Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Five

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

1. Are there things that money shouldn’t be able to buy? What are they?
2. Should military service be allocated by the labor market, like other jobs, or is there a case to be made for conscription? If places in the military should be filled according to market principles, then what, if anything, is objectionable about an army of mercenaries?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (89)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 3:28 am

1. The BEST things in life are not things - and are seldom for sale (at any price; they are priceless). The inherent problem with placing a monetary value on everything is not not only that perceptions of worth tend to inconsistent (and not just because of supply and demand) but that money itself is essentially worthless - especially in the form of fiat currency. How much is a life worth? What about love? Can they be taxed?

2. The key word is service. A mercenary military may yield be a better fighting force, but it is one whose main, if not only, loyalty is to whoever pays the most. The outsourcing of military duty creates a deep divide and disconnect within society. With universal mandatory service everyone in society has a personal relationship and stake in decisions that put people at risk. Politicians would not be so eager to wage war if they and their children had to fight on the front lines beside the less powerful, affluent, and connected. Private contractors (and even entire armies, police and security forces) are becoming increasingly popular for those who can afford them. Unlike s national military, private forces are not (held ore even expected to be) accountable to society. This may one day result in whoever is richest being able to purchase the force to impose/enforce his/her will on everyone else.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, October 2009, 1:43 pm

Concerning military service, the same can be said for denying health care because of wealth. We do not live in a democracy, rather, an oligarchy.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 4:41 pm

As far mercenaries go, I think Machiavelli hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "...mercenary and auxiliary forces are useless and dangerous; and any ruler who keeps his state dependent upon mercenaries will never have real peace or security, for they are dis organized, undisciplined, ambitious, and faithless. Brave before their allies, they are cowards before the enemy...A prince who employs them will stave off ruin only so long as he can stave off action....The reason for this is that they have no tie of devotion, no motive for taking the field except their meager pay, and this is not enough to make them willing to die for him. They are quite anxious to be his soldiers so long as he avoids war, but let war come and they will either desert or flee."

He goes on to talk about how if the mercenary's leaders are strong than they will want to obtain power, and that the ruthlessness of a mercenary is detrimental to the reputation of the prince aka the state.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 5:23 am

Great lecture. I am extremely surprised that this video only had 235 views when I watched it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 1:09 pm

Most people don't watch in the ,orning.

(keddaw) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 6:40 am

1. Other people should not be able to be bought. Likewise, other people's lives (either via assassination or paying for a heart transplant from a healthy person) should also be illegal.

2. Conscription without any get out clause is wrong, both morally and for the country. Basically if you are someone who is creating wealth in the economy then you contribute more to the war effort by staying home (paying someone to take your place) and continuing your tax generating activities.

As for a purely mercenary army, how can anyone argue that it is better to send people of your own country (I can, but that's because I am against countries as a concept) rather than pay for foreign people - who are willing to! - place themselves in harms way. After all, recent American foreign and domestic policies have been so (stupidly) focussed on keeping Americans safe at all costs that a mercenary army is surely the best way to do that.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 2:08 pm

I don't see where you explained how conscription without a buyout clause is morally wrong. You explained the practicality of it in your explanation, i.e. someone contributing wealth, but not the morality.

It is true, obviously, that someone who is creating wealth is contributing more than someone who does not. However, for the government to choose one over the other to go to war and risk their life is immoral. It is saying, simply, that because you do not have wealth to contribute, you must contribute your life. It is saying that the life of someone without money is valued less than someone who has. It is placing the ability to generate funds at a greater value than the life of a citizen.

You blatantly made that case, but you openly avoided it's conclusion by simply stating that it is 'wrong, both morally and for the country'. For the country? Yes. Morally? I don't think so.

It is immoral and unconscionable for a government to attempt to determine the utility of its citizens in order to determine whether or not they should give their lives for it's protection.

(keddaw) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 3:50 am

I had a huge speech, but let me shorten it:

NO-ONE has the right to order anyone to lay down their life.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 9:03 am

As Ron Paul said, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as it wishes."

And, as Ronald Reagan said, the draft, "rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state – not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers – to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

Daniel Webster said, "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"

Lastly, as Meyer London said, "They talk about conscription as a democratic institution. Yes; so is a cemetery."

Need I say more?
reply

(TylerKubik) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 9:04 am

oops, didn't log in

As Ron Paul said, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as it wishes."

And, as Ronald Reagan said, the draft, "rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state – not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers – to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

Daniel Webster said, "Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"

Lastly, as Meyer London said, "They talk about conscription as a democratic institution. Yes; so is a cemetery."

Need I say more?
reply

(Chen) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 1:32 am

Given the fact that war itself is ruthless and a war mentality is to sacrifice fewer people's life to protect the whole nation's security. If there are not enough people who volunteer but much more soldiers are needed, I cannot think of any alternative but the conscription. I think one of the reasons why the Germans lost the war to the Russians was because more Russians were forced to go to the war.

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 12:42 pm

I was raised to believe that for society to expect the poorest of its members to fight for the wealthiest is unconscionable. In response my family argued for a blanket conscription which would apply to all members of society. In this way perhaps society will be less quick to wage war. The United State's involvement in the Vietnam War and President Bush's policies regarding media coverage of war seem to bear this out. However, this seems to imply that a draft would be a punitive measure placed on society for neglecting to consider the full ramifications of war, and for expecting the poorest to unduly bear the burden of war.
If the goal is simply to distribute the burden of war across society, then shouldn't we simply have a blanket "war tax" to pay the wages of a consensual army? If the goal is to prevent a hasty rush to war, then I would proffer a differing argument.
When societies are tied through bonds of economics they will be far less likely to war against each other. Economic bonds tie together the welfare of one actor with the welfare of the other. Europe would seem to be a case in point. A continent almost constantly at war now united in economics. However, perhaps this experiment hasn't been running long enough to be of much use.
reply

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 12:49 pm

The surrogacy issue is one of great concern. However, it is important to remember that this issue is not the same as traditionally imagined "selling of people." In the past this abhorrent practice was as to procure labor against the consent of the laborer. In the case of surrogacy we are discussing the selling of a de novo individual for the purpose of love and caring for that individual.
However, it is vital that these situations be entered into with informed consent on both parties. If we hold that the surrogate cannot ever enter into the bargain with informed consent, then we must inform the donors. Should the surrogate decide to retain the child, then the financial payments should be repaid to the donors. The donors should enter into the contract with this understanding.
Would the situation be one of creating a human life solely for some exploitative gain, such as increasing welfare payments, or the payments of the donors, then the argument is not about surrogacy but of the exploitation of new human life.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 6:28 pm

Daniel,

Would you be interested in joining another discussion group as well? If you respond, I'll tell you more about it.

Roger Nowosielski

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 1:39 pm

Also, one needs to consider that when we gave the President power through the War Powers Resolution, unconstitutional power, and the President was given the ability to make undeclared wars and send troops where ever he wanted without Congressional authorization, this makes the idea of conscription even more repugnant. It's one thing if we have Congress declare war and authorize it, but when the Democratic element is removed and the President chooses for himself, to combine this with conscription would be simply awful. I am against conscription either way, but when we're fighting wars as an aggressor, conscription has no place at all. And even if someone invaded our country, we still would not need conscription because everyone would be forced to defend themselves and their property. So whether it's an aggressive or defensive war, conscription is distasteful either way.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 5:44 pm

I love the class... wonderfully thought provoking. I disagree with the straw poll sandel took of the class regarding military service, today. I don't believe that just because many in this class haven't served means that the military is staffed by a lesser class. I actually find the poll insulting--- I have a family member that graduated from the AFA--- he could have gone to Harvard, but chose what he thought was a noble and patriotic path. Shouldn't we be grateful and honor that many of our best and brighest serve out of duty--- and not coercion.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 11:58 pm

The point was that the majority do come from families and areas of lower economic circumstances than those attending the class at Harvard. The military, in fact, recruits heavily from these demographics. Patriotism in this sense might apply to those that truly do not need the money, but for the most part, it is the money that comes before the patriotism. While you might find this insulting in your particular circumstance, it is none the less reality.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 2:34 pm

Here is an example, from myself.

I cannot afford my wife's medical care. We make too much for medicaid/medical and all of the other programs that might help us, but not enough to afford her treatment.

I have three options. Divorce to put her on medicaid, intentional poverty to put her on medicaid, or to join the military to get her TriCare. There is, of course, a fourth option, to magically find a job that makes enough money and offers full benefits, but suffice it to say I'm searching for the magic bullet and haven't found it.

I wanted to join the Air Force anyways, but not until AFTER I got my bachelor's and could join as an officer. Instead, I am forced to enlist, and intend to. I have patriotism and consider myself among the best and brightest, but am also subject to a significant amount of monetary coercion, and that is wrong.

