Finding the common good is essential in our pursuit of justice and human rights. At its core, justice is about fostering an environment where everyone’s rights are respected and upheld, recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual. When we prioritize the common good, we embrace the values of equity, inclusivity, and solidarity, ensuring that marginalized voices are heard and that their needs are met. Human rights are universal and indivisible; they belong to everyone without distinction. In achieving justice, we must strive to dismantle systemic inequalities that hinder individuals from accessing their rights. This requires not only addressing immediate injustices but also understanding and transforming the structures that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. Moreover, engaging in dialogue and collaboration across diverse communities is crucial in identifying and addressing the challenges we face together. By fostering empathy and understanding, we can build bridges that unite rather than divide us and create policies that reflect our collective aspirations for a just and equitable society. Ultimately, the quest for justice and human rights is a shared responsibility. It calls upon each of us to advocate for and protect the rights of others, understanding that our own dignity and freedom are intertwined with that of our neighbors. In cultivating a culture that upholds the common good, we lay the groundwork for a more just and humane world.
Good talk. I have long looked to Rawls as the cornerstone of how I choose to look at the issues around justice and a good society. But Sandel provides good insights and criticisms on the issue. As I'm now a lawyer, I find it interesting that he is now teaching at the law school
I am so very thankful this this lecture and audience participation was recorded, so that the average person could listen to it and benefit from this serious and robust discussion. I agree that Professor Michael Sandel is an 'essential worker' and an excellent orator. This is a much needed conversation that should be heard around the country in all kinds of venues. Thank you so very much again, University of California, for hosting Professor Sandel and making this discussion possible!❤
This lecture was a necessary challenge to the common misconceptions. It sure made me examine some of mine. It is this kind of thought provoking ideas that help us to improve the overarching systems of our common good. Great lecture, thank you.
Love this; neither of my parents went to college (one didn't finish high school). I began to realize as an adult in my 30's or so, that I had had to go to college to learn just a touch of what they learned by having a thirst for knowledge - knowledge in civics, philosophy (including ethics), history, literature, poetry, plumbing, electricity (anything "how to"), gardening, child caring, religion, art, science, using all my senses to see, hear, smell, taste and feel this world and all its inhabitants...YEEESH!
Prior to just yesterday, upon first hearing of Micheal Sandel, searching for, finding, and listening to this presentation, I was not aware that such a position as public philosopher exists in modern society. I'd heard that in ancient days, kings would consult with philosophers to help them form their public policies. it is with something like a moral and spiritual sigh of relief that I learn of this man, who is respected, listened to, and taken seriously for his carefully thought out diagnosis of what ails modern capitalist society. Now if only whoever our equivalent of kings are, would listen, heed, and implement his profound societal remedies, we'd really have something to look forward to, rather than the greedy getting greedier and the desperate getting more desperate.
Thank you very much for the lessons on justice from professor Michael Sandel, definitely educational with in-depth analysis, which can help us build a better future together ❤
The “debate” happens in Flint, Michigan every month with the help and support of the public library, U of M-Flint, local colleges, and the community at large. It is wonderful and insightful.
I spent a good part of my childhood in India in the 1960ies. It was allways present to me, that the circumstances of life are important. After returning to Germany my life was simple ans straight forward. It would not have been so if my parents would have stayed in India. So only in rare occasions do we notice what education is bases on
It's like Habermas and Rorty talk about-- the goal isn't, "a more level playing field" necessarily but rather a of preserving the, "effective means of communication with a high availability of evidence..." which enables an, "effective means" of mediating the threat of fledgling authoritarianism by creating a kind of buffer around the individuals and communities that are threatened. The issues I have are: 1) How can the, "effective means of communication" be preserved in what Clinton referred to in the 08' election as, "the deplorables" (?) which make up a an impressive majority of the country? 2) How do we deal with the obvious counter arguments that might be presented like, "well do you want a more or less qualified doctor, lawyer, engineer, insert thing here?" How do we deal with the potential for, "mutings of the more qualified artist(s) or the John Galts?
The harsh reality is... The riches invest more in their children's education. The children's of the riches are also under a lot of pressure to perform. How is it not justifiable to see these effort to be rewarded? Why do the society seek equal representation in success? Success and wealth were never made equal.
