Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Eight

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. To what extent is the distinction between “moral desert” and “entitlements to legitimate expectations” at stake in the affirmative action debate?
2. According to philosopher John Rawls, it’s not fair if the children of poor parents have much lower prospects in life than the children of rich parents merely because of the family they were born into; therefore, steep inheritance taxes are justified. Do you agree?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (80)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 2:11 pm

Riveting--Provides the formal moral basis for the my instincts of justice based on a liberal political philosophy and a bulwark against the constant attacks of a hateful and rapacious far right political and economic class.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 8:44 pm

Since when does the moral fabric of society rely on "liberal political philosophy". Quite the contrary is true because people are rewarded according to their effort and ability regardless of political thought. This idea from the far left I actually find amusing because in fact I believe that hate speak usually comes from the left.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, November 2009, 1:16 am

to the other reply: Most 'hate speak' would be from the far right...

Nazis: ultimate right-wingers
Republicans: beside the fact that many Republicans have Nazi ties (like G W Bush's grandfather Prescott), when the US decided to start anti-USSR propaganda, they used the Nazi playbook to demonize communism and socialism, even though the USSR was never 'socialist' since it was a dictatorship, and democracy is a form of socialism (Communist/Socialist ideals were very visible throughout US history). The 'Right' in the US has often resorted to Demagogy (McCarthyism)... to use selfish personal ideals to gain support against some 'undeserving group' of people either in another country or in our own.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 16, December 2009, 2:02 am

I find two issues with your post:
1. Forgetting the societal/structural factors that have resulted in certain minorities/lower-income students not achieving the test-scores to get into Harvard. Those are themselves unjust circumstances. Two respondents have made good points here. One suggested that remedial programs at high school be done to help the disadvantaged get better scores; the other asked whether you believe minorities get lower test scores because of structural factors or innate cognitive abilities. Nisbett's "Intelligence and How to Get it" shows clear evidence of the cultural and societal bias in standardized testing that furthers disadvantages.

2. The second problem is one that no one has tackled. I believe that if you do admit minorities with lower test scores into Harvard, you need to make a few adjustments to Harvard. One is to have some programs to help those minorities assimilate better into Harvard culture (same could apply for foreign students who need help with not just language but getting used to the pedagogy of liberal arts, etc.); the second is related to questioning the way things are done at Harvard - if they are pluralistic enough, or if there is a way to make them pluralistic without losing rigor.

So my response is that inequalities of access to Harvard, as well as inequalities of success at Harvard, do not all rest upon the individual who is not succeeding, but also on the society that is not supporting that individual to reach their potential. Because any such support, without affirmative action (the next lecture, which I know is also controversial) won't the poor just keep getting poorer???

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 18, December 2009, 10:51 pm

Yes, however it seems most of the far right choose to ignore reason and right. Often it appears that they are not capable of understanding logic, whether due to lack of formal education or due to genetic factors. So, they play the idiot's part and use unconscionable obstructive tactics against civil debate as they did in the public forums for health care reform. My question is how do we address this problem?

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 25, December 2009, 12:00 am

Perhaps this is a liberatING political philosophy, but you couldn't be further off base by making it sound as though any of this takes the side of the Democratic Party. The foundation for some of this stuff simply echoes Republican political ideals: the naturally gifted only being able to benefit if their gain benefits the whole. That's a radical philosophy that is opposed to what Democrats propose! Where do you go to avoid glimpsing the fact that Republicans and Democrats act the same when not holding a majority power in the government?

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 7:35 pm

I think the person who claims that most "hate speak" comes from the far left is radically misunderstanding the difference between hate speak and criticism!

(highraja) said:

Saturday 16, January 2010, 6:03 pm

Why should people be worse off merely because of the way they were born?

No absolutely not because its not the choice of the person who was born in those circumstances. But to become President of United States you have to be born in united states. Is it in control of anybody to be born in a country of his own choice? The answer is very apparent so why is this part of the constitution?

I use to think that inheritance taxes are not just. But after thinking about them differently now I have come to the conclusion that its right to tax the inheritance. There should be a threshold to save the poor but they are a good means of decreasing inequality.

I am from Pakistan and here for every place at universities there are quotas for every province. I am from Azad Kashmir and the seats we have are few and Baluchistan which is the biggest province by area often has the least number of seats and thus people are impoverished in that province. Punjab province gets the majority in everything and thus creates hatred in other provinces for Punjab.

In this quota case both the Rawls principles were not kept in mind. Veil of ignorance is obviously ignored in giving premium rights to Punjab and second principle is ignored because Baluchistan is the least well off province and least amount of resources are employed there. Any thoughts on this?

(TylerKubik) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 2:28 pm

1. In areas like education, I do not think it is just to accept minorities that have lower test scores than the university usually requires. This is not because there is someone out there, like a white person or whatever, that deserves it more since they had a higher test score, although, naturally, there is obviously some type of issue with that. The main reason is because accepting students with lower test scores to demanding academic programs sets students up for failure. Sure, not every student accepted with lower test scores will fail, and obviously those who don't fail will gain the benefit of a high quality education. But, these students do in fact disproportionately fail, or do not succeed, compared with those students accepted on merit alone. For example, accepting minorities at universities or post-grad programs with lower scores than the average student they accept leads to them not being ready and incapable of satisfying the demanding requirements of the program. While things like like these satisfy a Kantian idea of moral justification, since there is obviously a justification in helping minorities get a better education and succeed, it does not serve in a minorities best interest, and while Kant would say the results don't matter, they really do matter. If you are a minority, and say you get accepted to Harvard University, and you are not prepared for the rigors of the program, and therefore drop out, whereas if you would've been denied Harvard acceptance, and went to a less prestigious university, where you succeed and graduate because the program was less rigorous, which one would be the better outcome for you? Obviously the answer is the second choice. There is no justification in setting up students to fail when they are not ready for a higher caliber university program, which is represented in their test scores.
reply

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 2:44 pm

Accepting students with lower test scores will not improve their lot. Providing cheap or free remedial education, and subsequent retesting, would be the way to go.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 1:55 pm

There's an assumption here not immediately addressed: that the end of an educational institution is issuing acceptances to candidates with high test scores. As an indicator of potential success, test scores are but one metric in a panoply open to an admissions committee decision-making procedure. The flaw in this argument rests on the assumption that an accepted minority candidate with lower test scores somehow concomitantly failed to meet the other metrics used to gauge a candidate for acceptance. If that were true, and a candidate were accepted to an educational institution solely on the basis of her being a minority, the question of fairness, or whether an admission decision is just, arises.

Then again, they way this post is worded can illicit some disturbing assumptions about its author. Are minorities more apt to perform more poorly on standardized tests because of innate cognitive inabilities, or are they an outcome of poor educational institutions at the secondary level? If the former, your argument is clearly objectionable, as it assumes minorities lack key cognitive abilities. If the latter, the real question of fairness, or justice, arises in the context of how future success may hinge on the uncontrollable circumstances of heritage and prevailing economic conditions. And in that capacity, cognitive abilities may be illuminated through other metrics, ones the admissions committee may hopefully use in the process of determining who is granted access to these so-called rigorous programs.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 16, December 2009, 2:02 am

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 4, November 2010, 1:10 am

Yes, you have a good point. But consider this:
1)If you are a minority, people usually grade you lower because of ethnic/racial bias.
2)If you are a minority, you are under the assumption that you don't belong in a higher education institution so you perform poorer.
3)If you are a minority, you usually have to work and go to school. You don't have parents that can support you financially or give you academic advice on how the higher education system works.

Therefore, to be a minority and actually make it to the front doorsteps of a higher education institution takes more will power than a majority who has this process streamlined via parental support, parental influence, societal acceptance.

Yes, once a minority gets there he should be held to the same academic principles and values as anyone else. But keep in mind the lack of support that one must endure once they make it there.

(DanielAyer) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 2:59 pm

There is a simple issue which is addressed at the end of the second lecture, but is at the heart of this discussion. No one is an island. We are all fortunate enough to have people helping us to succeed even if we do not choose to recognize this fact. Those who succeed like to think they did so on their own merit often to garner more of the gains from their effort.
However, I think the more important questions isn't who finishes the race first, but who is running the race at all. By having underfunded and underperforming schools we lose out on the potential gains made by those students who are left behind. It is unjust to both the citizen denied the opportunity and to the society in which they live to deny individuals access to the tools required to contribute.
Affirmative action was and is a misnomer. You cannot wave a magic wand and transplant those from bad schools into top universities and expect them to keep pace with those who came from better schools. What needs to happen is a broad base improvement in the conditions and abilities of underperforming schools to deliver a quality education. We can muster billions of dollars to engage in warfare, but we cannot improve the poorest schools in our country for a fraction of that cost, even in a time of peace.
President Eisenhower described military spending in terms of top schools and top hospitals. He warned us that the true cost of warfare would be felt in the lack of services resultant from the diversion of funds.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 5:35 pm

"No one is an island" is a very appropriate metaphor! Islands are surrounded by water - as we are legally presumed to be. "We are all in the same boat" - under Maritime/Admiralty Law. Unfortunately, the fictional boat is at risk of sinking - and those in charge seem to think "depopulating" those on board is the solution (not unlike the life boat crew in the first lecture deciding to kill and eat the perceived weakest among them). Educating those who need it most is not as profitable as locking them up or killing them outright. The economic/educational "race" is "run" by those who do not want many things to be known - especially by the "masses". "Ethics", "morality", and "justice" cannot compete with the desire for money, control, and power (over others).

