lecture, Professor Sandel! I'm also very curious to learn what all the students who participated in this lecture are doing now. Peace and Joy to everyone 💜
It happened to me two days ago - the algorithms brought it to my attention. Here I am 15 min before the end of the last one.
Imagine a country run by a philosopher like Sandel. Oh well, at least we have free lectures!
William Lee, be very careful what you wish for. Plato thought similarly. Have you ever read _The Republic_ or _The Laws_ ? Let’s just say the result is totalitarianism on steroids.
@@Steve-hu9gw what's wrong with that wish? You mean the more intelligent has the potential to manipulate people more adversely, to the point that public will be unaware?
I agree that knowing does not suffice. I mean knowing what is just and what is not does not necessarily mean just ruling. But as Socrates said, before being just, a person should know the truth, in our case just/unjust - that is the primary requirement.
Ulugbek Isakov, no, I’m thinking of something far more basic. As history has shown, “truth,” “just,” and “unjust” are very much in the eyes and experiences of the particular beholder and experiencer. When you restrict the beholders, experiencers, or rulers to a very specific kind of person, you will invariably end up screwing over everyone else. It never fails. That is why democracy, however messy, is the best as yet conceived way. All types, however inconceivable or unacceptable or incorrect to some, get a say. It’s the best safeguard, so far.
@@Steve-hu9gw perhaps as president rather than philosopher king
picklesandcheese25, I would take that as changing the premise of the original post. A president does not get to singlehandedly run a country-except perhaps in Russia, and you will notice how that is going.
JUNE 2018. I'M DONE LISTENING WITH ALL THESE 12 EPISODE WHILE ON WORK,.. ALL I CAN SAY IS...THESE ARE WORTHY.
These kids hit all the right issues and in a thoughtful, reasoned, respectful way. Proud of them. They give a good name to college students vs. the arrogant, student activist loudmouths we often see in the media, too sure of their beliefs. Very rich debate. Nice to see all perspectives represented vs. a bias toward one side or the other. That's how people learn to truly think critically and wisely.
If your not "to sure" of your belief like you claim then you don't believe your belief.
Mike Watkins There is a big difference between measured belief derived from real life experience and thinking deeply about all sides of an issue vs. blind, fanatical belief that usually coincides with very limited experience and the need for an easy answer to cope with psychological insecurity. The latter exemplifies being "too sure" of one's belief. The former accepts other beliefs as valid and doesn't seek to repress those who disagree. E.g. ISIS vs. Pope Francis.
Oh so guess I'm sort of in measured k I understand what you mean.
With gay marriage though there's not many unique perspectives out there. I have not really opened to other perspectives like you suggest however I have looked at some and none have swayed me from viewing same sec marriage as a negative form of relationship.
This is because academic debate is different from political positioning. Just look at the political campaigns toward elections. The candidates usuallly are not thoughtful, reasoned,or repectful, even when having college or university degree. What about the insulting, disrespecful, bigot, Trump. And he has a college degree.
As a non native english learner, it took two months to finish all 24 lectures. Respect to Sir Sandeal for your intellectual lectures that have changed my perception.
Where are the remaining lectures, exactly?
Also, as a non native speaker did the accent have something to do with taking 2 months to finish them...?
I have finished all the 12 episodes( in one week) the best recommendation,I have gotten from youtube. I wish the millions of people who started from the first episode had the motivation to finish. I have enjoyed the lectures so much,my reasoning has been elevated.! Michael Sandel is a great professor. I loved the debates,the students also made the lecture more fun and thought provoking. I will definitely rewatch all the episodes now that I know what they are about.
Also I am going to listen to every Michael Sandel video on youtube 😊
Im sad this ended.
As a random 16-year-old, I've found these lectures to be incredibly profound. I've never encountered an speaker as articulate and clear as Professor Sandel; he has made 24 lectures feel like no more than 20 minutes. I'm so grateful that these lectures were posted on RUclips because each one has left me inspired!
