poor Raul has to tell him his name every class

Again we see ma man Raul trying to be remembered by Sandel and we can notice the disapointment on his face whe he is not. Keep trying Raul , you got 14 episodes to go

Michael Sandel should receive a Nobel Peace prize for his excellent ability to engage young minds into making informed decisions about the fundamental questions of our life in society

I'm just fascinated, binge watching everything by Michael Sandel like its a Netflix show lol

Michael Sandel never said er or um.. in all of his sentences. Which means he is a very professional presenter and citric

He drifts from one scenario to another introducing a new philosophy asking questions and engaging students in a debate which involves asking more questions and sometimes there is no answer to that question. That is called philosophy, asking questions and debating, and not necessarily finding an answer! Brilliant

Raul is the protagonist of this series and Professor Sandel is the antagonist, depriving him of the recognition he desires

at 13:40 , the coercion is not on the laborer who takes the $300 to go in place of someone who can afford to pay, but rather in the case of someone being nominated to go to war but cannot afford to buy themselves a way out.

Raul! If you don't know Raul by now then there is something wrong with you.

This is one of the most fascinating and engaging courses I've come across on KZfaq. I find myself sharing my opinions out loud and wishing I were in that class.

12:20 Raoul DOES go for a 3rd attempt to make his name known to the professor. The crowd starts to like it.

I actually got the exact amount right, I said 50 thousand dollars immediately when he first asked the question. Seems like I'm a natural talent for foetus pricing.

love seeing students being able to discuss different viewpoints instead of having shouting matches

That's Andrew's challenge Andrew's face: That's not my challenge

As a former Cav Scout I can tell you there was not one - that is zero - soldiers in my troop that wasn't there for money. Whether it was about financial decisions, or money for college we all joined for the almighty dollar. Yes we love our country. That wasn't why we joined. I don't think the Harvard kids have experienced those gut wrenching economic decisions when the Military is the only job paying enough to survive. Outstanding lectures!

Professor's gonna keep asking his name till Raool accepts his name's actually Rahul

00:40 - What are the limits on the Govt that even the agreement of the major can't override ? 02:21 - If we agree to the libertarian concept of self-possession then is it right for govt to send people to fight on borders through coercive legislation? What does Locke say in this regard - 'Arbitraryness' - Locke argues that as long as the action of the state is not arbitrary it is justified. 04:21 - Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and obligation to obey ? 05:35 - Example of US fighting in Iraq - Not enough recruitment - possible options 1. ⬆️ remuneration 2. Lottery Conscription 3. hiring mercenaries 08:59 - Civil war system - Hybrid system - Conscription + buyout was it a just system ? 11:33 - Riskier jobs are offered to marginal section of society - In this case it is not just to claim that this is choice of that person to accept the riskier job. it may be socio-economic coercion that unemployment is so rampant for this section that they are coerced to take up any job for money for sustenance. It may look like a free exchange, voluntary but it may be coercion. - this is possible justification for why most of people in army comes from sections having lower economic status 18:26 - Emily's powerful response - that seems totally just too -- Conscription might be better than all-volunteer army system where everyone has sense of responsibility and awareness of conflict rather than few individuals justifying cause of war without sense of responsibility. 21:51 - Should Patriotism be the primary motive behind military services offered by individuals ? 25:54 - V. Imp Question to mull upon - How inequalities in background conditions of society restrict choices that people in regard of buying and selling of labor. 27:44 - Role of Markets in realm of Human reproduction and procreation - advertisement for egg and sperm donors by fertility clinic - Raising the question that should egg/sperm should or shouldn't be sold or bought for the money ? 33:28 - Case of Commercial surrogate motherhood - After giving birth surrogate mother changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby. - Baby M case Another question to think about - Can surrogacy and adoption contracts be compared to baby selling? in Baby M case- Supreme courts took the stand that the contract is not enforceable - Based on the following grounds 1. lack of information regarding bond a mother might develop 2. Courts also equate it to the sale of a Child. there are some things in a civilized society that money can't buy. "by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child, It is duly compared to the effort to convert women's labor into a form of alienated labor." - by Elizabeth Anderson

