The Moral Limits of Markets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2024
- A special event with Harvard professor and Institute for New Economic Thinking Senior Fellow Michael Sandel.
Sandel discusses his recent book, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, in conversation with students, Institute President Rob Johnson, and Union Theological Seminary President Serene Jones.
NEW YORK AREA STUDENTS:
Be sure to apply for our free undergraduate seminar with Michael Sandel!
Apply Now - ow.ly/rAPQK 
Кино
who's here for good life💀
me bro 😑
ME LOL
@@victoriadamon5964 Procrastination!
@@Dajaxon Procrastination to the max
@@Chan0art Discussion Post due in 2 hours lol
Professor Sandel’s deliver and analysis are unique and amazing.
👽♥️♥️♥️
" We've drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society. The difference is this: a market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity; but a market society is a place where everything is up for sale. It's a way of life in which market values and market thinking begin to reach into almost every spirit of life--- family life, personal relations, health, education, civic life, politics."
It also attracts pirate's you can't go off the image of a pirate like a Jesus portrait it's deceiving for the Inuit people they'll expect the government oversight but I'm not sure to protect them from pirate's they won't know how to defend themselves I assume once they feel something wrong about it they'll be mistake prone emotional. It's natural but to a culture vulture it's easy pickings. You Asians like war it's in your blood to be prepared for battle is that your mindset or is it my imagination?
2:35 once he stands up the other panelists could have gone home I suppose... but in all candor, he facilitated dialogue & struggling to think through the inevitable tensions in society, and inspires people to “think” without leading to a conclusion. Training a methodology of debate & discernment is of much greater value than lecturing on one man’s opinion.
His comment that the market economy has now been replaced by a market society is a really good one. It's not that hard to come up with examples where increasing the market's reach will end up hurting society. He mentions the outsourcing of foreign wars to private corporations, direct advertising of healthcare products to consumers and lobbyists paying homeless people $50 each to stand in line at events. Good video.
Excellent point! This is exactly why I dislike putting a dollar value on a street tree in an urban forest (just on example that comes to mind)... the analysis of the trees value is typically as a pure commodity devoid on any social value. The market society equally is absent the social value of everything it seeks to commoditized... Economics has its place, as Sandel puts it, as a sub-field!
5 years later, this makes even more sense
This is soooooo interesting absolutely pure philosophical gold.
We have been a Market Society at least since 1980. The roots, of course, go back to the 1800’s. We believe that market value is an objective valuation Independent of “subjective” and irresolvable dispute. So, we moved toward the privatization of civic institutions without caution. We ignore whatever is “external” to the cost of production when determining the price of goods and services. Their impact on society or the environment are considered irrelevant. These cultural habits of thought won’t be easy to reverse. Much public education is needed to reverse these trends and tendencies. Thank you for this wonderful introduction to Political Economy. More is needed
This guy speaks like the angels.
Yep, there are more and more people saying it; the current market society increasingly restricts the occasions on which altruism can be exercised.
27:34 _"It_ has to reconnect with its origins in moral and political philosophy. Back when economics was invented, the classical economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill-they all understood their _subject,_ Economics, to be a sub-field of moral and political philosophy ... and as markets today reach into more and more spheres of social life, that feature of economics is one that I think we need to reconnect with. Economics has to be reunderstood as a branch of moral philosophy."