Finally I've completed all the lectures. Sir Michael Sandel is such an amazing professor. Hopefully all the tension that build up with these amazing knowledge would help me develop critical thinking and moral improvement.
The whole 12 lectures were beautiful, and have awoken in me new thoughts and ideas , now i see why some issues cause so much trouble and are not that simple, a brilliant lecturer and smart audience
💯
I’ve taken a lot of courses ... never gave a prof a standing ovation!
"Once the familiar turns strange, once we begin to reflect on our circumstance, it is never quite the same again."
I think I first experienced this restlessness and uneasiness when I was in college. I was looking for truths and with a friend started discussing if there was any truth whatsoever in religion. I being quite religious at the time and I started actually thinking about god and religion, determinism and free will, I started to question things I took for granted. Doing just that and finding inconsistencies with my past views, I started to feel quite uneasy for days. This uneasiness motivated to understand and revise my past beliefs and find the truth of the matter.
Suffice to say after some time I turned agnostic. Once I turned agnostic (mostly atheist) I didn't feel bad anymore. However, I feel unease whenever I hear interesting religious beliefs and the good consequences of such beliefs. But interestingly enough, this uneasiness doesn't quite really motivate to look into religion again much (the stuff I have already dealt with).
I wonder if this what Sandel means partly by the uneasiness.
I also find it interesting that even at Harvard people will believe in god and I also find it interesting how Sandel talked about the many different experiences that a human being can have. And I quote "John Rawls is also suggesting that there may be persisting disagreements about the good life and about moral and religious questions." Therefore, people might just think differently on certain subjects being supported by equal sound arguments.
Sandel then encourages to not ignore people with different beliefs as us but to engage them by sometimes challenging their beliefs and sometimes listening to their beliefs. I used to do that a lot once I was a new converted agnostic but then it lost the novelty of it. Perhaps not because it got repetitive (which it did) but because I tried to respect the wrong other people's belief systems. I just tried to somehow defend my position and I never really did challenge religious people's beliefs which might have been somewhat more interesting for me and for them since they might learn something new. i might have been too focus on defending my beliefs and feeling uneasiness because I am afraid they would disagree and/or also feel the uneasiness which I did not want for some reason for people to feel that uneasiness I first experienced when I started to question religion.
Gnostic and agnostic are terms for the level of certainty. Theist and atheists are describing what you believe to be true.
So stop dodging the term atheist by using agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist. Nearly all atheists are agnostics. And most theists too.
Gnostic level certainty is both rare and dangerous. So if you use the word agnostic you are not saying that much.
Atheist might invoke thoughts about gnostic or extreme atheists. But that's mostly because non-extreme atheists most often dodge the question by calling them agnostics.
This entire lecture series was amazing thank you youtube for randomly recommending me the first episode
Skepticism is a resting place for human reason where it can reflect on dogmatic wandering but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement to allow ourselves simple acquiesce in Skepticism or in complacency can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason. Kant words. Aim of this course to awaken the restlessness of reasons and see where it might leads and if we have done that and if the restlessness continues to afflict you in the days and years to come then we together have achieved no small thing. Thank you, Sir, for your lectures. I have prepared full notes of all 24 classes topicwise. 🙏
16:16 well that escalated quickly
who knew that a random click on the first episode could bring me to the end with a newly found interest in political philosophy as well as made me unsettled with my settled judgements. my journey with these lectures end here. thank you prof michael sandel!
I found these last few classes a little dry. The rest of the class however has made it fully worth it and I'm proud to have completed my first full harvard class!
Awesome
The best thing about his teaching is that he does not force his view or opinion, he just let there be discussion among students which create the perfect place for healthy debate which is the main objective of philosophy.
Great work. Thank you for making it available: Sandel, Harvard and RUclips.
Still the best free educational content I've found on YT. Thank you very much.