The talk duly emphasizes the current problems of severe and rising economic and social inequalities, high and rising levels of polarization in the society, and resultant unacceptable levels of intolerance towards the `other’ in the society, which will be detrimental to democracy. It cannot be denied that these problems need a lasting solution on an urgent basis. What is doubtful for me is whether such an important and a worthy aim can be attained through a rational appeal to develop morality required for cohesive society. The doubt arises out of several reasons. First, several factors affected development of democracy as a civic virtue. The Renaissance (Encyclopedia of Diderot) had initiated replacement of science in place of religion as dependable guide to understand the life and the world around us. Many of the ruling powers (feudal and of monarchs) had severely diluted because the incessant wars had bled them to near bankruptcy. There no longer were more uncharted areas where the colonies could expand, bringing in the riches through exploitation, and restore power. Technological developments had empowered the common man to find alternative means for livelihood. It was confluence of these and similar factors that established a global movement of equality, to be attained through democracy or socialism or communism. During that era, most of the people were poor and communities were rural. Poverty does instill a virtue of cooperation because cooperation is the only means of survival during adversities that regularly befall one or the other across populations. As against that, today much of the people are richer and more educated. I wonder if they can be made to heed to some appeal for development of moral virtue, no matter how appropriate, even inescapable such an appeal maybe. David Graeber had highlighted several issues where equality is not pursued. He had said that we are yet to create a simple robot that would take one’s laundry to washing machine and bring it back. Such rudimentary automation would ease the life of common man, but that has not happened. Similarly, we have found drugs like Prozac and Ritalin but have not found cure for several of the diseases that affect masses, or drugs that can cure cancer. Since 1960s, there have been no projects with global vision. Under the dictates of neo-liberal economic theory, one of the basic premises of which was balancing the budgets over at least an electoral cycle, such projects have evaporated. Last such project was declared by Russia to launch hundreds of satellites that could reflect light (energy) back onto the earth, thereby solving the energy problem. Nothing more came out of it. To the extent that these claims are right, and they are, it seems that world is not busy solving problems of the common man, but is busy protecting the hegemony of the ruling class or the rich people. Let us take the issue of data ownership on social platforms, which drives the prosperity of tech giants. The data ownership depends on a single court judgement in late 1970s and can be easily corrected. The tech giants are not only significantly contributing to the social polarization but also drives unbridled consumerism, causing the climate change to the extent that it has brought the planet on the brink of extinction. I am sure that things are much more complex than I have summarized above, but even this rudimentary analysis, all which I am capable of, has led me to wonder whether mere appeal to `better angels of our nature’ will produce necessary results. We know that time and again Capitalism has failed, and failed seriously, eroding democracy to the extent possible. Essential question is: Could we think of a system where democracy and capitalism are sufficiently decoupled to ensure better life for common man?
It does not signify anything if my physician or lawyer has hubris. What is critical is a high level of competency. Meritocracy is the method by which we get the best people in these jobs.
It amazes me when religious man start off recognizing God as the one to be worshipped, but then forget that when wealth and power come into play. The first principle is to LOVE, the next is not to be respecter of persons. They should look up those scriptures instead of looking at the bank book or their degree.
Once again. Once again, in case you did not register. "Let's have a champagne, in the champagne room." That happened to Chomsky at the Foucault debate. Make sure it does not happen again.
Could this argument be encapsulated in the observations of our children? Does one believe a child on their own merit can win a race, game, objective, etc… over another child? Winners and losers exist in life, whether that’s just or not is totally irrelevant. That’s the reality of life on Earth…My 2 cents
book titles are largely decided by the editorial, they are a marketing decision. Its very common for an author to give a talk about a book they wrote and say their own book's title is misleading
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Finding the common good is essential in our pursuit of justice and human rights. At its core, justice is about fostering an environment where everyone’s rights are respected and upheld, recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual. When we prioritize the common good, we embrace the values of equity, inclusivity, and solidarity, ensuring that marginalized voices are heard and that their needs are met.
Human rights are universal and indivisible; they belong to everyone without distinction. In achieving justice, we must strive to dismantle systemic inequalities that hinder individuals from accessing their rights. This requires not only addressing immediate injustices but also understanding and transforming the structures that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion.
Moreover, engaging in dialogue and collaboration across diverse communities is crucial in identifying and addressing the challenges we face together. By fostering empathy and understanding, we can build bridges that unite rather than divide us and create policies that reflect our collective aspirations for a just and equitable society.