I don't see why knowing an individual who falls outside the demographic makes you incapable of recognizing the method through which the military coerces enlistment. There are almost always exceptions to the rule, you just happen to know one.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, October 2009, 9:41 pm

The discussion of 'Baby M' is quite interesting however one very important legal point was not raised. Yes, there was a valid agreement between three capable parties and on this ground alone the contract should have been honored. But, as a result of this contract a fourth party appeared(the baby)who was involved and who was not party to the contract. And since the child is a minor he was not even considered capable of entering into a legal contract.
It would be very interesting should Dr. Sandel raise this issue and related it back to the question of paying for military service
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 1:05 pm

1) There should be things money can't buy, because money is an artificial construct, and has been doled out and hoarded throughout time by individuals who do not think/act as if each other human were of "equal worth". Ultimately, money creates disproportionate power, and so obviously, the idea that people should be able to "buy whatever they want." is morally indefensible. Body parts, children, people, should never be for sale.

In simple terms; imagine one person on earth owning all of the money on the planet, being able to "buy" all of the world's land, and then deciding to limit food production etc, for all but a few people. Should such power exist? IF such power existed for a small number of people, would it be defensible? At what point is it morally defensible to keep people from sustenance?

2) Because of unequal wealth in society, clearly the military is more attractive as an option to those with limited resources. Conscription levels the playing field, but gives governments the power over the individual. The answer is to require conscription but allow people to opt out for ANY moral reason. This would create LARGE numbers of people avoiding consription, which should indicate to the society waging the war, etc. that the society does not want to wage such a war. Ultimately, the resistance to conscription would become the catalyst for societal change towards cavalier warring.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 4:17 pm

I noticed that, in the Civil War discussion, there was much discussion about the effect upon those who accepted money to go in the place of the Andrew Carnegies of society, but no discussion of the effect (or "justice") of the Andrew Carnegies buying their way out of serving. This seemed the bigger inequality to me; they got to avoid a conflict that those who did not have funds could not do. The poor were automatically drafted, and those who accepted money were in effect volunteers. The Andrew Carnegies were able to avoid both being a draftee and being a volunteer.

On a note I believe is at least slightly related, Harvard's shameful banishment of ROTC deprives its students of a good opportunity to volunteer (with educational costs provided for; the option of performing ROTC at MIT being onerous and impractical for most). It also deprives the country of officers who could bring a supposedly grand liberal arts education and intelligence to the military and broaden its perspective.
reply

(Chen) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 1:18 am

I don't think we can actually talk about either justice or the market (or money) exclusively, assuming that justice, which stands for human feelings or reasoning, is superior than profit, because there are basic needs for human beings to survive (food, shelter). I agree that lots of things, mostly feelings such as love, can not be purchased by money; however, one may argue that it is because feelings (not like goods) cannot be transferred from one person to another in the market,not because it is not just to buy or sell or to have a specific price.

Also, I think it is not fair to compare the conscription during the civil war and the voluntary policy today, because during war time, more people are needed to protect the whole nation's security, so it is more like an obligation.

Here is my question. We know that in a market system, demands determines supply. Therefore, whatever is for sale (even including mother's right to a child according to the original contract and taking the risk to go to the war) results from the demand. Therefore, one can make an argument that all of that mentioned above can be justified, because they meet people's needs, because there is nothing wrong that a woman wants someone else to give birth to a child for her when she is not able to do so and it is totally understandable that Carnegie does not want to risk losing his life in a war. It might seem unjust for people who supply their labor/service, but it is their free choice whether to trade or not without coercion. So it sounds fear to me, though as someone talked about in class that it is not fair for poor people who have no other choice, but I think the most justified way is to reallocate resources in the media of free market, and people should have the right to decide what they want to trade. Once they reach to an agreement, regardless how others think about the deal, it is just because the consent is reached voluntarily. I still think a contract regardless what its content is, should be enforced, because both parts should understand the risk of having unexpected consequences when they sign the contract. Not fulfilling duties of the contract itself violates the order of the market.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 1:59 pm

When you say "consent is reached voluntarily" that is the flaw in your argument. There are many forms of coercion short of holding a gun to someone's head. Further up this page is an example of someone forced to join the Air Force before he otherwise would have to get medical care for his wife. I can't speak for you but I wouldn't call this decision voluntary. So, anyone who joins the military for the pay or the benefits and not also for patriotic reasons has been coerced by economic circumstances. This is why I argue, on this page, that universal conscription without loopholes is the only fair way to assemble the forces needed by the military and the only way to ensure decsions about war are not entered into lightly.

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 6:09 am

If you chose to define coercion to mean having to make a decision we don't like, then we are all coerced and nobody has any freedom. (And Humpty Dumpty would approve of your ability to distort a word to any meaning you want to give it)

I would have liked to chose to fly a private jet to work today, but I cannot afford it, so I have been coerced to walk!

Imagine a society with 5 single men and 5 single women all looking to marry. The most desirable man marries the most desirable woman, the second most desirable man marries the second most desirable woman and so on, until only the least desirable man and woman are left.

They would rather marry than remain single, but they would both rather have married somebody else, are they coerced to marry by the other 8 people ?

If you are poor and you believe that your situation will improve by joining the military, you are engaging in voluntary exchange to improve your condition, there is no coercion. You may not like the fact that these are the best options open to you, but life is about making the best decisions you can with the hand that you are dealt.

Coercion means you have no choice, you are forced by threat of violence to take a course of action against your will.

Having to choose voluntarily between the lesser of two evils is still a free choice, to call any free choice coercion is a contradiction.

(Rodosant) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 2:39 am

Legal surrogacy it is a valid method for those can not otherwise procreate.It is relieving to know how the New Jersey Supreme Court defined unperfected information of the mother before enduring or experiencing what motherhood was and the bond created between these two now living individuals.
That predominates permeates and ultimately governs any previous transaction started by the mother before hand.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 4:56 am

What about providing a free healthcare insurrance for all those who register as potential organdonors (i.e. gave permission to use their organs for transplantation after their death)?
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 8:56 am

Jelle,

I left a message for you on the previous thread (Episode #4).

Roger Nowosielski

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 8:52 am

Could somebody teach Mr Sandler how to breathe when he speaks?

his messages would be more powerful
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 11:49 am

It is Sandel, and if that isn't a viciously petty comment, I don't know what is. Both unnecessary and has no place here.

(rogernovotny) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 12:41 pm

I agree with you. If we don't exercise proper care, this site could easily deteriorate to what you see in much of the blogosphere. So let's keep it clean, guys and gals, and in focus. WGBH and Harvard University are gracious enough to provide us with a public forum, so let's not spoil a good thing.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 8:54 pm

I agree.

(TylerKubik) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 2:27 pm

One thing I noticed about the surrogacy case was that they said that the mother did not have all the information necessary to make an informed decision since she didn't know in advance how she would feel about the child and the bond that would be created. But, in the same light, she KNEW that she wouldn't know how she felt. She was informed in that sense, which I believe is the critical aspect. She knew that she may love the child that she has, and that was part of the risk in bearing the child, and she took the risk anyway. She was monetarily compensated for all the risk she would bear, and that was one of the risks.

To me, the case was analogous to someone joining the military and then once they get to war deciding it's not for them and wanting to leave. And none of us accepts this breach of contract, now do we? If someone deserts because they don't want to risk their lives we look at them as cowards, among other things, and reprehensible to the consequences. In this situation, someone has a change of heart and decides they don't want to risk their lives, which I think is something more serious than the previous example, yet is forced to do so since they are contractually obligated to do so. By signing the contract they accepted the risk that they may not feel the same way about fighting when they actually get to war.

This goes to show how people can look at similar situations in a completely different, and irrational, light.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 3:10 pm

I agree with your analogy. At the same time, I do not believe that the military should be able to offer compensation for risking one's own life in such binding contracts. Regardless, that does put to light a fairly blatant inconsistency as to what 'money can buy' in our justice system.

(keddaw) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 3:57 am

Would the court's verdict have been different if the surrogate had already had a child and therefore would know how she would feel about the child after its birth?