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 9:52 pm

I wonder if we should assent so quickly to the assumption Rawl's appears to be making--that natural talent and conscientious effort are, in themselves morally neutral categories. I think, intuitively most of us tend to admire those who work hard for their goals even if we don't always agree with those ends--there is something about sincere effort that we identify as virtuous (with the natural caveat that the end the striver has in mind isn't morally objectionable on other grounds--we wouldn't, for example, be incline to admire an especially industrious murderer). Yet I do think we have a sense that there is something intrinsically noble about someone who strives hard to achieve even a morally-neutral end or, in a democratic society, pursues a set of policies with which we disagree but do not believe to be immoral.

Also, don't we intuitively associate some moral value with excellence, whether this be expressed as artistic talent, physical prowess, or mental acuity? This intuition was shared by the Greeks, who included as a dimension of their moral thinking the concept of arete, or excellence (I wonder if we should assent so quickly to the assumption Rawl's appears to be making--that natural talent and conscientious effort are, in themselves morally neutral categories. I think, intuitively most of us tend to admire those who work hard for their goals even if we don't always agree with those ends--there is something about sincere effort that we identify as virtuous (with the natural caveat that the end the striver has in mind isn't morally objectionable on other grounds--we wouldn't, for example, be incline to admire an especially industrious murderer). Yet I do think we have a sense that there is something intrinsically noble about someone who strives hard to achieve even a morally-neutral end or, in a democratic society, pursues a set of policies with which we disagree but do not believe to be immoral.

Also, don't we intuitively associate some moral value with excellence, whether this be expressed as artistic talent, physical prowess, or mental acuity? This intuition was shared by the Greeks, who included as a dimension of their moral thinking the concept of arete, or excellence (I wonder if we should assent so quickly to the assumption Rawl's appears to be making--that natural talent and conscientious effort are, in themselves morally neutral categories. I think, intuitively most of us tend to admire those who work hard for their goals even if we don't always agree with those ends--there is something about sincere effort that we identify as virtuous (with the natural caveat that the end the striver has in mind isn't morally objectionable on other grounds--we wouldn't, for example, be incline to admire an especially industrious murderer). Yet I do think we have a sense that there is something intrinsically noble about someone who strives hard to achieve even a morally-neutral end or, in a democratic society, pursues a set of policies with which we disagree but do not believe to be immoral.

Also, don't we intuitively associate some moral value with excellence, whether this be expressed as artistic talent, physical prowess, or mental acuity? This intuition was shared by the Greeks, who included as a dimension of their moral thinking the concept of arete, or excellence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/).

I'm excited by the egalitarian implications of Rawl's arguments, but just concerned about the articulation of moral value being deployed here if it fails to include, or at least to address, the intuition which I suspect is shared by many that "merit" and "effort" are not necessarily morally irrelevant.

Am I, perhaps, making some kind of category error or missing an important point that's led me down a false path here? If so, I'd be happy to be corrected so I could embrace Rawl's approach with fewer reservations.

==Tom Dodson
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 9:55 pm

My last post seemed to have glitched out and repeated itself. This is one should be coherent:

I wonder if we should assent so quickly to the assumption Rawl's appears to be making--that natural talent and conscientious effort are, in themselves morally neutral categories. I think, intuitively most of us tend to admire those who work hard for their goals even if we don't always agree with those ends--there is something about sincere effort that we identify as virtuous (with the natural caveat that the end the striver has in mind isn't morally objectionable on other grounds--we wouldn't, for example, be incline to admire an especially industrious murderer). Yet I do think we have a sense that there is something intrinsically noble about someone who strives hard to achieve even a morally-neutral end or, in a democratic society, pursues a set of policies with which we disagree but do not believe to be immoral.

Also, don't we intuitively associate some moral value with excellence, whether this be expressed as artistic talent, physical prowess, or mental acuity? This intuition was shared by the Greeks, who included as a dimension of their moral thinking the concept of arete, or excellence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/).

I'm excited by the egalitarian implications of Rawl's arguments, but just concerned about the articulation of moral value being deployed here if it fails to include, or at least to address, the intuition which I suspect is shared by many that "merit" and "effort" are not necessarily morally irrelevant.

Am I, perhaps, making some kind of category error or missing an important point that's led me down a false path here? If so, I'd be happy to be corrected so I could embrace Rawl's approach with fewer reservations.

==Tom Dodson
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 3:12 pm

I'll take a quick shot at this question.

Much of this is directly from Chapter 4 of Dr. Sandel's "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice", enitled "Justice and the Good" (Cambridge University Press, 1982). I put page numbers in case you would like to peruse it yourself (highly recommended).
Rawls' claim for the moral arbitrariness of natural talent and situation stands in contrast to the familiar (if often unstated) idea that individuals possess their attributes in some unproblematic sense and therefore deserve the benefits that flow from them. Therefore, for a system of distribution to be just, it should reward those who are "worthy" (deserving due simply to the pre-institutional moral status of their advantages). That is, they are worthy of a particular distribution prior to the establishment of any particular distributive scheme. This could be considered a fairly standard application of the meritocratic argument (pg. 139).

The claim that the advantages of the fortunate (whether that be in the possession of natural talents or advantageous situation) are morally arbitrary derives from the competing notion that the concept of moral worth has no pre-institutional moral status (137). No person has an intrinsic worth that is independent of what just institutions may attribute to them. (138-139) It is no contradiction to say that we make value judgments (or moral judgments) of fortunate person's within the framework of our own established set of institutions. However, this does not make any person more morally worthy prior to the establishment of institutions; the eventual distribution of good fortune should have no bearing on the establishment of a conception of justice in Rawls' hypothetical original position. By removing from the participants in the hypothetical original position all knowledge of their own particular attributes, the hope is to ensure the development of a conception of justice (in this case distributive justice) that truly treats all individuals as equal.

This last bit is based on my recollections of reading Rawls' "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement", I believe it is accurate.
To wrap up, by claiming the moral neutrality of fortunate attributes, Rawls does not mean that we do not, in fact, associate "excellence" (as you put it) with some moral worth. We are entirely welcome to do so. However, as there is no moral worth prior to actual institutions, we judge moral worth as individuals with different conceptions of morality and our own institutions. This is essentially what the theory of justice as fairness is attempting to overcome; how to reconcile multiple, competing (but still reasonable) comprehensive moral views, into one system of justice that does not favor one comprehensive view over any other.

Hopefully this was all coherent enough, not sure if I left out anything terribly important.

-MD

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 5, November 2009, 10:24 pm

Okay, something else that concerns me. Isn't there an implicit idea (perhaps explicit, but I haven't engaged with this text) in Rawl's theory about what a human being is? According to the account provided in the lecture a human being seems to be something like the Foucauldian or post-structuralist subject, more or less entirely determined by social, cultural, and psychic/psychological factors.

Doesn't this amount to the same thing that Kant's concept of autonomy tries to correct--the notion that as moral agents we are something other than strictly empirical beings?

I guess my thinking about effort gets tangled up in my thinking about moral desserts here. Am I entitled to regard my effort to strive to live an ethically disciplined life as something that transcends my status as an empirical being (as Kant suggests) or must I regard it as simply another phenomenon arising from a combination of conditions (birth order, interpellation into particular culture, etc.) completely out of my control (equivalent to being born into an affluent family or with exceptional skill at basketball)?

Is this what Rawls is saying? If so, doesn't that reduce me again to an empirical being--making my autonomy contingent, and therefore essentially illusory? Would taking this point of view also allow me to excuse a lack of effort to strive to live ethically by referring to these conditions that supposedly determine my inclination to try to be virtuous?

I guess I'm wondering here whether the weight accorded by Rawls to forces of determination (natural and structural) reaches the point where it requires us to accept a fairly radical rejection of autonomy and individuality--that it blocks our attempts to take credit for anything whatsoever about the consciousness/subjectivity that directs our actions.

If so, we end up with the post-structuralist dilemma--if there is no autonomous subject, what kind of subject is there. There are a variety of answers to this question, but I don't think many of them are very satisfying (e.g., the Lacanian psychoanalytic answer--the true self is not the ego, but rather the content repressed in the unconscious that expresses itself in symptoms). But I'm drifting away from the point . . .

==Tom Dodson
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 10:55 am

@Tom - You raise an interesting question: “Does my effort to live an ethically disciplined life transcends my status as an empirical being or must I regard this effort as simply another phenomenon arising from a combination of conditions?” If you force me to choose, I go for the first option. But I am not sure that Rawls would like this kind of forced choices or dualisms (freedom versus determinalism).

Of course we are “empirical beings”, the result of evolution and environment. But on the other hand: we are also the only species that is able to escape (to a certain extent) from its evolution and environment. Our autonomy is far greater than that of any other organism (e.g. we can fly without having developed wings, and stay under water for months without having developed gills).

An “effort to live an ethically disciplined life” is a phrase associated with humans. I believe that it is in justice that we transcend our animal status.

(Xerex) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 4:29 am

Have a look at this Ted talk. It uncovers one of the most important flaws in our current monetary reward system.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

AC
reply

(DanielAyer) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 8:39 am

This is an old argument. However, this gentleman is discussing an issue of innovation, not merely production. The unfortunate truth is that true innovation is usually done by a very small minority of the population. This technique was tried to disaster with the Vietnam War, and several business disasters in the U.S. and Britain.

In these cases managers were allowed to achieve set goals by any means they saw fit. Simply outline the goals or "quotas" and allow ingenuity to run free. There is an excellent documentary called "The Trap" which examines the failures of this method. In Vietnam it resulted in massive civilian casualties. In the U.S. it resulted in massive frauds perpetrated by companies such as Enron trying to make it appear as though they had achieved when in fact they had not.

If this model truly worked Universities would be unnecessary. Most of the information we learn in higher education is available for a small fraction of the cost of tuition, let alone books, room and board. However, most of us seem to require the classical carrot and stick incentives provided by universities to encourage us to actually study.