Ultimately, the quest for justice and human rights is a shared responsibility. It calls upon each of us to advocate for and protect the rights of others, understanding that our own dignity and freedom are intertwined with that of our neighbors. In cultivating a culture that upholds the common good, we lay the groundwork for a more just and humane world.
Thank you Professor Sandel.
Sandel is one of the greatest political philosophers of our time. Thank you for a stimulating event.
Good talk. I have long looked to Rawls as the cornerstone of how I choose to look at the issues around justice and a good society. But Sandel provides good insights and criticisms on the issue. As I'm now a lawyer, I find it interesting that he is now teaching at the law school
Thought provoking and good concept by Prof Michel Sandel comteporary great political philosopher. Thank u for a good lecture.❤
I am so very thankful this this lecture and audience participation was recorded, so that the average person could listen to it and benefit from this serious and robust discussion. I agree that Professor Michael Sandel is an 'essential worker' and an excellent orator. This is a much needed conversation that should be heard around the country in all kinds of venues. Thank you so very much again, University of California, for hosting Professor Sandel and making this discussion possible!❤
This lecture was a necessary challenge to the common misconceptions. It sure made me examine some of mine. It is this kind of thought provoking ideas that help us to improve the overarching systems of our common good. Great lecture, thank you.
Does this system include private ownserhip?
Ho abt rethinking how we structure families since nuclear families uphold capitalism too though.
Love this; neither of my parents went to college (one didn't finish high school). I began to realize as an adult in my 30's or so, that I had had to go to college to learn just a touch of what they learned by having a thirst for knowledge - knowledge in civics, philosophy (including ethics), history, literature, poetry, plumbing, electricity (anything "how to"), gardening, child caring, religion, art, science, using all my senses to see, hear, smell, taste and feel this world and all its inhabitants...YEEESH!
Wow, thanks Prof Sandel. You've indeed done justice to the topic
Thank you so much for sharing this conference. I wish it were translated into french to grasp every word of it.
Most insightful, thank you Prof Sandel.
Prior to just yesterday, upon first hearing of Micheal Sandel, searching for, finding, and listening to this presentation, I was not aware that such a position as public philosopher exists in modern society. I'd heard that in ancient days, kings would consult with philosophers to help them form their public policies. it is with something like a moral and spiritual sigh of relief that I learn of this man, who is respected, listened to, and taken seriously for his carefully thought out diagnosis of what ails modern capitalist society. Now if only whoever our equivalent of kings are, would listen, heed, and implement his profound societal remedies, we'd really have something to look forward to, rather than the greedy getting greedier and the desperate getting more desperate.
Well said! I couldn't have said better myself. Thank you for your insightful comments.
Thank you very much for the lessons on justice from professor Michael Sandel, definitely educational with in-depth analysis, which can help us build a better future together ❤
The “debate” happens in Flint, Michigan every month with the help and support of the public library, U of M-Flint, local colleges, and the community at large. It is wonderful and insightful.
Exactly what i was thinking: why not use public libraries as a place to assemble and consider the common good, and debate what that means locally.
Thank you for this!
I spent a good part of my childhood in India in the 1960ies. It was allways present to me, that the circumstances of life are important. After returning to Germany my life was simple ans straight forward. It would not have been so if my parents would have stayed in India. So only in rare occasions do we notice what education is bases on
Interesting, especially in combination with Sapolsky's "Determined".
Michael for your purpose!
It's like Habermas and Rorty talk about-- the goal isn't, "a more level playing field" necessarily but rather a of preserving the, "effective means of communication with a high availability of evidence..." which enables an, "effective means" of mediating the threat of fledgling authoritarianism by creating a kind of buffer around the individuals and communities that are threatened. The issues I have are:
1) How can the, "effective means of communication" be preserved in what Clinton referred to in the 08' election as, "the deplorables" (?) which make up a an impressive majority of the country?
2) How do we deal with the obvious counter arguments that might be presented like, "well do you want a more or less qualified doctor, lawyer, engineer, insert thing here?" How do we deal with the potential for, "mutings of the more qualified artist(s) or the John Galts?
I have learnt
The harsh reality is...
The riches invest more in their children's education. The children's of the riches are also under a lot of pressure to perform. How is it not justifiable to see these effort to be rewarded?