Yay. Finally completed the series. Thanks Harvard for uploading this amazing content. Loved how Sandel uses different kind of arguments backing them up with great thinkers and ultimately coming up with a cyclical learning.
Thank you, this has really given me a different perspective of life, which I personally think everyone should try getting. You may not get the answers to all your queries in life but at least you can go through all the possible solutions or view-points. Thank you Prof. Michael Sandel.
This was one of the most satisfying courses I've ever watched. Even better than the classes I'm taking currently at my university. I love how it feels like we've come full circle yet we're now equipped with a new understanding of morality, justice and philosophy. At least it's new to me. Thank you Michael Sandel.
Your Influence today is sure to have a tremendous bearing upon the total work of the world. Your Influence upon other people and the Influence of other people upon you is sure to become a Force and a Factor in the complete work of your day and theirs. See that your Influence is kept true and wholesome and it will remain to refresh you, again and again. Just as soon as you begin to Think or Do something, you begin to have Influence. Influence is something you can't keep at home. And when it gets away from you, you can never call it back. Your Influence makes you Something of Somebody else. Influence has no boundaries. Once, started, thought it may seem ever so trifling, yet it may have as its destination the farthemost corners of the Earth. If you would get a conception of Power, realize the Influence of a Strong Man. It is well to remember that what you have that you can't help but give away is your Influence.❤❤❤❤❤
12 episodes are deep insight & enlightenment ones. Applaud 👏 professor Michelle sandel how he remembers their students names are absolute one.💜
The introduction looked as though it was put together in the 90s.
what an amazing class!
Now I'm forever unsettled.
That's tiring, but I really believe worth it, like Micahel Sandel said we find some truths on the way, not written on stone one's but the sort os that says a lot about us!
A teacher showed me a part of one of this videos and I had to watch it all, so glad I did!
Thank you Harvard for sharing it! :D
Just finished watching all 12 episodes and I feel like I am philosophy and justice. it definitely opened my eyes and helped me to have a better understanding of life. Thanks to Professor Michael Sandel, the students, and RUclips. it's sad to know my journey with these lectures ends here.
Great series of videos. While I'm already familiar with most of the political and ethical philosophies introduced here, I found Professor Sandel's engagement of the class and the student's thought-provoking responses incredibly satisfying means for rethinking these important and ever-relevant theories.
I can't believe it has ended.
I am grateful for these videos.
Michael Sandel is a treasure!
I am SO SAD that there are only twelve in this series. Thought-provoking, entertaining, well-produced.
I am pleased to see that professor Sandel embraces Socrate's philosophy both in his method of teaching and in his conclusion about the best way to address moral issues.
What a great lovely profesor.
I love his method. Very kind. Professional. Scholarly educator
Thank you Harvard University, thank you, Michael Sandel, and thank you to all of you who studied in the course discussed and shared your opinion. I appreciate you so much! It is a really amazing journey for video episodes 1 to 12! Thank you so so much!
The series ended... and suddenly idk what to do anymore..it's like it gave me this sense of purpose each day..now I think of being at Harvard one day..I really do..
You can pick up the books and autores the series mentions and keep studying!
I feel you
Let's explore the telos of this course. The purpose of episode 1 was to get me to episode 2, and to episode 3,etc..while expanding my knowledge and perceptions of philosophy, justice, and morality. Since these societal perceptions and applications of these views are ever changing this course could never be completed let alone in 12 episodes. Therefore, Harvard is morally responsible to post further episodes indefinitely . I thank you in advance. Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle would be proud
This is the best course I've ever taken.
What career did you enter? I’d like to know what paths ppl took since this was 11 years ago :)
Ok
Wtf, how come this course thrown for free.
This is life man.
Great respect for the guy who brought light into our lives.
I am speechless.
Watching with my smart TV I literally stood up and clapped with Goosebumps along with harverd student.
This guy made my year 2022.
53:10 Raul being finally recognised again at the last episode
This man should moderate political debates.