(Xerex) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 4:56 pm

DanielAyer,

May it be an old argument, it still goes.
I don't think this "technique" has anything to do with what happened in the Vietnam war, nor with criminal or borderline legal activities of companies like Enron. Other things played more important roles in those events.

The guy is saying that we are still trapped in in a system which is based on extrensic (monetary) incentives, for which he presents the arguments. Intrinsic incentives, like we all have, are being made inferior to this, with very negative results.

Be warned that the maker of "the trap" was suffering from a serious psychiatric dissorder at the time.

Being a teacher in the medical field at two major universities in my country I also work with the carrot and stick method. Every teacher has to, but also must be aware of the shortcomings of this method, especially in higher education.
Sorry to say that it is a classical mistake to say that information is available for a fraction of the cost. Helas a lot of recent E-learning project suffered from this way of thinking. Even succesfull E-learning teaching methods are no substitute for a motivating and guiding teacher like for instance mr. Sandel.

AC

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 3:19 pm

Dr. Sandel, quite a challenging subject, and one that the continuance of our Republic may very well depend. May good success attend your lectures!

The quality of a country is directly related to the quality of the individuals that comprise it, in particular the rich and powerful, who by their positions can severely oppress the lower classes. Or, in a spirit of genuine benevolence, if they use their wealth and talents in creating enterprises, they provide meaningful work that mutually benefit both parties, and secures the well-being of the nation.

Harvard, long, long ago as a matter of practice in shaping the thoughts of future leaders led in teaching these concepts...

Needless to say, the character of government policy goes far in this regard, in particular since the enormous salaries noted in your lecture may be open to "redistibution" as indicated in current political discourse.

But, in this crucial matter, the question is: What is just, and what is government's legitimate role?

Below are some relevant quotes by a Harvard President of that long ago era, perhaps some of his thoughts may prove valuable in this discussion...

"A Discourse Pronounced Before His Excellency Caleb Strong, Esq. Governor, Two Houses Composing The Legislature Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts" May 29, 1816.

John Thornton Kirkland, D.D. President Of Harvard University.

Government Protection For the Citizen…
"Whilst the lover of his country and his race covets their rights for his fellow men and fellow countrymen, he intends real not spurious freedom, the substance, and not merely the form. He wishes that civil liberty may be understood; that it may be known to consist not so much in the power as in the security of every citizen; and in his power so far only as requisite or useful for his security. He prays that it may be esteemed the fruit of civil establishments and laws, and the cause, not of the poor against the rich, and of the humble against the eminent, but the protection of the weak against the strong, of the simple against the cunning, and the innocent against the guilty."
—"It is "equal rights, but not to equal things." It secures to everyone his honestly acquired condition, however peculiar and distinguished, and is the guardian alike of the riches of the opulent, and the pittance of the necessitous." p. 10

Societal Qualities…
"The happiness of a people is connected with their character, intellectual and social, their manners, improvements, and accommodations, the quality and direction of their tastes and desires." p.15

Kirkland on Morals…
"The Morals and Religion of a people are primary objects of solicitude to a lover of his country, and of mankind:
The other interests of individuals, or of the public, which I have considered, are subservient to these; and of little or no value without them. Every plan of escaping evil, or obtaining good, that depends on external things, is either impractical in its nature, or of temporary duration. We rely in vain on peace and freedom, riches and territory, letters and arts, without virtuous principles and habits to direct their use and secure their continuance. Could a corrupt nation be prosperous they would not be happy. Happiness is suspended on disposition and character; and refuses to dwell in disordered hearts, or to be the portion of those who are slaves to their evil passions. Virtue is more than well conducted selfishness, more than prudence; it is a principle, sentiment, affection, operating in actions; it is the love and practice of what is right"… pp. 18-19

Kirkland's Charge to His Legislative Audience…
"The study of the public happiness is your peculiar care— “THE GREATEST GOOD OF THE GREATEST NUMBER" p. 25

Any thoughts?

-Nassovian
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 6:22 pm

I have a couple of observations/questions regarding Rawls and "effort" as presented.
. I do not agree with the characterization of effort as totally contribution. I beleive it is a combination of the two.
. Talents are not just a given. People often work to develop them and they develop the ones that the society favors.
. How would Rawls address someone who makes no effort at all in any way? What is the moral desert? To what is he entitled?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 4:19 am

I would rather have a poor paying job which I love and have a passion for, than have a good paying job which I hate and am miserable doing. Plenty of people waste their lives trying/hoping/working/striving/ for "rewards" which never make them happy. It's all a smoke and mirrors game, a fairytale! The real test is for people to find out what their REAL reward is, as everyone's is different. One size doesn not fit all!

(Firetaker) said:

Sunday 8, November 2009, 11:35 am

When I read the second question concerning Rawls there was another questions that came up in my mind. I have got to admit that I did not put very much thought in it but it seems rather interesting in the context.

My problem is that I can understand the reasoning in saying, that it is not fair if the family you are born in determins you future but on the other hand I was wondering how this fact allows one to take away from someones lifetime achievements. Factually you are punishing someone for his succes and I am wondering how this fact can be fair?

So what I am suggesting is that in the given scenario you are trying to fix a "unfair" situation by creating another "unfair" situation. The "unfair" situation you created might seem to be the better one however since the bad end of the situation is on the wealthier side of society. As we all now it seems worse to take from the poor instead of the rich.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Sunday 8, November 2009, 6:21 pm

Rawls conception of justice requiring those, blessed with certain gifts or advantages due to accident of birth or social standing, to give back enough of the economic advantages arbitrarily provided to offset the disadvantages of those not so gifted - while intellectually compelling - has many difficulties when examined further.

The most obvious, from an implementation standpoint is how much wealth can those with arbitrary genetic or social advantages (which would be selected for in the animal kingdom) be asked to give up without drastically reducing incentive. The truth is, we don't know the tipping point.

And, should we only be concerned with tangible wealth? In a democracy, those who are intellectually disadvantaged may make the wrong choices for their representatives thus creating a social order with objectives that undermine the very justice Rawls seeks. Can we adequately make up for these disadvantages even if wealth and effort or directed towards special needs education, cultural enhancement and family counseling? If not, is it more just to have an aristocracy where government represents only those who, after educational boosts, can show adequate knowledge and insight into issues of the day?

On the flip side, what about crime? The implicit underpinning of Rawls argument is that almost all outcomes are predetermined. Even though, from a scientific point of view, I have no problem with a deterministic view of the universe, it does not serve justice if we hold no one responsible. If crime does not result in punishment but, say, merely isolation to avoid recidivism we are creating a new Australia: exporting our criminal element. Moreover, we have little disincentive for immoral behavior.

So, in some sense, even if we acknowledge the many aspects that create arbitrary inequality it is necessary to reward socially beneficial behavior and punish socially detrimental behavior. And, though there may seem to be some hypocrisy in this, eespcially when we acknowledge many outcomes are arbitrary (predetermined by causes over which the individual has no control) we must in our incentives and disincentives act as though some control existed. For, without so doing, we create social chaos.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 8, November 2009, 7:19 pm

I read A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, 30 years ago in college. I want to thank Professor Sandel and Harvard for the televised discussion. This revisiting of A Theory of Justice gave me a new and greater appreciation for Rawls's ideas of distributive justice. Well done!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, November 2009, 1:30 am

I could make an argument against Rawls...
Rawls disrupts the idea of libertarian 'self-ownership' very well, and I do agree. But along his path of thinking, perhaps we dont even own our own actions/choices either... perhaps we are not so much 'free will' as much as 'pre-programmed' by our own genetic code then, since we are not responsible for picking our own genetics after all.

Well, then who would 'own' our actions based on genetics and things determined at birth? Society? Not really. Society doesnt have access to my family's genetics. So maybe we need to think of ourselves not as entities unto ourselves, or as individuals, but rather as representatives or agents of our families, and as 'custodians' of our genetics and the advantages that come with being born into that family. In many people's lives, the family owns the individual in so many ways after all. Your parents may not pick your exact genetics (yet), but they are taking a reasonable bet. So if you look at Rawl's arguments not in terms of the individual, but in terms of families, then the ideas of a meritocracy and egalitarianism start to fall apart. You as an individual may not claim responsibility for the advantages you have, but you do claim responsibility for your family's advantages, and your family claim's responsibility for your advantages. So then 'justice' changes, and libertarian arguments actually win out based on what is just to pass on to your offspring. Isnt family a fair and just argument for birth advantages?

Of course, this argument pretty much justifies 'royal ruling families' and monarchies...lol. But still... in this class, 'justice' would seem to undermine the right of a family to provide (advantages) to the individual, as well as the ability for the family to take ownership for your advantages.
reply

(Xerex) said:

Monday 9, November 2009, 3:41 am

Nice, and we are all one big family.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, November 2009, 10:33 am

This whole lecture on and discussion of distributive justice misses the point.

Yes, there are multiple agendas in any developed society. People argue endlessly about what is right, moral, just. They argue endlessly about the distribution of assets. Who is taxed? How much? How is it redistributed? To whom? How long will Timothy Geithner be allowed to bail out his cronies?

None of this is other than surface churning.

So, why do we (and every other developed society of which we have record) distribute resources to the "disadvantaged"?

Bribery. The underclasses must be maintained comfortably enough that they do not cause social unrest to the point of destroying the whole structure of society.

It's that simple. Every society strikes its own balance point. Histories are different, perceptions are different. Therefore, the manifestations of distributive justice are different. But the basic process is the same.

Some societies are very successful at striking and maintaining a balance. Some upper classes are insensitive to the need to bribe that is, "help", others and the entire society is torn apart as a result. This may very well prove detrimental to all concerned, not just one class or the other.