Would that make anyone here change their mind?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 5:29 am

re: the surrogate mother disucssion...an interesting mention of the admitted lack of love a sperm doner felt toward his genetic child born to a women not his wife may suggest the husband of the surrogate mother who then wished to disregard her agreement contract and keep "her" child may also have no feeling toward the child his wife wished to keep.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 2:10 pm

if we lived in a world to where we only compared our abilities to our own previous abilities and not to others, we would not have any need to try to have babies that are genetically or otherwise made to be better than others. Unfortunately, in a world where everything is compared and competition is the rule of law, we will have people whom will try to genetically, physically, psychologically, etc... try to create babies that will compete better during their life on earth. I believe, we need to motivate societies to not be so competitive to where profiteering and embetterment of mankind is so important to where we dare to change our genetic composition to make ourselves a better competition to others whom share this linear existence with us.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 2:19 pm

I believe, we come to this world as individuals and we leave this world as individuals, so why is it so important for us to be better or worse than others? This idea of better or worse is a concept that is purely man made and it needs to be fully understood and conquered? We need to only compete against our own previous abilities? If we made this (compete against our own previous abilitiy) the bases of our decision making, we can solve almost all our issues at a family, local, and global level. Tomorrow's mankind will be one that is "not agaist or for", but a mankind that is in control of such ideas and will have full ability to always distinguish to not fall pray to the idea of competiton with others, but to work with others for embetterment of all. babies, soldiers, motherhood for sale, all these issues can be solved and answered if we make "competition limited to our own abilities" and not "competition by comparing ourselves to others".
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 2:21 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 8:34 pm

The use of conscription to fill the ranks of our military, with no exemptions except for those physically unable to serve in some way, is the best way to ensure whatever wars we fight are worthy of the price we might pay. Its very easy to argue for invasions and war making when its not you or yours who might be in the other side's sites. Our volunteer army is not much different from a merceneary army and in many ways our "volunteers" are coerced into service because of their station in life and their desire to find a way to rise above their station in life. How many of our 'volunteers' enlist at least partl, in order to gain access to a college education they could not otherwise obtain or afford? How many others enlist and/or re-enlist because their prospects in civilian life are, for whatever reasons, meager at best?
Serving in the military when the country needs to raise an army is a responsibility of citizenship and should fall onto everyone's shoulders in one way or another...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 9:52 pm

The Swiss militia model might be one to look at as far as it goes. But then again they never go to war with anyone. Their military is strictly defensive.

Another thing to think about is the fact that it is the professional or mercenary armies that overthrow governments. So do we really want an mercenary military in this country?
Sorry, I know this misses the point that we're supposed to be discussing.

Personally I believe that it is every citizens duty to serve if they can. I had an uncle who tried to volunteer after his two brothers joined in WWII. When they learned he worked for the railroad, the draft board told him that he was needed more where he was and sent him home. You could hear the pain in his voice when he talked about it because he thought he had shurked his duty.

I also like Robert Heinlein's idea that the only way you could run for public office was if you were a veteran.

(TylerKubik) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 9:36 pm

While conscription may help ensure 'whatever wars we fight are worthy of the price we might pay' it is not, to use Supreme Court terminology, the "least restrictive means" of accomplishing this goal. It is obvious the implications conscription has in the erosion of liberty and extension of government influence into places it has no right, and specifically no constitutional right, to do so. It would not even be that restrictive on Government in general because to vote to make conscription lawful reveals the inherent support of mandatory military service, so going to war with a volunteer army or a conscripted army would make no difference as far as they are concerned. To use conscription, something that erodes our rights, as a tool to prevent unwanted wars created by the government is clearly not a logical way to do so. As Ben Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." To give up rights to protect against the government makes no sense.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 3:06 am

First let's uncover a trap laid for the Harvard Class by Michael Sandel. I'm sure he knew the majority would be against conscription. He then proceeded to show the inequity of buying your way out of service as the rich could afford to do in the civil war. This put the class in the awkward position of defending bought service as long as it was the government that was buying. Some even supported outsourcing.

Now let's get real. When I went to MIT there was a draft and a war on in Vietnam. However, many exemptions were available for college students, teachers, defense workers etc. So, I didn't have to face the prospect of dying in Vietnam. But there is an obvious advantage to conscription if everyone physically capable of serving is vulnerable to being drafted. That advantage is that it makes war a much more sobering decision if the wealthy, the powerful, and the politically connected are equally likely to be put at risk. The unfortunate fact is that usually doesn't happen. When it does, though, it is more likely that the nation understands the gravity of the threat and supports the war as it did in WWII. What are the chances that, without conscription we would have won against Japan and Germany? The death toll was far higher than in Vietnam yet the outcry against conscription really only started after the Vietnam war. Why is that? Could it be that in all previous major wars we were actually attacked (you could argue against this in the Spanish American War and the Mexican War)? Could it be that the Congress actually voted to go to war and made a formal declaration of war as the Constitution stipulates? So, if there is a social contract but the rules of the contract have changed making it easier for a President to fight wars of aggression and making some citizens shoulder all the risks while only getting a partial say (if any at all) is it any wonder that the draft is condemned, hated and feared. But the just solution is not to expand the influence of corruption and hire others to do our fighting, either directly or by government proxy. The just solution is to make all bear an equal burden and have an equal say. When this is so we will have fewer Vietnams and more faith in the government. But if we go in the other direction we become as decadent and corrupt as other colonial powers from the Romans to the British that hired other to die for them and saw their empire and their civilization crumble.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 12:54 pm

Very good points, mannacio. I take it you're saying that the draft idea is the most equitable one, especially if it free of loopholes. But why do you think Sandel set a trap? And even if he did, that's the philosopher's job, after the best of the Socratic tradition.

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(mannacio) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 5:01 pm

Yes I do believe universal conscription (with no loopholes) is not only most equitable to those who serve, but promotes better decisions about going to war.

I think Sandel started with the survey of the class knowing full well that today's Harvard student is unlikely to be a believer in any kind of draft. From the purely Philosophical standpoint there is nothing wrong with challenging a person's beliefs in this manner. But the sad truth is that ego gets in the way of these kinds of discussions and it's easier to change the mind of someone who hasn't publicly committed themselves (or at least have them be more open to the alternatives). I'm sure most Harvard students would like to think of themselves as completely open minded but very few people really are. (See Milton Rokeach "The Open and Closed Mind".)

And thanks for the compliment.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 7:23 pm

If the surrogate was not in any way the genetic parent of baby m would this have been decided differently?The birth mothers claim of a bond is understandable but if it was not her child, If the donor parents contributed both an egg and sperm and an embryo was implanted in the surrogate, this is not the surrogates child genetically. Would this now border on abduction/kidnapping? My understanding was the host mom was artificially insemnated making it genetically half her baby. What if it was an embryo created from the donor parents and implanted? Does the birth mom still have a claim?
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 11:12 pm

Well, you're right of course, mannacio, about the difficulty of owing up to being wrong in public. I wouldn't be concerned too much with that, however. The important thing is - it'll make 'em think. Let them do it in private for all I care.

So it's shock therapy for my money, coupled with an embarrassment they may have felt for "being in the wrong."

Can't think of a better catalyst for "changing one's mind."
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 4:44 am

Would the surrogacy case have been different if all the DNA was foreign to the surrogate mother? In the case cited it seemed like the surrogate was also an egg donor, but I would like to take the example a step further.

What if all the DNA is foreign to the surrogate? Would the higher court still have argued that there was a bond between mother and daughter despite the alien DNA? Presumably so.

Also at what point does adoption become the peddling of flesh? Is there an age cutoff? Is adoption at one day different to one month, one year, 15 years? What if the surrogate was in a coma on life support? No doubt you one could come up with a lot of twisted hypothetical questions.

PS> Thanks again Michael Sandel
reply

(mannacio) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 2:18 pm

From the legal perspective I think there is a difference. The court may define the "mother" as the egg donor and "father" as the sperm donor so that the surrogate who bears the child would have no genetic ties and, therefore, perhaps no rights to the child. As to what is justice is it just to a couple expecting to have a child to have the surrogate change her mind? How many times might they have to endure this process? Either surrogacy contracts should not be allowed at all, or they should be enforced. But changing the rules at the end of the game is unacceptable. Personally, I favor adoption over surrogacy. But I understand the preference of some to have a child who is genetically related. If the genetic relationship is only partial I think this preference is a kind of fiction. Would a white couple accept a black surrogate mother as the egg donor? Generally I think they would not because it would explode the fiction they have created for themselves of a genetic tie. However, assuming that the law permits such contracts to be written they should be enforced. I do not believe there is coercion here unless the surrogate mother is performing the service due to conditions of poverty or severe economic hardship. In such cases the contract should not be entered into to begin with. That is, there should be screening to prevent this as in adoption.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 1:52 pm

In the case of the the surrogate mother..I think that the contract should remain valid..the surrogate mother knew exactly what she was getting into..the fact that she was not a "first time" mother presents the fact that she knew what she would have to endure giving up a child to someone else when the contract was made. What about the bond that the fathers wife must have had with the unborn child, and the pain of not being able to carry her husbands child, that now has to endure "visitation rights" to a child that she can never fully embrace as her own? What if the surrogate mother was carring the furtilized egg from the the other woman? Would that be a factor in the case to change the outcome? Even though she would have to endure the pregnancy, birth, and bond of a child that was not biologically hers? Would she still get to keep the child? Probably not. So what is the difference? And I wonder if the courts enforced child support?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 2:08 pm

