Justice with Michael Sandel
What is justice?
What is the right thing to do? What is utilitarianism? What can we learn about human moral intuitions and thoughts from trolley problems? Do you change tracks so that a runaway train kills one person instead of five? What about killing the weakest member of a ship crew lost at sea to survive? Should we really weigh the happiness of the majority more heavily? What if they are undemocratic or evil? Can you measure pleasure objectively?
What do individual rights mean for libertarians? Does it make sense to redistribute wealth? Is taxation coercion? What about natural rights? How do they interact with laws of a society? Should rich people pay others to take part in conscription? What is the relationship between justice and patriotism? Is there a collision of free market economics and reproductive rights when it comes to surrogate motherhood? What is the relationship between motives and morality? Is there a categorical imperative? If you believe it is never alright to lie, would you tell a killer where your his intended victim is hiding?
Is Rawls’s veil of ignorance a realistic approach to society and law? Are pay differences between professions fair? How should you deal with societal inequalities? Is affirmative action just? What did Aristotle argue about values and justice? What is the relationship between the value theory of justice and individual rights? Did Aristotle think slavery was justified? What is communitarianism? Is patriotism a virtue or a vice? Is same-sex marriage just? How can we reason about the good life? Can the law be neutral on important issues?
Michael Sandel is Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University and is the instructor of a highly acclaimed and popular course called Justice that covers important moral and legal philosophy and issues with regards to how justice should work. Harvard has put video recordings of his lectures on Youtube, and the playlist can be found here.
These video lectures covers utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, social contract theory, egalitarianism, patriotism, deontology, virtue ethics, Rawls’s theory of justice and communitarianism. The series contain 12 videos and spans about 11 hours. Also check out all the other video lectures on Debunking Denialism.
Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980. His popular book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, a New York Times best seller, relates the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of our time Nearly a thousand students pack Harvard’s historic Sanders Theatre to hear Michael Sandel, “perhaps the most prominent college professor in America,” (Washington Post) talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship. Now it’s your turn to take the same journey in moral reflection that has captivated more than 15,000 students, as Harvard opens its classroom to the world. In this 12-part DVD series, Sandel challenges us with hard moral dilemmas and invites us to ponder the right thing to do—in politics and in our everyday lives.
VOLUME 1
Lecture 01: The Moral Side of Murder
Sandel starts of this series of video lectures by examining utilitarianism? He introduces the trolley problem and its variations, as well as discuss a historical legal case where the shipwrecked crew on a lost ship decided to eat the cabin boy.
EPISODE 1 Part 1 – The Moral side of Murder If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning.
Part 2 – The Case for Cannibalism Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.
Lecture 02: Putting a Price Tag on Life
This second video continues the critical analysis of applied utilitarianism by looking at companies who put a price on human life. Which experiences provide the most pleasure? Should we always weigh the happiness of the majority the most, no matter of vile and cruel they are?
EPISODE 2 Part 1 – Putting a Price Tag on Life Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?
Part 2 – How to Measure Pleasure Sandel introduces J. S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who argues that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons.
VOLUME 2
Lecture 03: Free to Choose
Sandel moves on to libertarianism? Is redistribution of wealth in the form of taxation a kind of slavery? What are the arguments for and against libertarianism?
EPISODE 03 Part 1 – Free to Choose With humorous references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan, Sandel introduces the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation—taxing the rich to give to the poor—is akin to forced labor.
Part 2 – Who Owns Me? Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, aren’t you obligated to pay your taxes? Don’t many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune? A group of students dubbed “Team Libertarian” volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.
Lecture 04: This Land is My Land
Are there natural rights that are so fundamental that no government should be able to violate them? How does John Locke and classical liberalism handle the issue of taxation?
EPISODE 04 Part 1 – This Land is My Land The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights—to life, liberty, and property—which were given to us as human beings in the “the state of nature,” a time before government and laws were created. According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else.
Part 2 – Consenting Adults If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesn’t that amount to taking some people’s property without their consent? Locke’s response is that we give our “tacit consent” to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society.
VOLUME 3
Lecture 05: Hired Guns
Is it just for someone to hire a person to fight in their place? How does this relate to modern conscription? Should you be able to buy anything with money? Sandel describes the legal case where a couple paid a surrogate mother who eventually changed her mind. How do the free market relate to informed consent, reproductive rights and the moral status of selling a human life?
EPISODE 05 Part 1 – Hired Guns During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Many students say they find that policy unjust, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to avoid serving and risking their lives by paying less privileged citizens to fight in their place. This leads to a classroom debate about war and conscription. Is today’s voluntary army open to the same objection?
Part 2 – For Sale - Motherhood Professor Sandel examines the principle of free-market exchange as it relates to reproductive rights. Sandel begins with a humorous discussion of the business of egg and sperm donation. He then describes the case of “Baby M”—a famous legal battle that raised the unsettling question, “Who owns a baby?” Students debate the nature of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights.