We should note that this analysis also applies internationally, not just to the society within a nation but to the larger group of all societies or nations. Whole nations and groups can go through periods of disadvantage. Help them. It's the cost of self-preservation.

Now you know how the game actually works. Play it or die.

Victor Lacy
reply

(Captain_DJ) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 7:30 pm

I have to agree with Mr. Lacy

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 10, November 2009, 3:23 pm

"it’s not fair if the children of poor parents have much lower prospects in life than the children of rich parents"

likewise, it is not fair that many children of rich and career oriented parents have cold atmosphere at home, live under pressure by their parents to be as accomplished, whether they understand or not at such a young age why it is good (or not) to place so much effort on being accomplished... in economy... or is it engineering.... hmmm, developing cell phones.

what an accomplishment. spending your mind 8-10 hours a day on developing some cell phones... when you could be a doorman siting 8-10 hours a day and thinking about whatever life wonders you want to think about... and reading whatever book you want to read ...

hmmm.

accomplishments.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 12, November 2009, 10:41 am

Does the world need doormen, and other more unarguably necessary occupations that do not require a much intellectual thought? Obviously... then why should the people who work hard to do these jobs be looked down upon? Or compensated with below-poverty wages, in some cases?

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 10, November 2009, 9:45 pm

Rawls speaks in terms of and otherwise to a set of lifeless and otherwise bloodless abstractions that are (and cannot be) grounded in embodied, earthly, historically-situated human experience. Paraphrasing Allan Bloom's apt critique of Rawls' "A Theory Justice" in the Political Science Review way back when, his (meaning Rawls) is a "first philosophy for the Last Man" — nod to Nietzsche's Zarathustra (who prophesized — rightly — just the sort of moral myopia and plebeianism that Rawls advocates). Thus, paraphrasing Nz's Zarathustra now (on the question of just desert): "All things rare for the rare." And so it goes (Vonnegut).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 12, November 2009, 10:34 am

Not quite sure what you are talking about, but it seems you don't agree with Rawls' ideas. Do you prefer bloody abstractions to "bloodless" ones? Why must his ideas be grounded in human experience? He is attempting to create a new "human experience" (although some of his ideas may currently be realized in some European countries), as an improvement on past human experience.

(ConradB) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 8:07 pm

Somewhere in your post lies a good point, albeit obscured behind thick evidence of a well-read individual. Would you mind elaborating without the name-dropping and extraneous references? Thanks.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 10, November 2009, 10:01 pm

Pull back all veils — especially "veils of ignorance," boys
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 12, November 2009, 2:44 pm

Even if a child cant claim credit for the family and cultural environment he grew up in, why dont the parents deserve to be rewarded for their efforts to provide for their children emotionally, financially, educationally, etc and for raising them well with proper values so that they can be good successful contributing members of society. Many parent, esp. immigrants, sacrifice greatly just so that their children can be fortunate to have a better life. Should we then take away whatever advantages they have provided for their children just because the children themselves cant take direct credit?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 15, November 2009, 12:32 pm

We should only compete against our own previous abilities and not compare ourselves to each other. I may have gifts or not, but as long as I'm doing better than I did yesterday, I'm a happy camper. But, if we constantly compare ourselves to others whom may be gifted or not, we will never measure our abilities on a equal basis and we will always be unhappy and unrealized.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 12:54 pm

In view of this lecture, it would be interesting to see your comments not on income but on the issue of punishement in the form of fines. See the speeding ticket incident in Sweden below:

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) -- Looking at Anssi Vanjoki's speeding ticket, many Finns are wondering whether their egalitarian spirit has taken them over the edge.

True, Vanjoki was doing 46.5 mph in a 30-mph zone. But 3,000?

The reason the penalty was so harsh is that traffic fines in Finland are based not just on the severity of the offense, but on the offender's income. Vanjoki is a senior executive of Nokia, the world's largest cell phone maker, and his fine was assessed on a 1999 income of .2 million.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 23, November 2009, 1:55 am

I think following the egalitarian principle so far is a dangerous way. Why, for example, should we stop on the innate inequality between people. Why don't go farther and remember about unequality between species of homo sapiens and, let's say, neanderthal mans. Or, further, between homo and apes.

It is homo sapiens, not human, who have to be considered as having unjust privilegies. Because with some point of view we could expand the term human to those who have abilities for social life. Apes are undoubtly between those.

Another problem I see with any egalitarism is it based on presupposition we can esteem the level of unjustiness. But we are too different. What seems to be great effort for one man is a light stroll for another. Who can bet that for those who became rich the life isn't hard as the type of hell? How could you measure those differencies to make a practical decision who have to pay and to whom such (social, symbolic, etc.) payments should be done?

I thought the system when redistribution of wealth in society provides by private arrangements, not by presupposed obligation, seems to be more just at the end.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 26, November 2009, 3:44 pm

Please! Give me a break with the 1st born nonsense

Wikipedia:
Claims about birth order effects on personality have received only mixed support in scientific research.

Rational Wiki:
popular claims about birth order and personality often devolve into pseudoscience
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 30, November 2009, 10:50 pm

But does redistribution of income to the lowest in society make them better off? I suspect Thomas Malthus would think it doesn't.
reply

(msgnet) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 12:37 pm

Neither would Milton Friedman. I think one of the most powerful arguments of Friedman is that redistribution of income in the form of government entitlement programs, has an adverse effect on the poor - precisely those who the redistribution is attempting to help.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 12:25 pm

Those at highest levels of society/wealth/power OFTEN use this argument as a reason to not share the wealth, per se. Greed can use any excuse to deny fairness/justice to those less fortunate or with differences in other areas, for example: race, class, etc. I am not saying that being rich means that one is automatically greedy or non-altruistic; just that corruption, greed, snobbery and such will use excuses to survive, and will bend truth/reason to its will.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 4:20 am

I'm going to answer the question again from yet another point of view. The question is "Don't school teachers work just as hard as David Letterman?" That answer is apparent "Yes" they do work harder.

The next question is, "Why should Letterman earn so much more?" That answer is also apparent. It's not his talent because that's a matter of opinion. The answer is simply "EXPOSURE" by mass media. If he entertained 30 people at a time like the teacher, he would be worth less than the teacher. If the teacher could learn to teach millions at a time like Letterman, then he may be as valuable as Letterman.

There is no reason that a teacher cannot produce an award winning documentary on science or mathematics of history or any other subject. The reason they don't is because they are blind to the possibilities. Why should Letterman sacrifice his money because the teacher is not as smart as Letterman?

The teacher essentially reinvents the wheel every class room hour. HE repeats himself over and over and eventually wears himself out. Why? He has all sorts of
clues and hints in front of him. He doesn't hesitate to by a copy of a song by his favorite singer. A copy that is sung once or twice until it is practiced and perfected and then it is copied a zillion times and mass marketed for years and years to zillions of people who want to hear it. The singer or entertainer then makes zillions of dollars compared to the singer who sings to 30 people at a time.

So does the subject of math change so much that it will be out of date in a day or a week or a year? Suppose you had a video library of all of your classes when you went through school from K to 12. Would they have changed that much today? Would they be out of date today? Sure History and Government and Science needs updating from year to year or sooner in some cases but the older lessons still apply. Suppose these classes were taught by the most innovative and interesting teachers like Michael Sandel. Wouldn't we get just as much out of it or more if it were presented electronically by mass marketing? So why do our schools still live in the past and hand build each lesson as if they are totally ignorant of the electronic and computer age? The real question is, if David Letterman, a not very smart person, can get it, what does that say for our educational system?

Now consider this other example. I think everyone knows that the reason professional football players earn so much money is because there are very few positions that require the best players. The reason is that they game must attract many people who the advertiser want assembled all at one gathering to display their products to.

Consider the alternative: There are many games going on with many players at many locations. The advertisers then must divide their advertising fees to cover all the different locations. As a result, the players are not all as good as the previous example. The advertisers then have to divide their advertising money between all the mediocre and poor players so the talent is now diluted just as the school teacher model is.

Maybe the better way to describe it is concentration v. distribution. If one person can serve a larger concentration of people or subjects, he is of more value per total people thus he is able to command more money because of that advertising value. If his efforts are distributed to a smaller concentration of people and it takes more like him to perform the same job, his value and resulting money have to be distributed or divided by more teachers, entertainers, players or whatever.

Let's use another example, let's say that David Letterman is on only one local channel that only reaches 30 people at a time. Let's say that the advertisers want to take advantage of his show but have to pay thousands or millions of other David Letterman clones to cover the same population that one show would cover, this time requiring many showings at one time. The advertiser then have to take his advertising dollar and divide it among all the David Letterman clones so rather than one highly paid David Letterman, there are thousands of average paid David Letterman's just like that school teacher who is essentially a clone of one math teacher. Now the playing field is leveled and a "David Letterman clone" is equal to one "teacher" and would have the same value and get the same pay.

Now consider this, dream for a minute, take down all the barriers and just imagine. Let's say all the learning and all the subject material was actually on some form of media and available to anyone, young or old, deaf, blind, handicapped or whatever. Now imagine a Navajo or Hopi or Inuit or Eskimo Indian or Appalachian child who now has the same equal advantage as any Rockefeller child or a Kennedy child or a Gates child. Imagine the green effect on not having to transport the child to the teacher but now transporting the teacher to the child via electronics. Imagine being able to live in a Pueblo or a Teepee or a Hogan or igloo in the Arctic or a sail boat on the ocean while still having access to the same great education as the wealthiest, the most powerful, the most influential, the most elite children? Then Supersize it, make that Global. That frees our children to travel and experience what they are learning. While studying about the civil war, they can actually go there and touch, feel and smell the actual battle field.