Oh yea, what I didn't add to my response above.....The fact that the woman was getting paid to have someone else's child...did it come across to anyone else that there was a possibility that the woman was having finacial problems and maybe couldn't care for the child in the first place, so why would a court give custody to a woman who was having trouble taking care of the two she already had and makeing poor decicions (like getting paid to have a child for someone else and then changing her mind)? It seems to me that the woman was not capable of taking care of another child, and the father should have recieved full custody of the baby with supervised visitation granted to the woman.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 2:32 pm

my E-mail address is asousley@centurytel.net I made the two comments above this one
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 2:37 pm

I have to say, I was quite disappointed that Dr Sandel would choose the notion of egg and sperm donation as an occasion to score a few easy laughs. While the ad in question certainly put a pretty bad spin on the whole concept of egg donation, the way this issue was framed makes it seem as though anyone who would seek an egg donor does it out of the rankest sort of vanity.
I am one half of a couple who faces infertility. My wife is in her mid 30s, but has apparently experience premature ovarian failure. Thus while she is well able to bear a child, she cannot conceive, either naturally or through medical intervention. We face three options: find an egg donor, adopt, or accept childlessness. It is a very difficult, very personal decision. While I would be open to adoption, for my wife it is important that she bear a child and that at the very least, my DNA factor into the equation. Thus we must find an egg donor.
Egg donation is no small thing - it certainly does not compare to sperm donation. It requires a battery of tests, at the very minimum a few weeks of daily injections, frequent trips to the clinic for ultrasounds, and then a retrieval procedure that is both invasive and uncomfortable (although quite safe). It's entirely reasonable for a young woman to expect some kind of compensation for this. What's more, given the ideal age for egg donors, it simply makes sense that a donor accept some kind of fee to help with tuition or other school expenses. The donor may someday have ambivalent feelings about a child with half her genes wandering about (as might a sperm donor, but I have to think the feelings would be stronger for a woman), but this is a possibility the donor should assess before agreeing to donate. Once the eggs are retrieved, a deal's a deal.
Similarly, a surrogate mother who bears another woman's child endures months of inconvenience, discomfort, and a certain degree of physical danger. When the situation is such that the couple may provide the embryo with their own genetic material, the surrogate provides an indispensable service that we may applaud, and through the experience of pregnancy the surrogate may well develop feelings of affection and protectiveness for the unborn child. Really, we should hope she would. But once the child has been delivered, that's that. There are women who have carried multiple babies for other couples - normally we are talking about women who have already borne their own children and want to help another couple, or who, believe it or not, just enjoy the feeling and experience of being pregnant.
In neither situation do I think the surrogate or donor does any wrong in helping out, and I think it is a straightforward thing to compensate these women and expect that an agreement be honored. Certainly it is difficult to see who is being exploited.
Where the Baby "M" situation went way off the rails is that there was both the genetic bond and the physical bond of bearing the child for 9 months. That was simply a terrible idea, I would be surprised if this has happened very often since this case, at least outside of Neverland Ranch.
My point, and I do have one, is that by making light of egg and sperm donation at the outset of the discussion and then setting up the straw man example of Baby "M", Dr Sandel has done a disservice to a large group of people faced with difficult choices. He has also done a disservice to the discussion - none of the key issues were ever touched upon.
Nevertheless, may I say that I am getting a tremendous amount out of this series, and I applaud Dr Sandel for all he does.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 2:50 am

First I don't think it was in any way Dr. Sandel's intent to make a joke out of surrogacy per se. Rather his intent was to bring out what the market place has turned surrogacy into in some cases. All of this results from medical science getting far out in front of either law or justice and that is a concern.

Here are a few additional factors you may want to consider. If you truly want a child that shares both your DNA and your wife's DNA I believe it is possible. The process, as I understand it, is to harvest a donor egg and remove its nucleus replacing it with the nucleus of one of your wife's cells. Then when it is inseminated with your sperm it can be implanted in your wife. This will probably be costly, however and may take several attempts. I would expect to spend well into six figures for a successful result.

On the other, my wife and I chose voluntarily not to have a child. We made this decision more than 30 years ago before global warming was on the front pages. But we could see it coming. The earth is being ravaged by our rapacious use of its resources and this bodes ill for the next generation. Food, water, and jobs will all be more difficult to get. The effects of our pollution will cause more disease and more children born with birth defects. Do you really want to bring a child into this kind of world to suffer? Usually the reason want to perpetuate their genetic line is to create a kind of immortality through their off-spring. But this is a fiction. After 5 or 6 generations this is all lost and forgotten. Even famous people like Michelle Obama only knows the names but nothing of the lives of some of the people we saw on her recently published family tree.

If you both really want to raise a child because you believe you would be good parents I think the least selfish thing to do is to adopt. Yes, the decision is still personal ans still between you and your wife. But when you adopt you give a chance to someone who already has been born to live a life outside of foster care. And this chance may make all the difference in how they can cope with our uncertain future.

Let me suggest a hypothetical situation. A rich person comes and offers you 0,000 so you can have a child with the DNA of both parents. Or you can give the money to a charity and adopt. Which do you think, in good conscience is the better choice morally, ethically and for the world as a whole? The answer is in your hands.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 23, October 2009, 11:10 am

mannacio, you make some good points to my post above (I should probably register here so folks know this is the same person posting again).

To your first point, that it may be technically possible to produce a child with the DNA of both me and my wife, you are probably right. But there are any number of factors that make that problematic in the terms we are discussing. First, of course, is that such a procedure would still require donor eggs, though of course at least we would not be concerned with the donor's height or intelligence. The second is that such a procedure would be technically very similar to cloning, which is a whole other cesspool. Fortunately for my pocketbook and my moral rectitude, such technology is not yet available, though doubtless it will be eventually, and doubtless there will be a strong market for it.

Your second point is, of course, much more troubling. Could not the high price tag of such medical procedures be better spent feeding the hungry or treating AIDS in Africa? Amusingly, I have already faced this question with our dog. We adopted our dog from a rescue operation, on the grounds that paying a thousand dollars for a purebred when there are so many unwanted pets in shelters amounts to foolishness and vanity. Similarly, when the dog turned out to have hip dysplasia, we chose not to spend thousands on an operation to give her a new artificial hip. I try not to think about the money we have since spent on drugs trying to manage her pain. (She is a happy dog, by the way, and not yet a candidate for a needle and the big off-leash dog park in the sky.)

It's a question fraught with implications. How much is too much money to spend on infertility? While it is easy to pick on the infertile couple and say why not adopt when there are so many children in need in the world, we might say the same to the fertile couple. Why should you privilege your own genes by getting pregnant, when you could save a child in need instead? Or we could say to couples who already have children, how much is too much to spend on your children? Why should you by that expensive stroller, or send you child to private school, or even music lessons, when that money might go to feed a child, or a family, or a village?

I'm stretching the point, but I've seen a great deal of hostility towards medical intervention for infertile couples that tend towards these arguments. The most often it amounts to "why should my tax dollars pay for your treatment", hardly an argument rooted in altruism.

I think that issues of child-bearing and other personal medical issues cannot be argued on utilitarian grounds for these reasons. And I think your final question is essentially utilitarian at its root.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 23, October 2009, 11:14 am

Final point I'd like to add to my dog digression - can I justify even owning a dog under such a harsh moral regime? Can anybody justify even the merest luxury if the choice is to between that and feeding a hungry child? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is a false choice in some way. I will continue to buy 50 lb bags of kibble until I figure it out.

(mannacio) said:

Tuesday 27, October 2009, 2:22 am

I have no idea if this will appear in the right order in this conversation thread but this is a reply by mannacio to the reply by unregistered to mannacio's original reply!

Let's start from the end. I suppose my final question is utilitarian. Does that taint it in some way? I think there is common ground even between Kant and utilitarianism in some cases.

But if utilitarianism seems too much like putting a value on life, human or dog, then lets simply look at it from the Kantian perspective of universalizing the action. Let's also try to be autonomous not heteronomous in our thinking.

When we use the ethical reasoning of Kant the emotions of a mother's love for a child with her own DNA do not come into the picture either. The question becomes what if everyone did it. Well, if everyone did it there would be more people on earth using scarce resources than if they adopted. And, yes, this argument applies to both fertile and infertile couples. As a mentioned in my previous comment, though my wife and I are both fertile we decided to have no children. We did not take the additional step of adopting so perhaps we're not as admirable as those who have.