"There's a second consequence-if it's true that _marketizing_ goods drives out certain attitudes and norms worth caring about-and it's a consequence for our public discourse. During the same period that we've drifted into having a market society our public discourse has become emptied of larger meaning-politics has become narrowly kind of managerial and technocratic. And then we have the shouting matches on cable television and talk radio and on the floor of congress and people wonder _'Why?'_ And sometimes the answer they give is that too many people believe too deeply in their moral convictions-I think something closer to the opposite is true. I think the reason our public discourse is so impoverished is that it fails to engage with larger questions of meaning and moral purpose-including questions about how to value goods, how to value the social goods embodied in practices from: health, to education, to the environment, to civic life. Now, we tend to shy away-we tend to shy away from engaging directly with arguments about the meaning of goods in public life and the reason we shy away is we realize these are controversial judgements, people disagree about them. And so we reach for a kind of public discourse that's empty of those big questions. And so I think the rise of _market reasoning_ ...this is part of the appeal of market reasoning-it *seems* to offer a _'value neutral way of making social choice'_ that *seems* to spare us the need to engage in debate about the character of goods-but it's a false promise. It's led to the hollowing out, the emptiness of public discourse that we see all around us. It explains I think, why citizens of democracies (not just here) but around the world are _frustrated_ with the alternatives being offered by political parties and by politicians. And so i think a reason... i think we have two reasons to reconnect with big questions in public discourse about economics. _One_ is, it's the only way we will be able to decide as a democratic society where markets serve the public good and where they don't belong and _second,_ it's the only way to elevate the terms of our public discourse to engage with big things-no body is inspired by technocratic managerial talk. I don't suggest that we will all agree if we have a morally more robust kind of public discourse, but I do think we will make this democracy better, we'll cultivate habits of listening to and learning from one another _(even whether disagreements persist)_ and we also may develop a keener sense of the price we pay for drifting toward a society where everything is up for sale."
48:12 "Altruism, generosity, solidarity and civic spirit, these are not like commodities that are depleted with use-I think they're more like... the better metaphor is to think of them as muscles that grow stronger with exercise. And I think one of the defects of the market society we have come to inhabit is that it gives us fewer occasion to exercise those muscles and to develop those virtues."
Brilliant analysis. It pinpoints the root problem in our society, I believe.
I don't think so. I think most of the world's problems stem from true believers and social planners, not market forces.
@@MacSmithVideoThe lord is pleased with you. My thoughts exactly, let the bodies hit the floor.
@@MacSmithVideo financial bubbles?
Yes! Moral uniformity at all costs!
A common theme that I keep seeing is money gets advantages. The first example of amusement parks and the experience of most people (including myself) was great. Going to Disneyland for example, waiting in line and then seeing other people with “special passes” to cut the line was eye opening. Looking into it and realizing that my father had to pay forty dollars for six passes, added up quickly, despite the fact that we saved the whole year just to go in the first place. Adding expenses such as food and hotels was also costly. Although some of the best moments and conversations I had during my trip was standing in line, I did find it morally wrong that those who had money could essentially pay to cut the line that I had waited over 45 minutes for. What is a little ironic is that when it came for me to go as an adult with my own son, I made sure to purchase those passes to get us in front of the line. It did not give me the satisfaction I imagined going there and watching other kids wait in line. It seemed like an instant flashback to my childhood. There must be other was a company can make this transaction more fair. For example, for every five people who purchase a pass, one gets donated at random to families waiting in line. This even if it is not one to one, may make it more fair. However, I am sure that real soon “platinum” passes would be created for those who were willing to pay up to five times more the regular price, making the whole situation useless. Providing ideas, and opinions, getting surveys etc can allow the companies to do the right thing and get the popular opinion to what people really feel. It was just one example of one aspect of a theme park that needs to change. There are several more in the same park that can be mentioned, for example overpriced meals. I had a similar experience going to my first MLB game with my father with expensive slices of pizza or pretzels. It is all profit driven and things should change, we have to take into consideration the experience, which is what people go to games and theme parks for in the first place.
Yes, just as Prof Sandel said, throwing these to the market would corrupt its value. Here we're talking about patience, justice (in the form of fairness, first comes first served). If you can pay to cut the line, to skip the effort of waiting in patience and adhering to fairness principle, the patience and fairness are just commodities waiting to be sold. One person would buy, then two, then ten. Soon no one would even care about actual patience or fairness, only about how much they are in terms of money, and you can even be called stupid, stinky if you can afford to pay but still decide to wait in line for the sake of fairness.
@@Secret_Moon I liked common curiosity but these people are thinking they're at a casino. I can feel it coming in the air tonight. I hope blood isn't spilled but separated from cells for medical use get the bone marrow auction of organs, who wants a kidney?