Is this far fetched? Of course not. The educational industry is just decades behind and no one addresses it. They pretend that what we have is the best that can be done. We have an Ipod and Cellphone and a GPS that all fit into our shirt pocket yet we still have an educational system from the beginning of time and teachers not much brighter that wonder why they don't deserve as much as David Letterman.

What do you think?

Bruce gpabruce@gmail.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 11:45 pm

Interesting?

Is it a question of who to blame? Kant's view of no matter of doing the job no matter in what condition? Life has a learning cycle.

I think some people are not intellectual for so many reasons. emotions? I have been told to myself "what's effort?" as people can be confused. It's over stability and security etc I'm a believer of this extrodinaire of natural talent.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 23, December 2009, 5:54 pm

As a person who has had his first thirty years of life in a country that applied the "difference" principle, I believe that I can answer Professor Sandle's challenge.

I admit and understand that even one's effort is not one's own doing and Rawls's intention is to help the least privileged people. However, a wealth distribution system according to Rawls's difference principle would hurt those people even more.

Use the running as an example, since we now redistribute the reward earned by the fastest runner to the slowest runners, what prevents those middle runner, who are the majority, from becoming the slowest runners in this new race. They (who are majority) would now have incentives to become the slowest runners, which need no effort and will be rewarded now. Worse yet, the true slowest runners, who usually keep running (you can understand why), now have a much worse outcome since in this new race everyone except the slowest runners run much slower than do in the original race and a slower race has less money to distribute. By the way, every imaginable methods have been used to tell who is a true or fake slowest runner and none worked. Everyone cannot be the fastest runner, but can always become the slowest one if he wants to.

Been there, done that.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 3:44 pm

I think the more important and more useful question we can ask, rather than "What do we deserve?" is "What do people need to be their best, so that they are healthy enough, mentally and physically, to contribute good things to the world?"

And from what I can tell, the bottom two platforms of Maslow's pyramid, essentially, are the minimum requirement humans need to be their best. Those two levels of needs are the physiological needs, where the world provides them with whole food, clean water, fresh air, warmth, and light), and the "safety" needs, which can be more specifically described as being free to express any solids, liquids, gases, heat, and energy (sounds, light, etc.) that they need to output from their bodies. Everyone, at some point in their lives, will need help getting these things, and, if we want to live in a healthy environment, where we're surrounded by people who are generally healthy and feeling positive about themselves and the world, then it behooves us to help those who need help getting any of these most basic requirements.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 5:09 pm

Bach and Beethovan were employees of the very rich. They were not, from a current standards appropriately compensated for their talents. Einstein didn't die rich. When the U.S. tax rate was 90% for the very rich, people still worked to be rich -- and there were plenty of them. Do we think for a moment that David Letterman wouldn't be a comic for less than million? Do we think that Michael Jordan wouldn't have picked up a basketball? Do we think that Judge Judy's egomaniacal needs could be better met in another forum if the money were less? Authors write books on the pipe dream that somebody will publish them, and the somebody will want to buy and read what they have to say. They don't do it for the money, they write for the same reason Jordan plays basketball, Einstein invented, Bach composed. We are each driven by forces other than money. If money comes, that's good too. I agree that we should each receive reward for our talents, as long as the very poor benefit also. It is the civilized answer.
reply

(Amarsir) said:

Saturday 2, January 2010, 1:32 am

First of all, correlation does not equal causality. In this case the polls are sufficient to show that birth order and family wealth are not independant of college attendance. But lets remember that it's not strictly causal, either.

Three problems with Rowls' propsition.

1) It seems deterministic. To say we only work harder because we were brought up to do so robs us all of free will. And anything short requires omniscient division between natural talent and effort.

2) It implies a zero-sum game. Mike correctly points out that the example of "winning the race" is not correct because there is no single winner to life. And the existance of a 3:06 runner doesn't make the 3:09 runner any slower - in fact it may have encouraged him to do better. So even if they don't "deserve" to run faster, they still have greater claim to than those benefits than anyone else does.

3) As I mentioned following an early lecture, it assumes money is the only imbalance worth caring about. I study on a Friday night while you go to a party. Later you get 33% of my income, but do I get 33% of your fun?

That said, Rowls' underlying premise is reasonable. In my work as a game designer I came to an even more severe conclusion based on the same premise: that a game will be more exciting and thus more worth playing if it's easier for trailing players to catch up than it is for the winner to increase his lead. This despite equality of opportunity.

Nevertheless, it remains to be determined what degree of favoring the lowest is appropriate. The goal of maximizing the worst-off is much more easily stated than performed because any change in incentives would create long-term rippling effects.
reply

(amitton) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 2:15 pm

Yes, the David Lettermans and the Judge Judys of the world have a moral obligation to share their wealth. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to enforce this obligation (Read Freidrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom). David Letterman and Judge Judy must choose to do it on their own or be shamed into doing it. In the end they'll do a much better job of sharing their wealth rather than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats at a government institution. Just look at Dale Carnegie, Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet. Their charitable institutions have done and will do a much better job than a government institution.
reply

(Amarsir) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 8:17 pm

As a further thought, consider this:

Let's refer to the "position of lowest standing" in a meritocracy as Position Zero. The requirement of Rawls is that every person in his system be better off than Position Zero. So what if I were to _seek_out_ a position lower than that for myself? (And for the sake of discussion I'm saying it's intentional, but it could just as easily be an unconscious reaction to the security of the Rawls system, or an untended result of taking a risk.)

In that case, I see only two options: scrap the system as self-defeating or implement a tremendous amount of paternalism. But in the case of the latter (and assuming that's better), we should then make the comparison anew to a meritocracy with the same paternalism (but without redistribution).

I will grant that at some theoretical level it must work. If everyone makes optimal decisions for their well-being, the only difference in outcome will be that resulting from natural ability. And redistribution fixes that. But I still hold that A) government paternalism can't be sufficiently optimal to reach that point, and B) the resulting loss of freedom from the attempt would be more detrimental than beneficial.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 7:23 am

I cannot understand how Rawls logically gets to his difference principle.

His premises seem to be:

1.Differences resulting from morally arbitrary factors are not deserved
2.People have no entitlement to the rewards generated from things that are undeserved
3.Social and economic circumstances at birth are morally arbitrary
4.Natural talents are morally arbitrary
5.Propensity to develop talents and exert effort are morally arbitrary

Surely the only logical conclusion if these premises are true (Which of course they are not) is that everyone should have exactly the same.

I.e. a strict egalitarian view of equality of outcome.

I can see no way to logically derive the difference principle, from Rawl’s premises.

Why is it justifiable to Rawls for anybody to have more than anyone else ?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 9, May 2010, 7:33 pm

Because, 1)Arbitration=judgment, 2) "The decision of the Judge is final." as a policy determinant. The heavy drudge of appeals is significantly waived in a cost-benefit analysis, and thus the winner "wins the battle but not the war".

(Rothbard) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 10:05 am

When behind the veil of ignorance, we do not know what our allocation of skills or talents will be, what amount of wealth we will be born into, how supportive our family, the amount of effort we will exert, how valuable our skills will be to society,etc, etc.

To avoid repetition I will refer to a persons unique mix of these factors as their potential. (P)

In any proposed political system our wealth (W) can be expressed as:

W=P Less T plus b

Where P is our potential, T is the Tax and b is the value of benefits received from others.

In a free market libertarian society W=P,

in a communist society W=A for everyone,
(with T and b varying on an individual basis to offset differences in P.)

For any given society there will be a different distribution of potentials so the best estimate of the potential that any individual would receive is given by the mathematical Expected Value, i.e. the sum of the probability of getting any given potential multiplied by the value of that potential, divided by the number of potentials in total.

Which is simply the average potential = A

Therefore, in any conceivable form of government system whatever the rules of T and b, the expected value of W, will be A.
(Because however you distribute the total across the participants, the expected value for any individual is the same.)

An entirely rational decision maker behind the veil of ignorance would be ambivalent between any form of wealth distribution system, as the expected value of their wealth under any system is the same.

However, this only holds true if, as we have assumed, each system is 100% efficient at converting potential into wealth.

In reality wealth is a function not just of Potential but also of Effort (E)

So W=PxE

Effort is proportional to incentives (I), so

E=kI

For any mix of potentials , the society that will generate the maximum total wealth, is the one with the greatest incentives to exert effort to convert potential into wealth.

Since the only way to increase the expected value of your individual wealth behind the veil of ignorance is to choose the system that generates the most total wealth, it seems that the rational thinker behind the veil would in fact choose free market libertarianism.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 4:32 pm

There is a logical flaw in the way the poll was made - leading to seemingly spectacular, but nonetheless meaningless results.

Assume 50% of the audience have no siblings, while the other 50% have exactly one. Further assume that of the second 50%, 50% are first-born, and 50% are second-born.

Now, when asked who in the audience is first-born, 75% will raise their hand: 50% who have no siblings, and 25% who have one sibling and are first-born.

A more correct way to do the poll would be to ask:
"Out of those of you who have exactly one sibling, who is first-born?"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 21, February 2010, 11:34 am

I agree. I checked the www.census.gov website and found the following estimates under "America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007":

16,172,607 have 1 child (1/1,or 16,172,607 first born)
13,951,879 have 2 children (1/2, or 6,975,940 first born)
5,619,485 have 3 children (1/3, or 1,873,162 first born)
2,308,192 have 4 children (1/4, or 577,048 first born)

Approximately 67% of the US population is first born.
We could argue that first borns account for 67% of all deaths in the US, and therefore our health care system unfairly discriminates against them.

