HLS in the World | Markets and Morals with Michael Sandel

Nothing better then some FREE Harvard school lecture! Thanks

I came across Mr.Michael Sandel's lectures here in youtube a couple of weeks ago and I got completely glued to them. I watch all his lectures one by one. I'm even thinking about changing my career and going into law. 😅👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ If Mr. Sandel reads it I want to say him a big "THANK YOU"!!! You're an extraordinary lecturer!

"The predominant liberal approach of celebrating individual rights and driving discussion of moral values and personal responsibility to the fringes of our politics and away from the public sphere will ultimately play into the hands of those who shore up our borders and harder the distinction between insiders and outsiders and the promise of politics to take back our culture and take back our country." And to think he wrote this 1996... just wow!

I think we are forgetting that the fine is intended to be a deterrent from bad behavior, not an acceptable fee for the infraction. Thereby a fine is different than a fee.

The conclusion is awesome!!!! One friend taught me that altruism is a magic good - you take some out and when you look again you have more of it: helping people is like taking gold from a safe and giving it away ... and when you look at the safe, there's now more gold than there was before. That makes the debate about refugees in Europe much more complicated - and it's probably complicated there because market thinking have eroded some of their moral sentiments.

Civility: Guidelines that govern market values inherent to human life. Social attitude norms of a fabric of Society i.e Civic duty on Cause and effect. The very essence of DEMOCRACY . Thank you Michael Sandel.

Thanks a lot, Prof. Michael Sandel!

1:09:00 I have a feeling Adam Smith did a distinction just like Prof. Sandel made. Smith's work on fair competition free market was related to moral and not economics.

I think the Swiss refugee case helps to put the issue of moral obligation in focus. In the original case, the Swiss Government created an equal obligation on everyone/town to provide direct support to the refugees by accepting the refugees into their town. The fine is designed to penalise those who do not fulfil this obligation. Paying the fine by the effluent town does not eliminate their social obligations. So the town was still in the wrong even after they have paid the fine. However, if the Swiss Government has created a different obligation, then the judgement would differ. Suppose the Swiss Government created an equal obligation for everyone/town to provide resource required to help the refugees, either by directly accepting the allocated number of refugees, or by monetary contribution equal to the fine in the original case so that the government can use the money to acquire the resource required for supporting the refugees via commercial means, then it is not immoral for the effluent town to choose to pay money over taking in the refugees because they would have fulfilled their social obligations either way. So my conclusion is that the key question is the nature of the obligation, and whether it is fulfilled. Similar in the double parking case, the delivery driver clearly violated the city's parking regulation. Paying the fine does not make double parking morally right. However, if the city created a rule that allow double parking, provided you compensate the city/people that you have inconvenienced, then there is not a moral violation. Again, the core issue is what obligation was created, an obligation not to double park at all or an obligation to compensate for the inconvenience caused by double parking. The same goes with emission trading.

Nice and transparent views on the point, thanks.

The refugee is an interesting example. Just as we are unsure that each refugee is beneficial, the same can be said for the society. As an example, if there are known biases, in that certain area, it might be as detrimental.

1:06:08 interesting that i see Da in this lecture as well. those who watched 'justice' know who im talking about.

All scenarios should be rejected for the same principal reason: Exempting individual citizens from equal treatment under the law (either by providing monetary incentives to be law-abiding or by letting them buy preferential access/treatment within the justice system) ultimately undermines the concept of fairness, which is simultaneously the Raison d'être and the primary legitimization of the rule of law in a secular democratic state. This objection can easily be argued for on purely deontological, purely utilitarian and/or purely virtue ethical grounds.

If providing a reasonable job for them and at the same time teaching them how to have a better life quality, that’s cost much less, for the government’s, and it’s good for countries,

يحي.العدل.ودمتم.علي.راس.هاذه.الملسسه.العريقه.ونرجو.لكم.المزيد.التلاق.وللإبداع.اف.شكر.لكم

So grateful!! Thank you 🙏

Surprising how many people seem to equate 'illegal' and 'morally wrong'.

Very good!!!

The Finland ticketing system is reasonable going in both directions. So if your yearly income is low then the fine will still bite altho one will not have to sacrifice food or housing or a child to pay the fine. While on the other hand if one is fabulously wealthy and one receives a fine it is enough that the individual will feel a bit of pain which is rightly.

52:00 Concerning a township's democratic right to choose: I'm for upholding a democratic specific locations norm in most cases. Altho if the national norm is such, then is this township suggesting they are not part of the nation? Or the national ideals do not apply to them? Can each location that has an obligation choose to meet the obligation of their own choosing, as long as the rest of the nation says nothing or agrees with the alternative action taken? This may take more time or create a longer conversation altho this may or more likely would bring about a better action, which is the ultimate goal in the first place. And since my smart phone is so smart we could all have a conversation about an idea and up vote or up opinion the best ideas. And maybe pay those individuals for their excellent insight. And if it turns out even better than expected, pay even more to the individual.