Wonderful. Thank you!
So does it mean that if Oxford or Harvard charging high tuition fees change the value of the provision of higher education?
for the last topic that Michael Sandel talks about love/ altruism or an act of kindness is a virtue value that is not depleted with use. I totally agree with this but I found it contrasting with the Moral Licensing theory which says when people do something good, they give themselves an excuse to do something bad/ not to do the good things again. so according to this theory is love or altruism can be depletable?
For the last point I think think they are both right, love could be trained but time is limited.We can have love but not able to do and fulfill them all. That's why overall there looks like it is a limitation of "love".
Very interesting talk. But we need to understand that markets are inherently coercive. The use of money results in social stratification and elitism. And as long as the FOR PROFIT monetary system exists there cannot be real FREEDOM.
I think his Pt about not just letting markets decide things for us, can also extend to “letting technology decide for us”
Thoughtful ✨
On the Walrus argument is that if auction/sell the walruses would diminish the point of the religious practice since a condition has been attached to it.
Dude at 19:25 makes an argument that mightn't fit neatly into sandels framework but it's a great comment within the given example
Shame conversation has been edited. Sandal IS a really interesting man.
Very nicely, Mr. Sandel is setting up a framework for human moral discussion and chooses Inuit to be debated with audience. Granted that concern about animal welfare is a noble concern; however, it totally amaze me how Inuit take a back stage to walrus. What is it that make the crowed to be concern about animal more than other human being. Just wondering.
It’s also important to acknowledge that the Canadian government is a colonial force, and that the legitimacy of the Canadian government should be questioned. The endangered status of the walruses are a result of colonialism itself, and so is the phenomenon of becoming a “market society.”
Dude at 21:58 was just like "oh shit nobody raised their hands, lemme just put mine down"
If things like...food, drinking water, air, shelter, medicine, and education were in such scarce supply and thus needed to be rationed, then money would still serve a purpose. However, the simple fact is that food, drinking water, air, shelter, medicine, education, and anything else you can imagine
can now be produced in such abundance that they could be given, free of charge, to everybody who inhabits this small world we all live on. Money creates false scarcity. Money cannot be created without also automatically creating an equivalent debt. The monetary system generates inequality, greed, gluttony, division between fellow humans, crime, and poverty.
It's not getting more honest people in banks and government. The unconscious corruption that comes with money is too great. When it comes to the system it's money itself, not the people. (Nevermind the despotic power of money!)
We have the resources and know-how to prevent thousands children from starvation and preventable diseases. Yet we don't take action because of money. Little babies die by the thousands every day, not by greed. Because they have no money. Money is one and only barrier to eliminating world hunger, and therefore it's a *massive* problem.
Respecting human rights and natural laws in a resource-based economy is the only way to go. The world can't wait
Educate yourself
If people, dealing freely with one another think paying for advancing the line is wrong, then decisions will go somewhere else. That's the market
Love the message: if left to their own, markets can eat away at social connections. If you examine the anomie in America today, it can mostly be explained by the rejection of market society.
sir its moral responsibility of a community which has and claim are its right's to protect, prevail, presume to every aspect, of a species, - arguing , trading, commodifying for blood thirst, capitalism, revenue, quota
wow
Michael sandel is the robert langdon of Philosophy
Not allowing a market and freedom of choice also chases out other values not normally priced in a market.
ive always believed that killing for survival, to feed your family is forgivable. Its not a wasted life. But killing for sport says volumes about where we are as a specries.
He just joined the lecture modus when he stood up
Good discussion, but Sandel seems to think that if you remove moral decisions from the market, that somehow it will be more likely to have a good result. He should ask gay people or other minorities how that kind of paradigm has worked out over the last few millennia with either planners and democratic votes leading us to places that are clearly disrespectful of human individuality. At least with markets, you can choose who to associate with. It appears he opts for the method where a majority choose for everyone what is moral. This sort of high minded moral thinking from on high that he seems to be advocating is what perpetually leads to collective moral shame decades later.