Sandel's informal poll is at best entertaining slight of hand. However by misrepresenting this as meaningful information. He ultimately detracts from any point he might be making.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 7:01 pm

I wonder if you see a trend, (as I do) that as we started in the first lesson, almost all the text and opinions were from the author being discussed, far left, and far right. As we moved along, Sandel's selection of authors were easy to understand and clear in their points. Further along we get authors that are esoteric, (either originally that way, or made that way by Sandel). Now we are,(in this last episode) given a fast paced monologue (he only stopped twice to get input from the students). It seems to me he is now saying 60% what he thinks and attributing it to the author. If this trend continues, will we finish with the conclusion that the only correct philosopher is Karl Marx, "from each according his ability, and to each according to his needs". Heaven forbid.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 11:42 am

If everything that we could possibly posses(in terms of abilities, skills, place to act) could be in some way attributed to some societal factors that we did not control, then whatever our reward is(in terms of wealth, opportunities)is just a societal fact it is not just or unjust. What is unjust is the way law school looks at it, like rawls says natural distributions are only natural facts: not just or unjust. Whats unjust is the way institutions look at them.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 27, January 2010, 12:56 pm

I liked, and agreed with, Rawls until he starts talking about leveling the playing field. It's not about what people deserve (as judged by Big government) or what is "fair" (as judged by big government). Rawls makes the same mistake as the political left in America when he confuses "society" with "government". They are NOT the same thing. As G. Washington pointed out, "Government is force. It is not eloquence...it is not reason...it is force". There are two ways to redistribute wealth (or awards or other good things). The traditional American way is private charity. But criminals and government resort to coercion. It amazes me that so many otherwise intelligent people really believe that "government is us". That "society's goals are carried out by government". What nonsense. America is suppose to be about individualism, including individual choices about who and how to help the "poor". I put "poor" in quotes because I send my charitable dollars to Africans who are much worse off than the poorest Americans...and my charitable dollars do at least five times more good than a similar amount spent by government. The collectivist philosophy creeps into Rawls otherwise good ideas.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 28, January 2010, 11:30 am

Looking at a Rawls bio, it is understandable why he confuses government and society. He lived from 1921 to 2002...that means he was 12 when FDR became president and his whole life after that was lived in the "golden age of big government".
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 28, January 2010, 9:44 pm

"Fairness" like justice is a subjective notion. It means different things to different people, even if some issues can develop consensus (CJ Holmes: "Justice? You'll find it at the bottom of a bottomless pit."). Is it fair to human progress to reward those who show the most promise--the Newtons, Einsteins, Leonardos, Galileos, Archimedes, etc? The Neandertals lived for two hundred thousand years and never advanced--is it social darwinism to suggest that merit should be rewarded disproportionately?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 31, January 2010, 7:20 am

YES it is (distributive justice) the problem (vial of ignorance)equalitivity,minority and, oppression (equal opportunism) social and economic inequality.

Opportunity is unequal and entitlements is not chosen, income and wealth it is the top that is looking through the vial of ignorance fascism see all Fascist.they almost got us but not to date.

Is it right to be in affect equal? in the respect of gaining to a life that powers itself trying to get to the top (vial of ignorance),Or maybe that's how it looks from the eyes that see only evil, The poor.

theories of justice
First futile aristocracies than liberitivity is as Rawls tries to use to show progress when in our world these days its (options of fait) that is opportunities in our life that work the conception that there is the like of a principal that opens the life perfect system.

If we where using tools and talents and to the naturally gifted, it's more like the liers excuse for people looking to see things when we are not seeing.

"Anything conception" that's anything you could think is(in the light of what we know or have learned), this is cast beurocricy, What is it he means by formal equality. It means knowing is there, formal equality there is opportunity,but liers can't get ahead. So there is revolution for a change.
Oh yes something is going to change. It has not changed in this country's history. That's why we live the sui juris of order, "how far or how high the semantics will go", before society run's out of the room.
The human clone does its work, in so fashion the entity of (a theory and god) "empathy" God and country (the realm).
"see no evil, hear no evil, think no evil"
Afermative Action
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Monday 8, February 2010, 2:23 am

I've seen Spiderman in one of these lectures, I see lots of empty seats and more showing up as the semester progresses. Why is Michael the only person who in appearance is over 30 years old (I'm being generous at that 23 would be more like it) who I see in the seats?
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Monday 8, February 2010, 5:56 am

Kids love to sit in front of the TV all day everyday.

Why don't we just replace Teacher's With a couple of cable channels a TiVo and YouTube. Then we can have celebrity teachers educate our children? We can take them to work with us and, oh wait as a father of two I'm starting to think that people have a misconception of what 12 years of education really looks like in this country.

How many players are there in major league sports? Of them all how many are Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Etc...?

I wonder how many judges' salaries Judge Judy pay's in a year in taxes. How many teacher's are paid from Michael Jordan's taxes?

I appreciate where this Episode is taking our thinking, some of the comments are getting my goat though.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 3:10 am

If taxing Michael Jordan is theft and not taxing him doesnt give you resources to ensure equal opportunity and thats unfair, I have a middle solution.
What if you rewarded not coerce (as a society) the act of giving a part of his earnings to ensure opportunity to those at the bottom. Than it will be "his will", so it wont be theft and you would also have resources to help those at the bottom.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 7:21 am

but if your prize value is less than the money the person donate, then i can hardly see any incentive to do so...if your prize value is larger than that, then there is no meaning of doing that...

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 3:58 am

Everything is relative! Economists, philosophers, theorists, professors etc spend endless lifetimes trying to explain justice or fairness, or whether six of one = half dozen of another,and there are still myriad varied explanations flying around, because one answer does NOT suffice for all !! Fairness, justice, success itself only exists as a definition of each individuals' idea of what success or justice or fairness encompasses. Various "societies", charismatic leaders or "arenas of thought" hold up signboards to direct interested parties with similar values to that position; sort of, "like minds think alike" thinking. Equating Sandra Day O'Connor's pay scale vs Judge Judy's pay scale is not legitimate, in that they most likely hold strongly different sentiments as to what constitutes fairness of reward.( In truth, I can't believe that Justice O'Connor would have given up her job in exchange for Judge Judy's job, just because she would have made more money by doing so!) For some, just reward may be financial gain, for another it might be power, for another it might be a capitalization on natural talents, for another social status, or philanthropy, or obtaining an excellent education, or racing mountain bikes...the possibilities of definition are as varied as there are human individuals.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, March 2010, 11:52 pm

Lets not forget to whom much is given much is required. Nor let us forget that God gives one wealth in order that one may share it with those who have not wealth.

We have been made stewards of the earth and to fulfill this duty justly that means we are to make sure that the beggar (3rd world countries) at the gate of our nation (Rich Man America) has good to eat and clean water to drink. And in the end our actions will judge themselves.

One ripple in the pond does create a tsunami effect on the shore on the horizon. A bubonic plague could break out in a 3rd world country if we left it to die in need and desperation.

So our wrong actions could come back to bite us. Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you. What goes around comes around, you reap what you sow. When one falls into calamity it is much easier to have empathy for the other one.

Until then, it is quite impossible for many including myself at one time (even middle class born again Christians) to understand what it feels like to walk in another one's shoes or sit for one week in another one's seat.
1 Corinthians 6:4

King James Version
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Ephesians 4:28

Amplified Bible
Let the thief steal no more, but rather let him be industrious, making an honest living with his own hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need.

Also in 2 Corinthians 9:8-15 (King James Version)

8And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

9(As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.

10Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;)

11Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.

12For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

13Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

14And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.

15Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 1:49 am

It sadly Astounds me that of ALL the quotes and opinions given above, I have found only "ONE" that even remotely is a justifiable statement of the lecture I just watched. EVERY single one of the rest is just a reply from a positionality that defends an argument that is not in line with any philosophic reality. They all seem to be defending points od their political/Egoistic selves. DID ANYONE EVEN "TRY" TO LISTEN. Wow, we're in trouble here.
reply

(hillhopper) said:

Sunday 9, May 2010, 6:54 pm

Ok, you asked for it...

Thus the system as applied to society at large could be summed up in the

consoling doctrine that every man got what he was worth, and was worth

what he got; that industry and energy brought their own reward; that

national wealth and individual welfare were one and the same; that all

that was needed for social progress was hard work, more machinery, more

saving of labor and a prudent limitation of the numbers of the

population.

...

"fundamental equation of value" whereby each

thing and everything is sold (or tends to be sold) under free

competition for exactly its cost of production. There it was; as simple

as A. B. C.; making the cost of everything proportional to the cost of

everything else, and in itself natural and just; explaining and

justifying the variations of wages and salaries on what seems a stern

basis of fact. Here is your selling price as a starting point. Given

that, you can see at once the reason for the wages paid and the full

measure of the payment. To pay more is impossible. To pay less is to

invite a competition that will force the payment of more. Or take, if

you like, the wages as the starting point: there you are

again,--simplicity itself: the selling price will exactly and nicely

correspond to cost. True, a part of the cost concerned will be

represented not by wages, but by cost of materials; but these, on

analysis, dissolve into past wages. Hence the whole process and its

explanation revolves around this simple fundamental equation that

selling value equals the cost of production.

The application of such a system to legislation and public policy was

obvious. It carried with it the principle of _laissez-faire_. The

doctrine of international free trade, albeit the most conspicuous of its

applications, was but one case under the general law. It taught that

the mere organization of labor was powerless to raise wages; that

strikes were of no avail, or could at best put a shilling into the

pocket of one artisan by taking it out of that of another; that wages

and prices could not be regulated by law; that poverty was to a large

extent a biological phenomenon representing the fierce struggle of

germinating life against the environment that throttles part of it. The

poor were like the fringe of grass that fades or dies where it meets the

sand of the desert. There could be no social remedy for poverty except

the almost impossible remedy of the limitation of life itself. Failing

this the economist could wash his hands of the poor.
...
Some day,

in a remote future, in which under an improved social system the numbers

of mankind might increase to the full power of the natural capacity of

multiplication, such a question might conceivably disturb the equanimity

of mankind. But it need not now. It is only one of many disasters that

must sooner or later overtake mankind. The sun, so the astronomer tells

us, is cooling down; the night is coming; an all-pervading cold will

some day chill into rigid death the last vestige of organic life. Our

poor planet will be but a silent ghost whirling on its dark path in the

starlight. This ultimate disaster is, as far as our vision goes,

inevitable. Yet no one concerns himself with it. So should it be with

the danger of the ultimate overcrowding of the globe.