I know that making a decision of this kind is one that goes to the very core of a persons belief system. So suggesting any changes to these beliefs may often meet with hostility. This is exactly what is happening now when Gay Marriage is discussed. The reaction on one side is hostility and on the other is umbrage at being denied a "right". It's pretty clear why this is such a divisive issue: Marriage is a sacrament to Catholics and they see their religious beliefs being trampled. Gays see marriage as a secular institution that confers rights otherwise unobtainable and also endorses an enduring bond. Social divisions of this kind can last for generations simply because neither side wishes to abandon a core belief.

So it's quite possible that nothing I say, that nothing anyone says, could change the decision that is rightfully between you and your wife. I only offer my opinion of how the moral view presented in the course might apply.

(Christa Avampato) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 9:08 pm

I found the pairing of these two subjects extremely interesting. Prior to viewing this session, I did not see the connection between selling motherhood and selling ourselves into military service. Both involve placing a value on life - the first a value we place on our own lives and the second the value we place on a life who is unable to speak for himself / herself.

As much as I cannot think of a reason on Earth why one human being should kill another innocent human being, war or no war, I cannot think of a reason why someone should not be allowed to sign up to be a professional soldier if a military system exists. I grew up in a very poor family and the thought of becoming a soldier as a way of bettering my life did not cross my mind. I did not feel coerced in any way to join the service. I studied hard, I took loans, got grants, and put myself through school - undergraduate and graduate.

One the topic of selling motherhood, I think of the colleagues and friends I know who have adopted, employed a surrogate, and struggled with infertility. They've been able to know the joy of having a child because we have an adoption / surrogate system. If we were to consider all surrogate / adoption contracts non-binding in the eyes of the law, how could any of them have been able to be wonderful parents to such deserving children?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 9:01 am

The idea that offering money for military service is coercive is bogus. Before the money is offered are there more or less options available to the poor? More, everyone now has a choice to join the military or not. It is ridiculous to think that by offering a good deal the government it being coercive. If I offer you a million dollars to fix my sink, it is unlikely you will turn it down, but that doesn't make the offer coercive.
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 9:52 am

You've got some good discussion going on here. Why do you folks stop?
reply

(StarTRavel) said:

Wednesday 11, November 2009, 11:46 pm

A requirement that all must serve is the most equitable solution. A Draft is second.

An all-voluntary military with NO PAY may not produce a large enough military. However, it would have the most devoted members.

A Draft with hardship opt-out (similar to jury duty), allows the poor an out.

Conscription with buyout option (civil war example) or a paid military allows the rich an opt-out.

Wealth rules thus we have a paid military (marketed as voluntary)
reply

(Kimig) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 3:23 pm

When faced with the need to increase our military base we should increase pay and benefits. If that is not enough to fulfill the demand then we should look to other ways to make a career in the military more desirable. I think that we as a nation are already doing that. One of the classmates mentioned that military conscription (draft) would bring a sense of shared duty to the nation. However, Another classmate mentioned the act of patriotism in serving because of a sense of moral duty, a love for the country, and wanting to defend it and I believe that both are good. I didn't like the after effects of the draft of Vietnam that my brother served in. I am not sure if it was because there was a draft that the war was so unpopular and then the soldiers too became an object of the displeasure with the war or if it was just because we were losing so many years, soldiers and dollars but I think volunteer maybe the best way to go. With the surrogate mother and the Sterns I can honestly attest to not knowing how deeply one would feel toward an infant after it was born. I had always wanted a little girl but my first born was a male. Not that I love him any less, but when my second child was born though I knew through a sonogram that it was a girl I was not prepared for nor did I expect to feel the way that I felt when I found out she was a girl and I held her. That feeling never came nor got close to it when my son was born but when my daughter was born it was as if I was walking on sunshine or should I say dancing on air. I was the happiest I had ever been in my life and to this day I have never been that happy. So the first two gentleman students comments were right and that really does happen.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, December 2009, 11:11 am

Would the arguments be different if the hired woman was only used for incubation; in other words, "rent a womb" rather than using the hired woman's egg and also her uterus?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 1:34 pm

Note that Locke had no problem in his "state of nature" with individuals going out and choosing to fight to defend their own property or to punish those who took it from them. Locke did not feel this violated your inalienable right to life, as suicide did. Both suicide and choosing to fight involve a decision by oneself. The latter may cause you to lose your life as the former does. Clearly he felt that there was a strong distinction to be drawn between an action which may cause you to lose your life, but is not specifically intended to do so, versus one that is intended to do so.

Therefore he cannot be said to have felt that going out to fight was the equivalent of losing your life. So governments that conscript people to war are also not violating one's inalienable right to life, according to Locke.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 1:29 pm

I have a comment about the "Baby M" case. What would the court do if the father no longer wanted the child? Is he also allowed to change his mind? Isn't there a significantly larger number of people (surrogate moms and chldless couples) who are very happy with their transactions. Why should one women who changes her mind ruin it for eveyone else.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 17, December 2009, 3:05 pm

I flew as a Naval Flight Officer in the Vietnam era. I scanned the prior comments and saw none that addressed the fact that some, like me, joined the military to do something they wanted to do; for me fly from aircraft carriers. The draft existed but wasn't an issue and the pay certainly, in those days, wasn't either. I wanted to fly and I did; 1100 hours in the A-3B Skywarriors and 179 landings.

The few, the proud, the Marines. Many people join the military because it has a job they want.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, December 2009, 2:14 pm

Constription is only fair if there is no way out. The conversation centered on the people who were paid to serve in the place of somebody who could afford to purchase their service. What about those people who were drafted and could not afford to hire a replacement? Escaped slaves and workers joined the Civil War in huge numbers because they understood the risk to all workers from the institution of slavery. Other workers objected to the war by stating that "war benefits only the rich, and forces worker against worker." That position was borne out when several of the people able to purchase replacements during the Civil War (J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Jim Fisk, Cornelius Vanderbilt) became so wealthy from profiteering from the War, that Andrew Carnegie, concerned for his very soul, said: "To continue much longer with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery." Either there is a draft, or there isn't. When your number comes up, you go. That is the only way it can be fair. If the elected officials making the decision to reinstate a draft understood that their children/grandchildren had as much of a chance to go as the son or daughter of a garbageman, it would introduce a different perspective to the debate. The certainly wasn't the case in Vietnam, or the people who committed us to the war in Iraq would have served in Vietnam.
reply

(Cmramz) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 4:02 am

surrogacy is not the same as baby selling. there is no baby at the point in which the deal is made. the only thing being sold are sperm, eggs and a renting of the uterus.
In a case where a couple has fertilized an egg and need to uterus to grow it, they can seek out a women who is willing to rent out her uterus, which is not currently in use, to them but just like a land lord, she has no right to what the renters make in that space.
in a case in which a couple (or sole person) need not only rent out a woman's uterus, but also buy a sperm or egg to commence fertilization, the seller has a right to sell it, but no longer has any right to it once it's sold. For example: you want to make a table, so you go to a man, tell him you want to make a table and he sells you a tree. so you work and after a while you make yourself a amazing table. all of a sudden the man you got the tree from wants that table. he says it came from his tree so he is entitled to it.
now is it fair to give him the table just because he didn't know how or couldn't know how happy he could be with a table? did he not sell it fairly? you bought the tree and made it into table , does he deserve it just because it came from his tree. you didn't steal it. you told him straight up you were going to make a table from the tree, and he gave you. He agreed and he didn't care for the tree until it came into existence. why should he be entitle to it?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 7:36 pm

Military conscription is valid, provided that actual deployment is optional. every soldier should still have the right to decide weather or not they actually go to war, as well as the right to refuse any orders they are given.

in a system like this, the only wars that will be fought are just wars, and the only commanders who are respected will be obeyed.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 5:01 pm

They discussed whether the drafting used in the Civil War was more or less moral than the voluntary/paid army system today. They used the war in Iraq as an example. I found it weird that no one raised the following points:

1. Is it moral to trust in the so-called official story that Osama Bin Laden was responsible of 9/11 although there is not enough evidence to make that claim (and a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise).
2. If it is, then is it moral to retaliate and attack Afghanistan?
3. If it is, is it moral to claim WMD exists in Iraq without evidence?
4. If it is, is it moral to attack on that basis?
5. If it is, is it moral to kill a million civilians?
6. If it is, is it moral to "rebuild" the country by paying for American companies?
7. If it is... got my point?

Only after these discussions would it be necessary to ask questions like: "is it moral to join the army in the first place" and "which kind of method of recruitment is most moral"...