There is a world of difference between hunting for necessity and hunting for pleasure
That's actually the good argument
It’s amusing how this man, who likely enjoys the benefits of having surplus money, complains about fast track lines. Truly amazing coming from a Rhodes Scholar and philosopher. We are in trouble!!!!
Beggar never expense.
Keep it for others.
Though they have relatives.
*1000*
“In Iraqu and Afghanistan war there where more private contractors on the ground than their where is military troops” Edward Snowden explains 70% of our intelligence officers are independent contractors, It’s done inorder to get rid of liability on the part of the goverment.
100
Brilliant, but almost everything he says is same in Oxford union, TED and here.
It’s the same lecture
Patriotism and loyalty to one’s country
Civic duty
Social practices or duties
Some higher value or norm is at stake
Economics as value neutral science of choice
Reconnect to Moral and political philosophy
Emptied of larger meaning
Politics has become narrowly kind of managerial and technocratic
Larger questions of meaning and moral purpose
Controversial judgments
Debate about character of goods - false premise
Technocratic Managerial Talk
A choice out of despair fighting for subsistence
Not free choices but coerced choices
Marketize a certain social practice
Voluntary exchange among willing participants
Marketization of kidneys
How free is the choice?
Even if the choice is free, it is still degrading - prostitution
Human Dignity or Respect for Human Person
1. Truly free
2. Violates human dignity
It will be more conflict-ridden and violent
Commodification of value is far more violent
All the people for and against just repeat the original problem
genius
There are sooo many videos all at different locations with the same examples...
Nature of the Good Life and Character of Goods
Effects of commodification is far more violent than discussion on public good
Wars of Religion and Violence
Pluralist society
Democratic Public Discourse
Market will decide it for us
Blood donation
Devalue the altruism of giving to a stranger
Substitute Ethics for Self Interest
Scarce resources of Altruistic Motivation
Economistic Conception of Virtue
What does the Economist economize
To reduce the preachers task to manageable dimensions
Idea of Hoarding Love
He would be comfortable only when he stand up in front of the audience as a professor
That was my impression too. but looks like it is applicable only when he wants to elicit views from the audience...he was comfortable at the end when he was quoting other sociologists and economists.
Prostitution is not between a prostitute and a client in the case of a married man the prostitute and the client is basically committing something akin to a criminal act against the partner etc
We want a market economy, not a market society.
My altruism I felt on paid blood donation in "The Pursuit of Happiness" in the movie by Will Smith.
Buona fortuna
In the example of lines for sitting in on congressional debates, there was no free market available in that regard in the first place. The seating for those events are centrally planned, and are not dynamically allocated by the market. In the case of telivision ads for erectile disfunction, we already have a highly regulated market for drugs. We have the FDA and the presumption is that anything that is on telivision has already been reviewed by the state as safe for consumption, but we all know how that goes. As for military contractors go, who do you think clears the way for that in the first place? The state. Those contractors are only capable to the degree under which the state contracts them to do things a voluntary market couldn't drum up the support to achieve. Each example I see him give are all steeped in central planning from the start. His entire argument stems from faulty assumptions in the first place.
in the congressional seating example there is a free market. it's first come, first serve, so whomever stands in que is able to sell that commodity freely. it's similar to ticket scalping.
in the other example, military contractors (a private sector, free market mechanism) would be contrasted with the an involuntary draft system. the stateless example, which involves markets, would be a mercenary army, which has existed throughout history before the invention of the nation state.
it's good that you are criticising his approach and assumptions inherent in the examples, but i don't think you are recognising that market dynamics can be corrupting. your post seems to imply that the source of the moral questions in these example and in these issues is the state, whereas there it is clear that markets do not resolve these moral issues.
the existence of the nation state and of government does raise moral issues, but that is besides the point that markets are not neutral to moral questions and questions of societal value and culture.
there are inherent assumptions in free markets that impact social values and values that people find important. examples of such assumptions are that property rights are held above any other in laissez faire free markets, i.e. above human suffering in the case of the lack of tax supported healthcare for poor people who would not be able to afford it otherwise. The point is that this should be debated and discussed not pushed aside as laissez faire, free market ideology, or capitalism does.