Thank you professor Sandel. Surely, I have achieved more than a small thing throughout 12 hours of your priceless lectures.
Professor is so good. When anyone makes a morally loose point, he doesn't point it out. He asks other students to counter it.
Watched all 12 episodes. Bravo Michael Sandel! Thank you!
I am very proud that I finished all 24 lectures! Really worthy my time, I wish I have had such a good professional in my student time.
Thank you, Harvard, for sharing these video lectures. It was one of the best 12 hours of my educational life spent.
Woww, you are way earlier than most of us.
I am Mozambican and i don't understand well inglish, but i like watch this program everyday. And teacher Sandal is this best one.
I just finished the entire episode today it's really amazing. The professor is a genius.
Love watching this. Michael Sanders delivers his presentations well. He remembers his students' names and is very accommodating of each and every one's opinions. I would love to have a professor like him.
Michael Sandel is definitely brilliant. Thank you sir. Job well done.
The word respect for oneself whilst still respecting others is the essential question and answer
This has been a very interesting and educational series to watch for a first-year law student such as myself. I would advise anyone in a similar situation to watch the entire thing as well and I think there should be more emphasis on this subject in Law schools (at least the one I'm in).
My motivation to follow along went back and forth over this year, but I'm glad i got to the end. Those lectures are so well made
This was 12 years ago…No one dares to open such subject today ! The professor will be flipping burgers the next day
Finally 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼.
Who else availed him/herself to completing these lectures during the lockdown?
Great series, I respect Michael Sandel as I do with other modern Philosophers such as Peter Singer (despite their differences in views!).
I also believe that there simply is no debate to be made about whether same-sex marriage should be recognized or not, similar to how we have no reason today to debate about whether we should re-invoke segregation.
I live in Canada and we recognize same-sex marriage here, country-wide. No one should be discriminated against because of the way they were born.
These are the core issues which should be openly tackled when debating same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, because they take us back to the ground rules of the society in which we all want to live.
Professor Sandel and Harvard - thank You for that course. It really changed my life. Wonderful and unique in the Internet. I will miss you and I will come back to this course again I hope.
It's inescapable and even impossible to not stand up and clap for Michael Sandel at the end....justice done to the class
The whole debate is based on the assumption that sex should and has only one purpose, which is reproduction. However, in society, we use our feelings such as fear to enjoy horror movies for example. Why can't we invent purposes for things? Is nature the only authority that can say what's purpose is which?
+Samat Aldazharov That's literally not the whole debate. That is just what the two Christian students are arguing for.
+Samat Aldazharov Man cannot redefine morality that God has already defined..
Jon Based on your argument, then a conventional couple who know that they are infertile would fall in the same category as homosexuals since they can no longer attain the telos of reproduction, and should hence not be allowed to marry. Is that a fair conjecture of your argument?
Samat Aldazharov Yess!!!
@Jon 1. What about old people? (Almost) no women above 50 years of age can procreate, so should new marriages be banned for people older than 50? 2. Why is more reproduction even a good thing considering that the amount of people on our planet is still growing? 3. Are there enough sufficiently cheap resources for all the people on our planet, and will that continue to be the case? 4. Do you know what the is-ought problem is? 5. Should marriage be just like it is (or was in developed countries ten to twenty years ago) because it has always been like it is? 6. Has marriage even always been between a man and women? 7. Why should you decide what the goal of someones marriage is? 8. Doesn't everything that has meaning come down to one thing, which is happiness? 9. What do you think about arranged marriages? 10. Wouldn't the (or better: your) 'telos' become even a more prominent part of marriage if people really have to be able to reproduce to enter a marriage?
Quote:
"The telos of the engine of a car is to make the car move. If the engine malfunctions it doesn't lose it's telos. It's still for making the car move. It just cannot actualize its telos."