-Tomi Astikainen
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 8:08 pm

What a great question. That would depend on where you get your morals. I'm a Christian so I get mine from the Bible. Since Jesus teaches to love your neighbors, even your enemies I guess (since I've never thought about the morality of a military) that it goes against what Jesus teaches. Thus, it would be immoral for a Christian. It may not be immoral to someone who isn't a Christian. I suppose it may not be to a Christian either but that's how I see it at the moment. Again, great question.

(Amarsir) said:

Thursday 31, December 2009, 2:19 pm

Again, something seeming obvious to me wasn't brought up. In the Civil War system (conscription with buyout), people enlist because they accepted a private offer OR because they were drafted. Under a volunteer military, no matter how poor you are you don't HAVE to go.

No matter how strongly they claim it, an option you really really want is NOT a requirement. If you're poor you want a military job more. Well if you're poor you want any job more. And this presumption that they'd be better off with no choice whatsoever simply falls apart on its face.

On a different topic, is economics a prerequisite for this class? It doesn't seem so. That's unfortunate, since so much of this discussion is based on money, and yet I'm skeptical that without understanding economics people really know what "money" actually is.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 6:17 am

I agree with Amarsir, there seem to be some strange views about money in these discussions. (Like it is somehow evil in its own right)

To fully understand what money is I recommend reading:
The Theory of Money

(Rothbard) said:

Thursday 7, January 2010, 4:48 am

That should be:

The Theory of Money and Credit
Ludwig Von Mises

(Mykel) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 4:42 pm

I have come to the conclusion that saying you can not put a value on human life is incorrect. To say something has no value actually means that it has a value of Zero, right? If that is true then instead of saying life can not have a value why not give it a value that always makes it the most valuable thing like say 1 Million billion dollars.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:06 am

The cost of every meal you eat could be donated to third world charities and would certainly be enough to save a life.

Unless you sell everything you own and dedicate all your effort to raising money for these people how can you say you value human life more than the things you chose to spend your own money on ?

In all probability your actions would show that you value a human life in Africa less than a cup of coffee ! (Every time you buy a cup of coffee you chose not to save a life through charitable giving)

It is easy to say that human life is priceless and easy to say that other people's money (taxes) should be spent without limit to save a single life.

However, when it comes to giving away their own hard earned property, it is amazing how little people actually value human life, other than their own and those of their nearest and dearest.

(Mykel) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 11:01 am

So your reply is an assumption about how I or we "actually" value human life? What I am saying is simply that priceless = Zero and that I think Zero is an incorrect value to be placed on human life. Your response please.

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 3:48 am

Priceless does not mean zero, it means without a price, i.e valued by the one who owns it more than anything that could be offered in exchange.

Dictionary.com puts it as:
having a value beyond all price

If you want to split hairs, that does not mean of infinite value, since the total of all goods in existence that could be offered in exchange is not infinite.

The point I am making is that values are determined not via intellectual abstraction but by the actions of individuals.

There is no more a universal value of life than there is a universal value of oranges. (For oranges high value if you live in the Iceland, low value if you live in Florida)

Today I purchased a cup of coffee for 50p (I live in the UK) at the point of purchase I clearly valued the cup of coffee more than the life in Africa I could have saved by giving up my coffee and giving the 50p to charity.

My actions (and those of most people) clearly demonstrate that we value the lives of those in Africa at close to zero.

We would probably give up everything that we own to save our husband, wife or child, but that is a particular life that has exceptional value to us.

Those particular lives are worth everything to us, but probably nothing to those living in poverty in Africa.

To claim that the value of a human life should be 1 Million billion dollars is to say that we should all give up everything we own and live at subsistence level to save the lives of those in Africa.

When you have done this, let me know and I will reconsider if your argument is valid !

(Rothbard) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 12:19 pm

The argument that consent is tainted in the surrogacy case is very weak as it would invalidate any contract for delivery of goods that will only exist in the future.

If I contract an artist to paint a picture for me, he may decide when it is finished he doesn't want to give me it because he didn't know just how wonderful it would look, so his consent was tainted.

If I contract for a cinema ticket and don't like the film I will be able to ask for my money back because my consent was tainted by lack of knowing I wouldn't like the film before I had seen it.
reply

(Jessica Condeff) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 3:02 pm

Having a surrogate carry a baby is purely a choice made by a couple who for some reason or another can not conceive on their own. When making this choice, both parties,(the surrogate parent and the "real" parents), have come to a given agreement and consent has been shared. this act of consent justifies the act. the baby can not be seen as being property, the payments that are given are done so that the benefits of carrying the baby outweigh the cost to the surrogate. otherwise there would not be a very good reason for the surrogate to go through the pain and discomfort of the pregnancy.

i disagree with the point that the "real" mother, who did not carry the baby, but will have full custody of the baby, will make a bad mother compared to the surrogate mother. i think the mother would care for the child as well as she would if she was able to give birth to it herself. having a surrogate mother in order to start a family is just another option to adoption. often times people want there children to be as much like them as possible, including looks of course, and this is a way of doing so. adoption is often very difficult and takes time to be considered and to get all the details figured out, this could be years, so to some surrogacy is the better option.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 21, February 2010, 5:18 pm

I really enjoyed the Elizabeth Andreson reading that was referred to. It added a lot of clarity to the discussion. Parents ought to have a love for their child and the conscious intention to provide them with care. Surrogacy perverts the natural (social, even biochemical) instincts of a person. To expect, induce, or reward someone to act against these powerful biological instincts and carry a child for nine months, feel them move, feed them, give birth to them, and then send them away to an uncertain future for financial compensation certainly seems degrading.
Further, for corporate entities to post advertisements in college campuses, appealing to vulnearable, poor college students to partake in donation (at a time when most of them will not have thought through the consequences of their actions) seems both predatory, exploitive, and morally wrong.

(RMax304823) said:

Thursday 28, January 2010, 7:58 pm

The Military.

Better pay and benefits are probably the best answer in the short run and for so-called limited wars. If nothing else, the military would be a job that paid well. Some die, but the others spend their additional pay and promote their economy, so the benefits are spread around. (Except for those who die.)

For all out wars, conscription is required and should be strictly random, so that the cost is shared equally -- men and women, rich and poor, famous and anonymous. This involves a great deal of risk, not only for individuals but society as a whole. Harry Mosely was a promising young British physicist, shot through the head by an enemy sniper in WWI. He would have contributed much to science. (He already had.) The equal sharing of risk might prompt everyone to think hard before breaking out the weapons.

Mercenaries are a very select group, prompted less by patriotism than by darker urges that aren't well understood. And they raise complicated legal, economic, and ethical questions. We've seen some examples of these complexities in the case of Blackwater "contracters" in Iraq.

Motherhood.

The class really sticks to an abstract consideration of the conundrums Sandel describes. It treat science as mostly irrelevant. The bond formed between mother and newly born child is a biological one -- if the two are brought together during a certain window of time. Baby M should have been separated at birth from his or her birth mother.

As for the New Jersey court, pfui. "Tainted consent" means little because every contract involves intangibles. If Baby M's mother can legitimately decide to change her mind because of events that took place after she signed the contract, then every contract is meaningless because it can be thrown over at will -- or at whim.

No one who makes an agreement, who promises to deliver something at a future time, knows all the details of what will happen in the interim. No consent can ever be backed up by all the facts. If you're paying off a car, you don't know what the inside of the tires look like.
reply

(lordhydra2003) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 2:57 am

Regarding Motherhood.

There is one thing that we are not considering here.

The right of the child not to be sold. A human being can not sell another human being, no matter the connection between them.

I may agree that a mother owns her body and do as it pleases, but once it is out, the child becomes a separate identity with the inalienable right of not to be sold.
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 7:33 pm

Jackie Raul and Sam are nuts. You're placing a dollar value on a job. Patriotic or not, if you don't want to be there and are hiding behind other people so they will get shot and you won't you're going to do more harm than good. If I'm willing to hedge my bet that one growing up on a farm and being raised as a hunter My skills are superior to yours, my physical strenths give me a good chance of winning the war, and in all reality if I take your money now I may avoid doing the same job for free shortly down the road, that is my choice. If I don't see the value in taking your money then I'm not going to. Either way I'm going to live. If you go out there to fight you're 10x more likely to die than I am.
reply

(SlowDaddie) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 5:25 pm

The difference between the Civil War model of conscription is completely, and fundamentally different than the volunteer army of today.

1. By selling yourself into conscription, you've done so voluntarily. You have the right to take, or not take someone else's spot. However, if you're too poor to afford the "buy out" option, then you have no choice BUT to serve in the military, and that is a violation of that individual's right to life. The government can not force conscription's, because it doesn't have the right to make you forfeit your rights. The Civil War model is clearly wrong. Simply giving you an option of brushing off that responsibility onto someone else does not make it OK to forcefully draft someone, because ultimately SOMEONE's right's will be violated.