Your comment misses his point. In fact, it appears that you are focusing only the minutiae of his opening statements...which is just a setup for his central point. Furthermore, the points you are aiming to refute are incomplete arguments and by no means a final analysis of even those issues.
theswarm666
Are you referring to my comment or relinquis's?
Agreed. The presenter is making assumptions which may have been true in many instances but were certainly not always the case. The example of one buying one's way in a queue was always on the cards but was less transparent. He seems to be complaining it is now open to anyone.
His other examples of the walruses is no different. The tradable permit is intresting but no different than what happens with fisheries which happens all over the world and has rather successfully maintined fish stocks which clearly would have been fished out.
Why shouldn't the culture change to suit the new purpose. It changed to get into the culture it is today or was many years ago. from a previous culture..
And speaking of when "economics was invented " is a real bold statement like "when thought was invented" or when "mathematics was invented". It is an introverted idea of these studies.
They were not "invented" since they are examinations of what occurs in nature in its human sense and scarcity. It is the study of scarcity and the best was of allocating scarce resources.
All cultural practices canot be protected as they were in any world since culture requires people to practice it and pepole change their beliefs through time and learning and family and work.and for many other reasons.
A particular culture never stood still and need never for what ever reason. Why should it ? .
Why should ancient cultres be "protected" from change? They shouldn't per se be "protected".
Then my local supermarket must be centrally planned as well. When I go in there on a busy day, they don't "dynamically reallocate" the supermarket to accommodate the increased demand, and they don't sell the next checkout to the highest bidder. Nope, they make you wait in line.
Mark Fisher wrote a book entitled Capitalist Realism that discusses the phenomenon of capitalism hijacking our every aspect of life. Indeed, we are coNfronted daily with false equivalences in todays society when values are for sale to the highest bidder. We have a disgusting relationship with markets in the US.
I feel like this crowd totally missed the message of this lecture. It's a little shocking actually -- I think they really do believe that anything and everything should be bought and sold, except for, I guess, patriotism? Really?
I must disagree with this entire crowd. Is it really fair that affluent people can buy their way out the draft under Lincoln, and that less affluent people would not be able to do such a thing? And thus, they must risk their lives because they could not afford to buy a substitute while the affluent person sits at home on their ass and sips tea? Can't they see that maybe there is something wrong with this picture? Something wrong with being *able* to buy and sell their way out of war? Should this not be an issue *argued about* -- the entire point of the flipping lecture that no one in the room seemed to be able to comprehend, SHOULDN'T WE ARGUE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG AND NOT LET WEALTH DICTATE WHO GETS TO DO WHAT?!
For Christ's sake, the United States is built on Law and Lawmaking -- don't they understand that Laws are created with *this exact principle* in mind? Would they prefer that Law just be up for auction? Sure, let's just auction off our laws, highest bidder signs X or Y into law, that would be great! (sarcasm). While we're at it, let's auction off our politicians too! Let's buy and sell our President, our Secretary of Defense, and fuck it, let's auction off our entire political system. Clearly, only those with money should have *any* voice in the matter, I mean, after all we are a Democracy (*sarcasm*). Oligarchy is definitely the morally right way to conduct our decision-making right? Not rich? Well, you must be a loser. Homeless? Fuck lazy homeless people, yeah? Can't afford College... well that's just too damn bad, yo don't deserve and education right? This is unbelievable, I mean honestly, how could they not understand the Civil War example??? How could they misconstrue the Walrus hunting example? They didn't even understand what they were being asked to do....
you're making it sound like as if the thing wrong with the civil war example was not that people were pushed by their circumstances into "willingly" trading their lives for money, but that the poor could not do the same...
Money wins war. The Union needed money
You totally missed the point as well...
As a Canadian with a public healthcare system, we are currently in that debate here. A lot of people would be ready to pay more for their healthcare to skip in front of the line and this goes exactly in the direction he is talking. If rich people get access to the health care without any wait, I can see resentment grow among the population. The thing is that privatisation is gradually introduced through the back door if we don't resist it.