One searches

in vain for the basis on which the relationship rests. And at the end of

the analysis one finds nothing but a mere anarchical play of forces,

nothing but a give-and-take resting on relative bargaining strength.

Every man gets what he can and gives what he has to.

...

A technical student of the schools would digress here, to the great

confusion of the reader, into a discussion of the controversy in the

economic cloister between the rival schools of economists as to whether

cost governs value or value governs cost. The point needs no discussion

here, but just such fleeting passing mention as may indicate that the

writer is well and wearily conversant with it.

The fundamental equation of the economist, then, is that the value of

everything is proportionate to its cost. It requires no little hardihood

to say that this proposition is a fallacy. It lays one open at once,

most illogically, to the charge of being a socialist. In sober truth it

might as well lay one open to the charge of being an ornithologist. I

will not, therefore, say that the proposition that the value of

everything equals the cost of production is false.

...

Now the trouble with the main proposition just quoted is that each side

of the equation is used as the measure of the other. In order to show

what natural price is, we add up all the wages that have been paid, and

declare that to be the cost and then say that the cost governs the

price. Then if we are asked why are wages what they are, we turn the

argument backward and say that since the selling price is so and so the

wages that can be paid out of it only amount to such and such. This

explains nothing. It is a mere argument in a circle.

-The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice, Stephen Leacock, JOHN LANE COMPANY, NEW YORK, 1920

References to rules of thought

222. In the complex proposition there appears to be more than one

subject or predicate or both, but in reality there is only a single

statement; and this statement refers, as we have Seen, to a certain

connection between two propositions.

225. The complex proposition then must be distinguished from those

contrivances of language for abbreviating expression in which several

distinct statements are combined into a single sentence.

474. Of the several forms of opposition contradictory opposition is

logically the strongest.

479. Conversion is an immediate inference grounded On the

transposition of the subject and predicate of a proposition.

480. In this form of inference the antecedent is technically known

as the Convertend, i.e. the proposition to be converted, and the

consequent as the Converse, i.e. the proposition which has been

converted.

482. For conversion as a form of inference two rules have been laid

down--

(1) No term must be distributed in the converse which was not

distributed in the convertend.

(2) The quality of the converse must be the same as that of the

convertend.

483. The first of these rules is founded on the nature of things. A

violation of it involves the fallacy of arguing from part of a term to

the whole.

484. The second rule is merely a conventional one. We may make a

valid inference in defiance of it: but such an inference will be seen

presently to involve something more than mere conversion.

485. There are two kinds of conversion--

(1) Simple.

(2) Per Accidens or by Limitation.

486. We are said to have simply converted a proposition when the

quantity remains the same as before.

487. We are said to have converted a proposition per accidens, or by

limitation, when the rules for the distribution of terms necessitate a

reduction in the original quantity of the proposition.

493. On the theory of the quantified predicate the difference

between simple conversion and conversion by limitation disappears. For

the quantity of a proposition is then no longer determined solely by

reference to the quantity of its subject. 'All A is some B' is of no

greater quantity than 'Some B is all A,' if both subject and predicate

have an equal claim to be considered.

494. Some propositions occur in ordinary language in which the

quantity of the predicate is determined. This is especially the case

when the subject is a singular term.

Virtue is the condition of happiness.

.'. The condition of happiness is virtue.

And again,

Virtue is a condition of happiness.

.'. A condition of happiness is virtue.

In the one case the quantity of the predicate is determined by the

form of the expression as distributed, in the other as undistributed.

495. Conversion offers a good illustration of the principle on which

we have before insisted, namely, that in the ordinary form of

proposition the subject is used in extension and the predicate in

intension. For when by conversion we change the predicate into the

subject, we are often obliged to attach a noun substantive to the

predicate, in order that it may be taken in extension, instead of, as

before, in intension, e.g.

Some mothers are unkind.

.'. Some unkind persons are mothers.

Again,

Virtue is conducive to happiness.

.'. One of the things which are conducive to happiness is virtue.

PERMUTATION

497. In less technical language we may say that permutation is

expressing negatively what was expressed affirmatively and vice versa.

500. The validity of permutation rests on the principle of excluded

middle, namely--That one or other of a pair of contradictory terms

must be applicable to a given subject, so that, when one may be

predicated affirmatively, the other may be predicated negatively, and

vice versa ( 31).

501. Merely to alter the quality of a proposition would of course

affect its meaning; but when the predicate is at the same time changed

into its contradictory term, the original meaning of the proposition

is retained, whilst the form alone is altered. Hence we may lay down

the following practical rule for permutation--

Change the quality of the proposition and change the predicate into

its contradictory term.

502. The law of excluded middle holds only with regard to

contradictories. It is not true of a pair of positive and privative

terms, that one or other of them must be applicable to any given

subject. For the subject may happen to fall wholly outside the sphere

to which such a pair of terms is limited. But since the fact of a term

being applied is a sufficient indication of its applicability, and

since within a given sphere positive and privative terms are as

mutually destructive as contradictories, we may in all cases

substitute the privative for the negative term in immediate inference

by permutation, which will bring the inferred proposition more into

conformity with the ordinary usage of language.

_Conversion by Contraposition._

520. The following practical rule will be found of use for the right

performing of the process--

Transpose the subject and predicate, and substitute for each its

contradictory term.

522. Conversion by contraposition may be said to

rest on the following principle--

If one class be wholly contained in another, whatever is external to

the containing class is external also to the class contained.

535. There is a sort of inference which goes under the title of

Immediate Inference by Added Determinants, in which from some

proposition already made another is inferred, in which the same

attribute is attached both to the subject and the predicate, e.g.,

A horse is a quadruped.

.'. A white horse is a white quadruped.

536. Such inferences are very deceptive. The attributes added must

be definite qualities, like whiteness, and must in no way involve a

comparison. From 'A horse is a quadruped' it may seem at first sight

to follow that 'A swift horse is a swift quadruped.' But we need not

go far to discover how little formal validity there is about such an

inference. From 'A horse is a quadruped' it by no means follows that

'A slow horse is a slow quadruped'; for even a slow horse is swift

compared with most quadrupeds. All that really follows here is that

'A slow horse is a quadruped which is slow for a horse.' Similarly,

from 'A Bushman is a man' it does not follow that 'A tall Bushman is a

tall man,' but only that 'A tall Bushman is a man who is tall for a

Bushman'; and so on generally.

537. Very similar to the preceding is the process known as Immediate

Inference by Complex Conception, e.g.

A horse is a quadruped.

.'. The head of a horse is the head of a quadruped.

538. This inference, like that by added determinants, from which it

differs in name rather than in nature, may be explained on the

principle of Substitution. Starting from the identical proposition,

'The head of a quadruped is the head of a quadruped,' and being given

that 'A horse is a quadruped,' so that whatever is true of 'quadruped'

generally we know to be true of 'horse,' we are entitled to substitute

the narrower for the wider term, and in this manner we arrive at the

proposition,

The head of a horse is the head of a quadruped.

539. Such an inference is valid enough, if the same caution be

observed as in the case of added determinants, that is, if no

difference be allowed to intervene in the relation of the fresh

conception to the generic and the specific terms.

_Of Mediate Inferences or Syllogisms._

542. Hence every syllogism consists of three terms, one of which

occurs twice in the premisses and does not appear at all in the

conclusion. This term is called the Middle Term. The predicate of the

conclusion is called the Major Term and its subject the Minor Term.

555. The syllogism is merely a form into which our deductive

inferences may be thrown for the sake of exhibiting their

conclusiveness. It is not the form which they naturally assume in

speech or writing. Practically the conclusion is generally stated

first and the premisses introduced by some causative particle as

'because,' 'since,' 'for,'
reply

(hillhopper) said:

Sunday 9, May 2010, 7:15 pm

We start with our conclusion, and then

give the reason for it by supplying the premisses.

556. The conclusion, as thus stated first, was called by logicians

the Problema or Quaestio, being regarded as a problem or question, to

which a solution or answer was to be found by supplying the premisses.

557. In common discourse and writing the syllogism is usually stated

defectively, one of the premisses or, in some cases, the conclusion

itself being omitted. Thus instead of arguing at full length

All men are fallible,

The Pope is a man,

.'. The Pope is fallible,

we content ourselves with saying 'The Pope is fallible, for he is a

man,' or 'The Pope is fallible, because all men are so'; or perhaps we

should merely say 'All men are fallible, and the Pope is a man,'

leaving it to the sagacity of our hearers to supply the desired

conclusion. A syllogism, as thus elliptically stated, is commonly,

though incorrectly, called an Enthymeme. When the major premiss is

omitted, it is called an Enthymeme of the First Order; when the minor

is omitted, an Enthymeme of the Second Order; and when the conclusion

is omitted an Enthymeme of the Third Order.

558. Syllogisms may differ in two ways--

(1) in Mood;

(2) in Figure.

573. The principle precisely stated is as follows--

Whatever may be affirmed or denied universally of the predicate of

an affirmative proposition, may be affirmed or denied also of the

subject.

_Three Axioms of Mediale Inference._

(1) If two terms agree with the same third term, they agree with one

another.

(2) If one term agrees, and another disagrees, with the same third

term, they disagree with one another.

(3) If two terms disagree with the same third term, they may or may

not agree with one another.