2. The volunteer army of today is made up of people who have chosen, by their own free will, to pursue a life in the military. Whatever motives (patriotism or just for pay) is totally irrelevant to the method.
reply

(jvm) said:

Friday 9, April 2010, 10:18 am

There is a fundamental inequality in the conscription/hiring of substitute Civil War scenario not mainly because the hired people were coerced but mainly because the poor who were drafted didn't have the options the more affluent people had.
The important coercion here is not the one who affected the poor hired substitutes but the coercion that affected the poor drafted but NOT the rich who could dodge the draft.
The inequality lies really in the absence of coercion of the rich, in the non-universalism of coercion.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 25, May 2010, 6:12 pm

This woman Jackie has obviously never served in the military. The truth is that today's all-volunteer force is more akin to a mercenary mindset than a patriotic one. Speak to the soldiers, it isn't patriotism for this country that drives bravery in war. More so, it is the bond of brotherhood fighting for each other. The truth is that the plurality of enlisted soldiers today are not in the military for a plethora of options. However, this does not take away from the effectiveness of our military power
reply

(Jennifer) said:

Sunday 29, August 2010, 6:26 am

I oppose to the civil war way of recuitment. There are two reasons.
1. If the person who is chosen has the money to get a substitute himself, the situation is fundamentally the same with the idea of raising the wage, except for the fact that it is a two-step process.
One, you should be chosen by the government. Two, you should get a substitute by yourself. I think it's rather inconvenient. Because afterall the basic point of raising the wage and applying the market rule is the same - If you want the money, APPLY.
2. If the person got no money for hiring a substitute, it's a coercion and violation of individual rights of freedom. That's quite obvious.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 13, September 2010, 3:16 pm

I'm sorry but I can speak English a little.So I write my opinion in Japanese.
徴兵制について...
生存権を脅かされる社会はもはやそれは緩やかな闘争状態でないのか。
戦争が社会の維持に必要だというのか。
今までの人類歴史の中で戦争は無くならなかった、社会の形成によってホッブスのいう闘争、もしくはロックのいう混沌から抜け出たものの、やはり闘争状態にあるではないか。
ロックの立場からすれば、個人の自由によるものより、より不都合な状態になってしまったのではないか。
どのように選ばれようが、戦争というもの自体の悲惨さは変わらない。悲劇をいかに分配するかなどという議論など正常な社会では起こりうるものではない。

代理母について...
契約契約って同然のように皆使う。
考えるべきは、代理母がどのような思いでいるか、子を望むカップルがどう想っているのか、子供にとって最適なのは何かということである。
そして忘れてはならないのが、生まれてくる子供の命は誰のものでもない。契約や遺伝的な問題は二の次で議論の的にはなり得ない。
それを考えると代理母を推進するような事業をやっている会社はもっと慎重にならなければいけないのは確かだろう。また、このような問題が発生した時、単に契約に従うのではなく、紳士に解決策を見出し、子供の未来についても親と同等に責任を持つべきである。sexをするの同様に確かに子をつくっているのだから。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 3, December 2010, 3:26 pm

sad
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (3)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 10:54 pm

The various comments regarding the CIvil war system versus voluntary missed an imoprtant point. In the Civil system, there was conscription. People of all economic positions could be drafted. However, those rich enough could buy themselves out of it. This means that poorer people could be drafted but the rich didn't have to serve. This is not an equal system. At least in the volunteer system, no one is at greater risk fo begin drafted.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 4:26 pm

Isn't it iron how a woman who would never be recruited to go and take a bullet in the forehead talks about patriotism. what a coward.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 4:26 pm

Isn't it ironic* how a woman who would never be recruited to go and take a bullet in the forehead talks about patriotism. what a coward.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Comments (17)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, December 2009, 2:26 pm

You cannot sell your soul--heart, mind and body. You can receive payment for the services (i.e., education is due to the mind's service) but not the intangible objects themselves, obviously. If one argues that you cannot sell yourself without entirely knowing the facts of transaction--again, not your actual self but your services--then that is a blatant disregard for reality. Even in a legal dispute where a plaintiff argues that they were unaware of extenuating circumstances, therefore leading them to make a partially uniformed decision, the basis of that complaint is that a transaction was made, thus the reason for the argument in the first place. The same is true of human life. If one argues you cannot sell yourself because you do not know the worth you are selling, it might be true that you are ignorant of inherent life worth, and you can only sell your services, but you still can object yourself into slavery by sale. However, the question is if you should be able to sell yourself into slavery, if free. The last time I checked, there has never been anyone sued for incompetency that didn't bring the case to court by them self. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, December 2009, 3:20 pm

Re: Conscription v Volunteer v ....

Note that the educational deferments of the Vietnam era was similar to paying another to take your place in the draft. Overwhelmingly, those with access to money (including property) are those who were more likely to qualify, let alone be able to afford, post-secondary education which would allow such a deferment.

Rather than a voluntary or mercenary military, I argue for National Service, which ensures "payment" for belonging to this society. National Service has options - military or civil service. Military speaks for itself. And, like the National Guard, the Civil option would have the ability to provide one's service over time - month by month. Both are reimbursed (at a different rate from private enterprise, but reimbursed. There are additional benefits - in the case of military service, GI bill education and housing loans as well as training for that service itself (e.g pilots, and other). Civil service can be similarly provided - the types are almost endless - from child care (with the option for learning about types of interactions and practice at those as well as child/human development), assistance with education (tutoring, teachers aides, recreational aides, etc) as well as for the elderly and disabled. Other options include the care of public lands (not just the roadsides and local parks.) And, like military service, you may be asked to serve in an area other than from whence you originate. Those who are themselves disabled (physically or mentally) become teachers to others. This becomes an obligation of citizenship. (Similarly, jury duty fulfills part of this duty.)

If a need for military exceeds those who have chosen that option, then, in a non-arbitrary manner, the rest of those providing civil service may be elected (drafted) to provide military service (usually logistical rather than open potential to kill another.)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, December 2009, 3:46 pm

Can there ever be fully informed consent as we cannot predict the future?
How much information is sufficient?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 12:49 pm

1. One has the right to life, liberty pursuit of happiness. -modified locke by jefferson. And one may consent to give away fundamental rights such as property in the form of taxation by a democratically elected government by joining society. locke. and maybe life, in the form of military service is one of those fundamental rights you agree to sign away by joining society. I am glad there is some level of choice in society for military service but agree with the students concerns about coercion.

2. I was wondering what category is the modern tactic of war with a foreign country then training local forces to take over the job when we leave would fall into. It starts as a non mercenary US force, with international allies (mostly peace keeping), then might switch to a local force which is nation buidling? From a classical perspective it almost looks like a conscription mercenary force of foreign fighters fighting rebels. At the same time we are giving them the ability to rule themselves with a democratic government. Thank you for any thoughts you all might have.

mm
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 6:28 am

I would have loved to participate in the debate. Infact, it made my a little angry sitting in my chair not being able to say anything.

1) The main difference between the civil war system and the volunteer system is, that once drafted in the civil war system a rich person can buy his way out and a poor person cannot. For there cannot be put a prize on live this is unjust. In the volunteer system everybody can stay out.

2) This is the one that made my angry: its incredibly naiv to believe patriotism makes you a better soldier. This represents a romoantic image of war as seen in holliwood movies like "braveheart" or "the patriot". Also, putting your live in danger is not the essance of beeing a soldier. You put your live on the line in the moment you signe in. Once you are in a battle that decission has been made and it doesnt matter why (patriotism or money). Everything that remains for you to do then is to stay alive. A good soldier is one that stays alive as long as possible, because in the end the war is won by those who have more soldiers left. I am writing from Germany. Both of my grandfathers have fought in WWII (obviously on the wrong side). In my eyes it is very dangerous to attache emotions like bravery or patriotism to the idea of war. These are just the tools used by the powerful to make the not so powerful go to war for them. It has nothing to to with actual war makeing. BTW I served in the German Military (got drafted :-).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 4:23 pm

I just have a question. If the jury feels that the emotional bond between a mother and a child cannot be rightly valued monetarily why don't they make the whole process illegal. Because the other party (couple) have also invested their money and their hope in having a child just as the mother has gone through pain and built a bond with the child.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 8:21 pm

I think one of the students did say that surrogacy should be allowed, but not forced.
In my opinion, this does make total sense, because there will definitely be some mothers who will go ahead and not change their mind. This would obviously be amazing for the couple looking for a surrogate, it would fulfill their dreams, this is the reason i don't think it should be made illegal.
i would say that part of the consent should be to highlight this issue, the mother-child bond, and the fact that you cannot forcefully take a child off their biological mother.
Yeas all parties are intelligent, and the surrogate obviously thought she could go ahead with the process, and the couple were expecting their child, i just think that with something like human life, and the mother-child bond, there should be no enforcement. These are not things.
Can you put a dollar value to emotions?