He's ignoring half of the equation which leads with risk and the responsibilities of expenditures.
It’s hard to go back to Adam Smith’s time because ung mga tao noon ay deeply religious pa no matter how they claim to be rational and anti-superstition. In fact, they will be shocked at the amorality of today’s time if they time traveled today. The discussion of Good was common sense to them and it’s not a politically correct term that needs careful and calculated language so as not to offend or trigger conflicts. In a homogeneous society, you can do that. Mathematical economics replaced moral economics. It became more technocratic and automated. With no feelings, emotions or “higher good”.
I think you have a valid point, even if we find an inclusive and diverse culture desirable, it can have a divisive effect on certain aspects of the political debate and this is absolutely known by some people in power who see us fighting among ourselves as a good thing for them. I can totally empathize with the more right-leaning nationalist sentiment of fearing immigration for that reason. Not because immigrants are the problem, but because they can be used as a weapon of social division if we let it happen.
☆1000☆
ugh that's not coercion or violence! Yes, these choices are still voluntary, and you have no place deciding what is dignified for others!
Are you for legalizing all drugs?
LSIC dau:))
Most people know that capitalism isn't perfect. I like some things about capitalism but I'm leaning towards some form of socialism because political democracy requires economic democracy.
market is not about having moral or not. Market is about reflection of true demand of consumers or not. Market that has been interfered by government usually end up becoming market of the few and not for or from the major consumers.
Life is just to Love and to be Loved 💝💜 Love ❤️ alone can Conquer the World.
18:00 Killing animals in the name of recreation is such disgraceful act! Shame on any organisation/ government authorizing them.
This guys argues that if people dont kill walrus they might end up killing people. Where does this thought come from? What's is making him think an Individual's lack of self-control can be solved with hunting animals? Such a lame argument!
The meat in supermarkets did not grow in plastic bags. For modern humans who have access to clean toilets and internet, how does this argument matter?
As an economist, I disagree with most of Sandel's arguments: free exchange improves the welfare of both parties to that exchange. If you have a problem with coerced choices due to desperate poverty, the solution is not to disallow those choices, but to address the problem of desperate poverty in the first place. Does it really make a poor person better off to restrict their choice set?
Voting is the one area from the talk where I agree something should not be for sale, but that is because of the externality associated with voting, something that is fully consistent with neoclassical economics. If a narcissistic, uncaring person--call him Don--were able to buy people's votes and thereby be elected president, it would harm everyone in the country, not just those who are part of the market exchange.
Where I disagree with economists is in this idea of virtue and altruism being scarce resources that must be conserved. That's just economics taken one step too far, with little concern for how people actually work.
The cultural artifact of diminished social value of virtue and altruism in a market society is primarily due to a shift in the value of gifting as virtue signaling in a commodified economy. Huh? Cultural values of mutual beneficence within tribal of communal social networks are imbued with moral constraints on the use value of an altruistic act, simply because the transaction costs would have limited fungibility due to the social values and ethical constraints of the peer group that is (effectively), a third-party monitor of ethics over the potential moral hazards of a purely exchange value transaction. In other words, in a commodified marketplace, the exchange value of monetary transactions serves to dislocate the effectiveness of virtue signaling as a cultural normalizing social pressure to conform to local ethical values. The resulting opportunity cost of signaling virtue through altruism has limited effects due to the overwhelming anonymity benefits of the exchange mechanism of fungible money, which devalues the provenance of ethical meaning in its own commodification. Money, by design, devalues humanity through the objectification of social transactions. The subjectivity of morality in a market transaction is limited to the lowest common denominator of moral valuation that two parties are willing to exchange in good faith. The individual actors may choose to ignore or diminish this good faith in subsequent market exchanges so as to create unintended negative externalities that get imposed upon the broader society as symptoms of social inequality and economic inequities. {I.e. the diminished value of fidelity or loyalty as a social virtue undermined by a monetized exchange of market value, which thereby infers social costs on to the broader society.}
We seem to have accepted the moral compromise of the commodification of both human labor and natural resources so that the cumulative wealth of humanity's toil could be exchanged for asset-value accumulation. If we're willing to forgo human moral and ethical constraints for the Faustian bargain of a leisure society for the 1% and debt-servitude for the 99%, then why would we not evaluate ecology, other species, or spirituality under the same rules for domination? All's fair in a fungible market exchange, according to a logic where the perception of virtue is actually more valuable than actual virtuous behavior. Altruism, in a market society, is a lie in the form of a social promise of enfranchisement that we will never be accountable to deliver equally to each other. Altruism is fake virtue signaling in the attempt to legitimize an illegitimate distribution of the common wealth. The rational justification for the hegemony of hierarchy, as a means to drive productivity, requires this type of psychopathic circular logic. Utopian market idolatry is a bitter pill to swallow for those who want a society based on the gift of love... which would require a redesign of money, not just a "regulatory fix" for the symptoms of a collapsing civilization.