Yes, and if it malfunctions and is beyond repair you'll eventually 'throw' it away. Thus, according to that same logic, a marriage of an infertile couple should be declared null and void after some time if they don't succeed in getting at least one child. But, of course, that would not be the right thing to do, because such couples might still have other reasons to stay married.
Today is my last lecture in Harvard Justice course . Am saying that to Harvard university and professor Michael Sandel thank you for making knowledge free
Thanks Professor sandel and the entire team for providing such a lovely series for us . Watched all the 12 lectures in this (corona) lockdown.
Thank you once again.
In listening to the 12 part lecture series I am constantly brought back to the thoughts of Will Herberg in very incite article "What Is The Moral Crisis Of Our Time." He makes a very convincing argument that it not a lack of morals that afflicts our society and for that matter the whole world but a redefining of those morals so that they become an exceptable alternative to some pre-existing ones.
Hannah at 16:00 ROCKS !! you are AWESOME!! Sooo smart, confident, and articulate. Fearless. Keep going !!!
Thank you for these episodes: 1-12 - of which I caught the last 8. Interesting, except for the terminologies that tend to impede clarity of reasoning. Generally, it wasn't difficult for me to embrace and appreciate clearly the arguments of KANT AND ARISTOTLE, with my exposure to how we came to be and for what purpose are we here. I simplify your discussions about our dignity, God's 10 Commandments, our freedom of choice and accountability, and God's purpose for our creation. These knowledge are experienced and tested as I grow in seeing these unfold to manifest themselves. I find your lectures on Philosphy and Justice and the terminologies involved towards a good preparation for dissertation purposes and debate. God bless you for your lectures especially for enlightening minds towards discussions, debate, and morality. 🎉
12 hrs well spent. Thank you prof. Sandel, thank you Harvard.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
A great finale for a great course. Thanks, Harvard!
Loved these classes. Many thanks to Michael Sandel and the students for teaching me, entertaining me, and giving me a bit of hope for the future of USA.
I appreciate this course and how it’s helped my mental development...
This is the last episode, it's a journey and makes me kinda sad for it to be ending 🤧 Thank You for these Lectures 💚
I feel like weeping after this course has ended. It was such a beautiful experience and a journey worth it. Also, What all these students might be doing right now??
Thank you...☺😇
Victoria didn’t seem too happy when professor initially didn’t remember her name.
this course is a piece of art to contemplate, appreciate and acknowledge in every aspect of life . I feel exhilarated just by watching it, if i only had the privilege of attending live!;). Also one powerful professor that these students are lucky to have.
Complex, intellectual course, to conclude the old "I know, that I don't know". We all a stupid in some parts of life. But last word gives us some hope, that if we try to achieve compromise then we somehow can go further together as a society. Thank you! Outstanding teacher!
If the telos of marriage is reproduction, thus same-sex marriage should not be recognized, then, consequently, contraception should also be illegal between married couples.
On the other side, marriage is an artificial social institution, there is no such thing as marriage in nature, and what its purpose is up to people to decide. Yes, I agree marriage, historically/generally, has been assumed, and meant for, reproduction. But hey, as I said it is an artificial institution and its purpose could be subject to changes.
Like, for example, take taxation. It, as marriage is, is an artificial institution. And taxation historically was meant to be for the good of the ruling elite. But now its purpose has quietly has changed and now has quite different telos.
Therefore, arguments provided against sam-sex marriage on the ground of "reproduction purpose" is invalid per se.
Probably one of the greatest political philosophy Professors of all time..G.O.A.T. Sandel.
And thank you so much to Harvard for posting this for free for those of us who can't exactly afford to afford your tuition. Three cheers.
Hip hip ...
feeling sad for people who left the course in between thinking they will watch it when they have time, but unfortunately they will never watch it.
Right?
21:00 that student spoke very well & progressively. I hope they’re doing great things 11 years later. They should do a ‘where are they now’ of the featured students from this series.
What a great teacher he is. My mind just got unlocked after watching these 12 videos.