Why do the society seek equal representation in success? Success and wealth were never made equal.
This is a link on Paul Lafargue to further the conversation.
The talk duly emphasizes the current problems of severe and rising economic and social inequalities, high and rising levels of polarization in the society, and resultant unacceptable levels of intolerance towards the `other’ in the society, which will be detrimental to democracy. It cannot be denied that these problems need a lasting solution on an urgent basis. What is doubtful for me is whether such an important and a worthy aim can be attained through a rational appeal to develop morality required for cohesive society. The doubt arises out of several reasons.
First, several factors affected development of democracy as a civic virtue. The Renaissance (Encyclopedia of Diderot) had initiated replacement of science in place of religion as dependable guide to understand the life and the world around us. Many of the ruling powers (feudal and of monarchs) had severely diluted because the incessant wars had bled them to near bankruptcy. There no longer were more uncharted areas where the colonies could expand, bringing in the riches through exploitation, and restore power. Technological developments had empowered the common man to find alternative means for livelihood. It was confluence of these and similar factors that established a global movement of equality, to be attained through democracy or socialism or communism.
During that era, most of the people were poor and communities were rural. Poverty does instill a virtue of cooperation because cooperation is the only means of survival during adversities that regularly befall one or the other across populations. As against that, today much of the people are richer and more educated. I wonder if they can be made to heed to some appeal for development of moral virtue, no matter how appropriate, even inescapable such an appeal maybe.
David Graeber had highlighted several issues where equality is not pursued. He had said that we are yet to create a simple robot that would take one’s laundry to washing machine and bring it back. Such rudimentary automation would ease the life of common man, but that has not happened. Similarly, we have found drugs like Prozac and Ritalin but have not found cure for several of the diseases that affect masses, or drugs that can cure cancer. Since 1960s, there have been no projects with global vision. Under the dictates of neo-liberal economic theory, one of the basic premises of which was balancing the budgets over at least an electoral cycle, such projects have evaporated. Last such project was declared by Russia to launch hundreds of satellites that could reflect light (energy) back onto the earth, thereby solving the energy problem. Nothing more came out of it. To the extent that these claims are right, and they are, it seems that world is not busy solving problems of the common man, but is busy protecting the hegemony of the ruling class or the rich people. Let us take the issue of data ownership on social platforms, which drives the prosperity of tech giants. The data ownership depends on a single court judgement in late 1970s and can be easily corrected. The tech giants are not only significantly contributing to the social polarization but also drives unbridled consumerism, causing the climate change to the extent that it has brought the planet on the brink of extinction.
I am sure that things are much more complex than I have summarized above, but even this rudimentary analysis, all which I am capable of, has led me to wonder whether mere appeal to `better angels of our nature’ will produce necessary results. We know that time and again Capitalism has failed, and failed seriously, eroding democracy to the extent possible. Essential question is: Could we think of a system where democracy and capitalism are sufficiently decoupled to ensure better life for common man?
It does not signify anything if my physician or lawyer has hubris. What is critical is a high level of competency. Meritocracy is the method by which we get the best people in these jobs.
It amazes me when religious man start off recognizing God as the one to be worshipped, but then forget that when wealth and power come into play. The first principle is to LOVE, the next is not to be respecter of persons. They should look up those scriptures instead of looking at the bank book or their degree.
5:07 start
555⭐️⭐️⭐️
Once again. Once again, in case you did not register. "Let's have a champagne, in the champagne room." That happened to Chomsky at the Foucault debate. Make sure it does not happen again.
This triumphalist notion Sandel asserts I wind a weak notion--
who does any system avoid a certain pride for individual achievement?
Could this argument be encapsulated in the observations of our children? Does one believe a child on their own merit can win a race, game, objective, etc… over another child? Winners and losers exist in life, whether that’s just or not is totally irrelevant. That’s the reality of life on Earth…My 2 cents
In that case the book should be titled "The Tyranny of PERCEIVED Merit" and not The Tyranny of Merit. Misleading title.
much true merit is never recognized, that's his major point. maybe most...
@@averayugen7802 You might be correct
@@averayugen7802so should we rethink abt capitalism?
book titles are largely decided by the editorial, they are a marketing decision. Its very common for an author to give a talk about a book they wrote and say their own book's title is misleading