Lecture 06: Mind your Motive
Sandel introduces Kant’s deontological ethics. Why did Kant think that duty is an important moral drive? What objections did Kant make against utilitarianism? How does Kantian ethics decide if an action is morally just?
EPISODE 06 Part 1 - Mind Your Motive Professor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher. Kant rejects utilitarianism. He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences. When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth. Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out. According to Kant, the shopkeeper’s action has no moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
Part 2 - The Supreme Principle of Morality Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Sandel tells the true story of a thirteen-year old boy who won a spelling bee contest, but then admitted to the judges that he had, in fact, misspelled the final word. Using this story and others, Sandel explains Kant’s test for determining whether an action is morally right: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could act on.
VOLUME 4
Lecture 07: A Lesson in Lying
Is it immoral to lie, even if it protects innocent life? What is a social contract and how does Rawls’s theory of justice work? What is a fair agreement and how do we know?
EPISODE 07 Part 1 – A Lesson in Lying Immanuel Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of one’s own dignity. Professor Sandel asks students to test Kant’s theory with this hypothetical case: if your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie? This leads to a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Part 2 – A Deal is a Deal Sandel introduces the modern philosopher, John Rawls, who argues that a fair set of principles would be those principles we would all agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.
Lecture 08: What’s a Fair Start?
Everyone does not have the same start in life. So how do we handle that? Sandel recapitulates the different moral theories that they have covered so far and contrasts it with the perspective introduced by Rawls.
EPISODE 08 Part 1 – What's a False Start? Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesn’t go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted can’t claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawls’s point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.
Part 2 – What Do We Deserve? Sandel discusses the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not.
VOLUME 5
Lecture 09: Arguing Affirmative Action
Is increased diversity a valid moral goal and is affirmative action a just method of accomplishing it? What are the details of Aristotle’s theory of justice? How do values and goals relate to morality?
EPISODE 09 Part 1- Arguing Affirmative Action Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one?
Part 2 - What's the Purpose? Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest
Lecture 10: The Good Citizen
What are the strengths and weaknesses with Aristotle’s ideas about morality? What is the purpose of golf and should people be able to use golf carts? Can Aristotelian morality handle individual rights? How do we reconcile his ideas about morality with his defense of slavery?
EPISODE 10 Part 1- The Good Citizen Aristotle believes the purpose of politics is to promote and cultivate the virtue of its citizens. The telos or goal of the state and political community is the “good life”. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded. But how do we know the purpose of a community or a practice? Aristotle’s theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf. Sandel describes the case of Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, who sued the PGA after it declined his request to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour. The case leads to a debate about the purpose of golf and whether a player’s ability to “walk the course” is essential to the game.
Part 2 - Freedom Vs Fit How does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose? If our place in society is determined by where we best fit, doesn’t that eliminate personal choice? What if I am best suited to do one kind of work, but I want to do another? In this lecture, Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotle’s views on freedom—his defense of slavery as a fitting social role for certain human beings. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle’s theories and debate whether his philosophy overly restricts the freedom of individuals.
VOLUME 6
Lecture 11: The Claims of Community
This penultimate video introduces communitarianism. Are there other obligations besides respecting the freedom of other people? Do we have an obligation to membership, solidarity, and loyalty towards our family, country or society? Can these values conflict with larger moral values? Is patriotism something good or bad?
EPISODE 11 Part 1 – The Claims of Community Communitarians argue that, in addition to voluntary and universal duties, we also have obligations of membership, solidarity, and loyalty. These obligations are not necessarily based on consent. We inherit our past, and our identities, from our family, city, or country. But what happens if our obligations to our family or community come into conflict with our universal obligations to humanity?
Part 2 – Where Our Loyalty Lies Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for one’s own kind? If our identities are defined by the particular communities we inhabit, what becomes of universal human rights?
Lecture 12: Debating Same-Sex Marriage
People have different ideas about morality and worth. How do you settle real-world discussions, such as same-sex marriage. Can we decide what rights other people should and should not have without reasoned argument about justice? Can the law be neutral on hard questions? Sandel ends this final lecture by encouraging people to debate moral issues rather than avoiding them.
EPISODE 12 Part 1 – Debating Same-Sex Marriage If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a heated debate about whether same-sex marriage should be legal. Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral permissibility of homosexuality or the purpose of marriage?
Part 2 – The Good Life Sandel believes government can’t be neutral on difficult moral questions, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, and asks why we shouldn’t deliberate all issues—including economic and civic concerns—with that same moral and spiritual aspiration. In his final lecture, Professor Michael Sandel eloquently makes the case for a new politics of the common good. Engaging, rather than avoiding, the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.
These video lectures stand out in many important respects: the lecturer is highly pedagogical and extremely engaging, discusses important issues related to justice, makes time for student reaction and debate on a variety of issues and covers an extremely broad range of topics in such a small time.
If you are not all that familiar with the ethical underpinnings of political philosophy or just want a crash course on the history of moral thought, these video lectures are awesome.