If you couldn't tell, this lecture was metaphorically about the virtues of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while ignoring the inevitable moral realities that are the causality of our demise.
The arguments that the kidney sale and voluntarily army are not "free" choices are absurd. Of course they're free. It's just that certain groups of people will be more inclined to make those choices than others. We see that in all aspects of life.
Aleksandr Hovhannisyan interesting
they aren't violence either. Who are these people to decide what is dignified for others?
One does not eliminate the other. In the case of military service your point is partially valid, but in the case of kidney selling, I am much more skeptical. Also it encourages organ theft, just saying.
When you have slaves at home, this is very easy....just pay for its time a misery and charge a lot of money to your client....
I don’t think of Technocracy as an Evil Villain. Propaganda will always be relevant until the Antichrist comes and end of the world. Kaya lang nung nangibabaw na ung technocratic over moral dun na naging masama. Sa isang lipunan na puro propaganda and walang technocracy, bagsak and sabog2x ang economy. Pag puro technocracy naman, wala namang Diyos. God is dead ika nga ni Nietzsche. In Economist language, we need optimal amount and equilibrium point of both God and technocracy.
that indian vegetarian dude.
19:38 thanks, that is exactly what I was thinking the whole time! The policy was implemented by the Canadian government to enable inuits to continue their way of life. The policy was not implemented to trap them in their way of life. The fact that a native population is seeking new streams of revenue goes to show that their traditional way of life is already being eroded. It is fair to give them some advantages and the ability to preserve their traditions if they want. But if they are the ones who long for change, who are we to deny them. If the hunt for walruses is so uneventful, the demand will stay low. On the other hand, walruses will die no matter what. If humans don’t kill them natural predators will. If there are no natural predators, humans will have to step in and limit the population to enable other species to flourish. So, the walrus population is going to be subject to killing no matter what (as are all other species on this planet). So the core question of this dilemma is not about the walrus. It is about giving a native population the maximum amount of agency.
Humans are motal beings. They will also die no mattar what. Can I get a permit to kill humans?
If I don't kill a virus/bacteria or something else is definitely gonna kill them!
I can't believe the guy is eating gum, and on top of that I took it out of his mouth and put it away, being in the front row.
This guy gets too much credit! Is it a surprise that there are moral issues when the market is involved with imoral situations like liking animals and forcing people to fight in wars!? No shit Sherlock! The issue is not the market, the issue is the context you gave....is just like arguing for the end of knifes by only giving examples of it being used to kill....using these moral grey examples to try to discredit a free market is just manipulation and stupid!
The more I watch Michael Sandel, the more I am starting to suspect that he favors Communism to Free Market
Restricting the market from taking over some aspect of society is not communism, it's just pragmatism. Believing that the market can direct all social interactions is religious dogmatism.
Sandel is a classic example of faux intellectual
Nice shilling right there.
We would like to here Elon's point of view😂
Bernie Sanders will give us a more moralistic public discourse.
This man is obnoxiously arrogant
How so ? What I see was him trying to initiate a discussion among the audience.