-Deductive Logic, St. George Stock, PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD, 1888
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 11, May 2010, 6:15 pm

(DJC,MD) We agree that society’s current system of distributive justice is not fair. However, our differences are based on how to address these financial inequalities. C.R. believes the financially well-off should not be forced to pay taxes or give any other sources to the less fortunate. Professor Michael Sandel agrees, stating that taxpaying is a form of coercion. The decision should be made by the person and their ability to donate to those with financial difficulties. D. S. adds that our society is built on a system that favors the political or celebrity status of an individual and unfortunately financial rewards are more prominent in this group. Those who are well-off such as Judge Judy are simply utilizing the system and should not be viewed as the enemy as portrayed in the episode’s conversation. Whether rich or poor, society is contributing to the salaries of athletes, television judges, and comedians. J. S. solution is that the government should enforce measures that allow for equal or close to equal financial justice for all.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 11, May 2010, 6:47 pm

John Rawls states that it is not fair if the children of poor parents have much lower prospects in life than the children of rich parents because of the family they were born into. Our group then proposes: Are the children of rich families to blame for being born into a rich family? If we blame rich families and their children for being wealthy, we should also blame poor families for being unwealthy and tell them to chase more opportunities. We are not responsible for what kind of family we are born into; we cannot change a natural occurrence such as this one.

Therefore, applying steep inheritance taxes are unjustified and unethical. We believe that everyone deserves a shot at any reasonable expectation of success whether rich or poor. However, steep inheritance taxes are not the solution to distributive justice and to end this problem. Of course we all believe that everyone has the right to property because it is one of the unalienable rights and money is considered a property. We cannot take someone’s money whether they worked for it or not; it is their possession. In a scenario such as this, rich families may be considered a minority and they would want to be respected with the same amount of dignity.

- DJC, MD
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, July 2010, 8:36 pm

If someone is taxed heavily and this heavy tax causes them to abandon their pursuits, does it not expose their pursuits as lacking a higher purpose?

For example, if you heavily taxed Michael Jordan...say he took home ,000,000 a year instead of ,000,000 ...would he not still want to play basketball in front of crowds for money? If he truly loves what he's doing and he's getting paid a living wage for it, he will continue.

If you heavily tax someone doing genetic research in hopes of a cure for cancer, would a take-home salary that pays for their student loans and supports a family be to little and cause them to quit their meaningful job?

If you somehow heavily tax sales of homes being bought and flipped for profit and people generally abandon the practice, what does it say about the overall worth of the "work" being performed?

I hope my rhetorical questions illustrate my point. As I watched the lecture, I highly anticipated this argument being brought up, but I was disappointed. Hopefully some of you have some worthwhile responses.

There is also the argument that someone who is poor simply has more problems than someone who is not. Intuitively, we can argue that people who have 2-3 problems are likely to attack those problems and get them solved. People who have 10-20 problems are more likely to give up trying.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Saturday 4, September 2010, 10:47 am

“No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in society.” – J Rawls – A Theory of Justice

Why are attempts by egalitarian political philosophers focused only on the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

Human beings do not desire money for its own sake. Money is simply a medium of exchange, used to acquire goods or services. Once the bare essentials required to survive are covered, why do humans wish to acquire more goods and services?

The answer is what Rothbard and Mises would term Psychic satisfaction, i.e. the reduction of pain or inconvenience and/or the increase in pleasure or happiness. For the sake of brevity I will refer to this simply as happiness.

It should be obvious that there is no absolute happiness value for any good or service, people place different values on things and even the same people value things differently at different times or in different places.

If you have ten bottles of water you will value another bottle of water less highly than someone who has no water. If you don’t like milk then you will value it far less than someone who does. You will value an Orange more highly if you live in Siberia than if you live in Florida.

If people didn’t value things differently then no trade would take place, since a trade represents the exchange of items valued (In terms of happiness) in opposite priority by the exchanging parties.

Because of this, money is a poor substitute metric for happiness:
The price of any particular good or service is set by the supply and demand in the market place. At the individual level there may be large differences between the happiness provided by a good or service and its market price.

If one person finds pleasure in watching a sunset or walking on a beach then their happiness is purchased relatively cheaply in monetary terms, if another person needs to go sky diving or collect diamonds to give them equivalent pleasure then they will require more money to achieve the same amount of pleasure.

If wealth is merely the means that humans use to try and increase their happiness, then it is logically no different to Rawl’s statement, to assert that:

“No one deserves his ability to derive greater pleasure from less goods or services”

So why morally should they be allowed to benefit from this fortunate windfall in the lottery of life any more than someone born with greater natural capacities or a more favourable starting position should be allowed to benefit by earning more money?

The gap between the rich and poor is surrogate measure for a gap in happiness, but equalizing wealth does not equalize happiness. It simply substitutes the arbitrary injustice of talent distribution with the arbitrary injustice of the “need for material pleasures” distribution.

If Egalitarians are intent on social justice and equality, this cannot logically be restricted to money. Money in and of itself is of no interest to anyone, it is the happiness that it can buy that drives people to acquire it. So equality must be addressed at the root, at happiness equality.

The next theoretical step might be to try and take into account the individuals monetary needs for happiness and strive to reduce the gap between the unhappy and the happy instead. Adjusting the wealth distribution to take into account monetary needs to achieve certain levels of pleasure.

The obvious practical problem is that there is no easy way to measure or compare happiness between individuals. But, it is not inconceivable to imagine in some future world it might be possible, perhaps by examining the intensity of electrical signals in certain pleasure centres of the brain, to measure people’s happiness accurately.

But, if you make the logical jump from trying to reduce inequality of wealth to reducing the root issue, the inequality of happiness then you cannot logically restrict yourself to redistributing wealth.

Happiness is derived from other sources as well as wealth. A concert pianist may derive great happiness from playing the piano, a painter may be extraordinarily happy to paint. The academic may derive pleasure from the esteem of his peers at his powerful insights into a difficult problem. The attractive woman may derive pleasure from the male attention she attracts.

Humans are not so one dimensional that there happiness is derived solely from owning material things.

If we accept, Rawl's position that:

“No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits”

Then clearly people don’t deserve the (non financial) happiness that flows from their greater natural capacities, be they musical or artistic, intellectual or physical.

How then shall we equalize the happiness gap, to achieve “Social Justice” ?

Perhaps by ensuring the musicians don’t play, the painters don’t paint, the thinkers don’t think and the beautiful are hidden away from view. We can then all live in the grey world of equality.

When the financial mask is removed from Egalitarianism we can more clearly see the ugly face of envy.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, October 2010, 5:10 am

Wow! That was a good one. It addressed something that comes up in every one of these lectures, the apparent fact that simple morality is not the basis for what is nor what should be. Humans are not some godly perfect form of energy equal in all parts to each other, we are all accidents of nature like everything that has come before us.

The conclusions of Rawls make sense because even if there was a way to make everyone equal somehow, that's still not strictly "fair". It's not even just about self ownership. Even if we say that we are all equal in the arbitrariness of our birth, it's not necessarily so arbitrary to our parents. Shouldn't our parents have the right to spend money on us as they see fit and give us as good or not good an education as they wish? It's their effort and money and building that went into giving us the opportunities that were spoken of as being arbitrary from our perspective. Certainly no one deserved to be born into a good family any more than anyone else, but our parents do deserve the fruits that come to them for creating a good family. Or are they just entitled to such fruits? It doesn't matter because the entitlement is there whether or not the moral desert is there.
What that argument comes up, it becomes necessary to chart one's family back to the beginning of time and no one can do that even those who can trace their line for millenia. I wonder if anyone can.
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 (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 11:41 am

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, April 2010, 3:40 am

Government is not the arbiter of justice. Government is the guardian of property, natural rights and safety.

PEOPLE - society - determine morals and justice. Rawls and anyone else can presuppose a veil of any sort of ignorance. A "folk" (and yes, I mean that in its "bad" way) determine their justice. Whatever gets worked out in terms of slavery, justice, fairness, etc., is NOT done by governments. It's done by people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 7, September 2010, 2:18 pm

What do you understand by people and what do you think a governmen is.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 9, May 2010, 7:21 pm

Usage: Justice, Equity, Law. Justice and equity are the
same; but human laws, though designed to secure
justice, are of necessity imperfect, and hence what is
strictly legal is at times far from being equitable or
just. Here a court of equity comes in to redress the
grievances. It does so, as distinguished from courts
of law; and as the latter are often styled courts of
justice, some have fancied that there is in this case
a conflict between justice and equity. The real
conflict is against the working of the law; this a
court of equity brings into accordance with the claims
of justice. It would be an unfortunate use of language
which should lead any one to imagine he might have
justice on his side while practicing iniquity
(inequity). Justice, Rectitude. Rectitude, in its
widest sense, is one of the most comprehensive words
in our language, denoting absolute conformity to the
rule of right in principle and practice. Justice
refers more especially to the carrying out of law, and
has been considered by moralists as of three kinds:
(1) Commutative justice, which gives every man his own
property, including things pledged by promise. (2)
Distributive justice, which gives every man his exact
deserts. (3) General justice, which carries out all
the ends of law, though not in every case through the
precise channels of commutative or distributive
justice; as we see often done by a parent or a ruler
in his dealings with those who are subject to his
control.
[1913 Webster]
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, October 2010, 10:31 pm

Melvin Tumin proved in an article "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis" that men work not only for higher salary as a compensation for his hard efforts, but for what De Man called "Joy in Work". This is the main incentive and not, as we usually believe, salary.

The article: http://www.ruthdunn.org/Melvin Tumin Critique of Davis-Moore.pdf
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 (1)

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 27, January 2010, 11:10 pm

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

Discussion Guides

Up Next