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 10:37 pm

Isn't there a claim to child support as a financial coercion by the government. What is the difference between a person having natural sex with a women and getting her pregnant and the process of artificial deposit.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 12:40 am

The objection many have to the Civil War system stems less from a hostility to idea of buying and selling war-time risks and more from a hostility to the notion that the buyers of substitutes are rich and the sellers of substitute services are poor.

I wonder how many who objected to Andrew Carnegie's case would maintain their objection in the face of the following scenario:

Person A and Person B are of on equal economic footing. Person A is conscripted despite being timid and having little desire to go to war. Person B is a lover of adventure and has little problem with the idea of fighting for the Union. Person A offers to pay a reasonable fee to Person B if Person B will fight in his place.

From a utilitarian perspective this transaction looks perfectly moral. Both parties are better off. Person B gets some extra spending cash and gets some adventure. The pleasure person A gets from avoiding the war is greater than the pain he feels from parting with his cash. Moreover, the country gets a more spirited fighter.

This scenario is unobjectionable precisely because the parties are on an equal economic footing. Thus, I submit, Andrew Carnegie's case is objectionable not because his substitute sold his right to be free of a heightened likelihood of death but because people are uncomfortable with the economic system of inequality that prompted his substitute to take the bargain in the first place.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 2:22 am

The Germans lost the war because a lunatic led them into war. Also, "Jackie" thought that a major reason for the "success" of an all volunteer army was the altruistic, patriotic feelings of the volunteers. As a ex-GI (4 years active duty) I can guarantee that the vast majority of enlisted personnel signed up because of economic reasons (including the enticement of a college education). Just another form of coercion of people without the wherewithal. Of course, the officer corps does not come under this rule - most get their heads filled with God and country (patriotism) during their ROTC, West Point, VMI, etc years. So they do carry that baggage as soon as they arrive in soldier world. The fact that they are officers implies the wherewithal. And once in battle, why do soldiers fight? Team loyalty, brotherhood and a desire to save your skin. Patriotism doesn't enter into it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 10, January 2010, 7:27 pm

I just finished watching the episode on surrogacy. What I heard was that bio-mother was artificially inseminated by bio-father. I wonder what would happened if Mrs. Whitehead was inseminated with bio-father sperm
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, January 2010, 11:25 pm

In gulf war 1 there were 1 in 5 soldiers that were mercenaries. In Gulf war 2 there were 5 in 5. One thing must be said. Alot of them were citizens who were serving the company and their country.

However, the outsourcing of the military to non citizens is one of the reasons for the fall of the roman empire. It was not long after they progressed to that system that Rome was repeatedly sacked by the barbarians.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 1:28 pm

I think the key point is that where conscription is necessary due to war, there should not be an ability to buy one out of their responsibility. It is arbitrary. Only those with means have the ability to avoid a life threatening duty. Only those of wealth have the freedom to avoid a hazardous duty.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 1:53 pm

In the case of Baby M, the fact is that the contract should be unenforceable in court, if the biological mother changes her mind with in a reasonable amount of time after the birth of the child. Two reasons. One, it is not informed consent if the biological mother had not served as a surrogate before, she has no way of knowing how she will feel once the child is born. Second, people have a reasonable amount of time to cancel a contract. This time cannot commence until the surrogate has the ability to be informed about her decision ie after the birth of the child.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, April 2010, 12:27 pm

What, if you don't see the baby as a product to be sold, but see the birthing of the child as a service, a service which ends with the biological mother handing over the born child.

Then the mother can not be forced to hand over the child, because this would be forced labour. Of course not finishing a promised work would bear legal consequences, but those would not include giing away the child.

To illustrate the point:
What if the child dies?
If the baby would have been a product promised and payed, then the mother could be punished for not fulfilling her part of the deal, which, at least in my opinion, seems somehow obscure.

If birthing the child was a service, and the child died in the process of the service, the work still would have to be paiid.

Of course it is very cruel to forget about all human/moral arguments, but assumiing that they are not valid this might save the biologicasl mother.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 13, May 2010, 3:14 pm

I wonder if we would feel differently were we to find out that the mother engaged in a call for bids for the baby and that the winner was to become the father. If in otherwords she led the negotiations and was not perceived as a less than capable participant in them.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, October 2010, 8:27 am

I`m a chinese,and i study in beijing university of post and conmunication,and i really like your lessons,so please let me join you.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Comments (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 5:18 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 5:19 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 18, May 2010, 10:33 pm

This is what Andrew Carnegie did during the Civil War....was it worth 0 for a person's life to serve in the war.......was this cost greater than the cost he worked for during the war???

1860–1865: The Civil War
Before the Civil War, Carnegie arranged a merger between Woodruff's company and that of George M Pullman, the inventor of a sleeping car for first-class travel which facilitated business travel at distances over 500 miles (800 km). The investment proved a great success and a source of profit for Woodruff and Carnegie. The young Carnegie continued to work for the Pennsylvania's Tom Scott, and introduced several improvements in the service.

In spring 1861, Carnegie was appointed by Scott, who was now Assistant Secretary of War in charge of military transportation, as Superintendent of the Military Railways and the Union Government's telegraph lines in the East. Carnegie helped open the rail lines into Washington D.C. that the rebels had cut; he rode the locomotive pulling the first brigade of Union troops to reach Washington D.C. Following the defeat of Union forces at Bull Run, he personally supervised the transportation of the defeated forces. Under his organization, the telegraph service rendered efficient service to the Union cause and significantly assisted in the eventual victory. Carnegie later joked that he was "the first casualty of the war" when he gained a scar on his cheek from freeing a trapped telegraph wire.

Defeat of the Confederacy required vast supplies of munitions, as well as railroads (and telegraph lines) to deliver the goods. The war demonstrated how integral the industries were to American success.

In 1864, Carnegie invested ,000 in Story Farm on Oil Creek in Venango County, Pennsylvania. In one year, the farm yielded over ,000,000 in cash dividends, and petroleum from oil wells on the property sold profitably. The demand for iron products, such as armor for gunboats, cannon, and shells, as well as a hundred other industrial products, made Pittsburgh a center of wartime production. Carnegie worked with others in establishing a steel rolling mill and steel production and control of industry became the source of his fortune. Carnegie had some investments in the iron industry before the war.

After the war, Carnegie left the railroads to devote all his energies to the ironworks trade. Carnegie worked to develop several iron works, eventually forming The Keystone Bridge Works and the Union Ironworks, in Pittsburgh. Although he had left the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, he remained closely connected to its management, namely Thomas A. Scott and J. Edgar Thomson. He used his connection to the two men to acquire contracts for his Keystone Bridge Company and the rails produced by his ironworks. He also gave stock to Scott and Thomson in his businesses, and the Pennsylvania was his best customer. When he built his first steel plant, he made a point of naming it after Thomson. As well as having good business sense, Carnegie possessed charm and literary knowledge. He was invited to many important social functions—functions that Carnegie exploited to his own advantage.[10]

Carnegie, circa 1878Carnegie believed in using his fortune for others and doing more than making money. He wrote:

I propose to take an income no greater than ,000 per annum! Beyond this I need ever earn, make no effort to increase my fortune, but spend the surplus each year for benevolent purposes! Let us cast aside business forever, except for others. Let us settle in Oxford and I shall get a thorough education, making the acquaintance of literary men. I figure that this will take three years active work. I shall pay especial attention to speaking in public. We can settle in London and I can purchase a controlling interest in some newspaper or live review and give the general management of it attention, taking part in public matters, especially those connected with education and improvement of the poorer classes. Man must have an idol and the amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry! No idol is more debasing than the worship of money! Whatever I engage in I must push inordinately; therefore should I be careful to choose that life which will be the most elevating in its character. To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery. I will resign business at thirty-five, but during these ensuing two years I wish to spend the afternoons in receiving instruction and in reading systematically!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, August 2010, 4:20 pm

Concerning a lack of information regarding the Baby M contract, I think that in every transaction there is a case of lack of information or case of misinformation on at least one side of both agreeing parties. This point is very well made in the book Freakonomics, but it's a common economic principle. Market transactions occur and people profit from these transactions because one party knows more than the other. Think about lawyers, real estate agents etc, they actually sell knowledge.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 4:57 pm

People who enter the army force mainly do it for the money. Patriotism is the answer the person will say when asked why he entered the military, but we all know he's lying.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Canadian pharmacy viagra
cialis online

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides

Up Next