This shows why Harvard is one of the most prominent college out there..i wonder how many people like Sandel might be present ..I wanna go to Harvard so bad 😭.. great job in revolutionizing education to its ultimate🙌 excellence
How much of these lectures' success is due to their content and how much is due to the brilliant delivery of Professor Sandel?
so many concepts are clear now to me! thanks Harvard professor.
To Siyu Liu,
During the debate, the court defines marriage as a union of two human beings based on love and commitment. Yet it does not exclude the option for some couples to procreate. I think what makes you feel uneasy is that the court does not encourage procreation and uphold it as an essential of marriage. The exclusion of procreation as an essential condition of human marriage is a vital change resulting from our self reflection on the meaning of human sexuality. If procreation is really that important to the point that it is held as the priority of all other meanings embedded in marriage, then I guess it would be much more efficient to go back to the ages when parents arranged the marriage for us and married someone we never met at 16，right after we reach sexual maturity. The reason that we replace arranged marriage with free dating is the same as we redefine the meaning of marriage in modern society, which is to degrade procreation as something optional rather than mandatory. By degrading procreation, we actually dignify ourselves as human beings: this might be a bit odd to but hold on ---- if procreation is essential to marriage, then we are reducing males and females as labors who sell their fertility in marriage market. Whoever loses his or her fertility is useless. However it is clear that humans are not commodities (at least I guess you don't want to be treated as one), we marry another one for him or her as a person, that is, his or her body (presumably including the sexual organs) as well as mind, the latter obviously is occupying a more and more heavier portion of weight nowadays. Child can be a product as well as a piece of evidence of the love between two people, but do not fantasize that a man and a woman will necessarily fall in love with each other because they have a shared child, that is to say procreation does not guarantee love and commitment, which derives that procreation is not a guarantee of marriage redefined in the modern era. If marriage does not necessarily mean procreation and procreation does not guarantee marriage, I would argue the two concepts, though used to be closely associated, is actually de-linked in the modern time. The passing down of human race is a crucial issue, I admit, yet the reason that justifies its vitality is that you assume that something real, like love and commitment, will finally be within your reach, or to be specific within your child's reach and you the phantom imagine that you can also enjoy that real through a fantasy of immortality symbolized by your child. This is a beautiful, fragile yet pathetic fantasy for every one is unique and your child is another unique being independent of you. If you really want to get the love and commitment so cherished by human beings, why don't you just love another one unconditionally, disregard of his or her procreation ability, for it is in this way that the redefined modern marriage at least offers a possibility for every individual to hold love and commitment in his or her own hands rather than in the fantasized little hands of their child. The person who regrets most is not the one with no child when getting old but the one who finds that there is no love and commitment but only an obligation to procreate in his or her marriage when he or she gets old.
P. S. Like any student and professor, I make a living by selling my thoughts and arguments, so please do not plagiarize the above paragraphs. Your unique point and academic integrity is far more valuable to yourself than my little essay.
Another word for Liu, I hope you do not take my argument as a personal attack. I am grateful that you inspired me to think this issue on marriage and procreation over.
Hannah is a great girl. I love it when women are acting so bravely about sexual topics.
Really waters down the definition of bravery lol
She has an extreme leftist value, hope she learns to embrace the virtue of neutrality.
I mean she didn't have to personalize her reply and get emotional about it.
Thank you Professor Sandel. And I hope this restlessness of reason continues to afflict me, like it did to other people over a decade, and to generations of other students whom you'll continue to forever inspire.
Hannah is so bright, I have seen her participate in numerous lectures and wow she's fierce, honest and smart.
what's hannah's last name
sorry but i'd say you are a bit perv, proximasim.
she's very rude too.
Not sure "Bright, honest, and smart" are the words I'd use.
Pretty sure I don't agree with this. She totally missed the argument that the first person (Mark) was making and was very rude to him in he process.
I am extremely happy to finish this lecture series. This is one lecture series every individual must watch.