Michael always does a great job extrapolating the thoughts of the students sometimes poorly expressed thoughts. This is the first time I saw an argument go a little side ways it looked like one of the students pointed out the injustice of a poor man being conscripted not having the wealth outsource their duty as compared to say Carnegie but the lecture went sideways and focused on the legitimate transaction between the wealthy and the merc

39:28 That girl in the back was so shocked to what the speaker said hahaahhahaha

I feel like they never got around to the root of the issue concerning the civil war system. The crux of the matter rests on is it right that people can circumvent the equality of law by buying the right to do so? No money should not be able to buy you freedom from the law

"There is an undeniable emotional bond between mother and child." I would love for this to be the case 100% of the time, but sadly it isn't. Mothers wouldn't leave their babies in trash bins if there was "an undeniable emotional bond."

He has written a great book titled "What Money Can't Buy" talks about the morality of flood insurance, prostitution (as a commodity just like any other) etc. Written with the same insight and philosophical grounding as seen in these lectures.

I literally watched this episode to see if the professor remembers Raul’s name..... But damn!!! Poor Raul.

I just started my masters and i felt this video more engaging and knowledgeable then almost all of my bachelors classes. This was an assignment for my first master class. I hope it follows suite.

These students are privileged to have opportunity to sit under such a gifted and stimulating instructor

Never thought I would be so invested his his lectures . I got this on my recommend.. and I binged to this point in one sitting . I absolutely love it. Will definitely continue to follow his lectures

13:09 That's Emily Riehl. I though I had seen her somewhere before, then I realised she was on Numberphile and she is a Mathematician now.

College kids talking about the motivations of the military is adorable... their innocent naivety warms my heart and proves they are worth defending lol... but no matter what brings you on to the battlefield, things like money and patriotism become incidental details fast. You fight for the person next to you who is keeping you alive. That isn’t a moral statement, just a statement about battlefield psychology so to speak. Whether the mission everyone is out defending each other on is just or not is a decision Raul was supposed to have voted on before we went (assuming he was 18).

Any philosphy ending up with a state where propety is sacrosanct yet life can be taken sounds sorely lacking to me !

At 11:00, I think Sandel misinterprets Sam's argument. I think Sam is saying that if a poor person loses the lottery and must buy their way out, and they can't afford that, then they are effectively forced to serve in the military. What I think Sandel is interpreting Sam to have said is that if a poor person does not lose the lottery but is so poor as to need the money they could earn from serving as a substitute, that person is coerced into serving. I think Sandel's interpretation fails: if you get offered two jobs "A" and "B", both paying well enough that you escape your situation of need if you take either one, and each requiring enough of your time that you can't take the other, what are you coerced into doing? Nothing? Taking none? Taking both? Taking job A? I think the right answer is that you're required by necessity to choose a job and take it. But that means, in the military example, that to the extent those who don't lose the lottery have other acceptable job offers available, they are not coerced. Note also it is the poverty of the person which determines whether or not something is required by necessity: if the payment for job A is large enough to alleviate the necessity, having job B pay more than job A does not make taking job B more required than taking job A-since it is the necessity which brings about the requirement, it is the alleviation of the necessity, which both jobs do, which removes the requirement. (Of course, if you're poor you might run into future necessities and be more likely to take the higher paying job to shield against that, but that is a different scenario.)

His classes are amazing. I am in love with Philosophy, Economics, and Cognitive Neuroscience. In all cases we are challenging these fields in our decision making process. Sublime! 👽♥️♥️♥️

This kid Raul is pretty impressive with his argument! ..I’m rooting for him every time! 👍🏼

Proposal: "Suppose that a US citizen sold his/her right to vote to an illegal immigrant. Is that ethical?"

Fascinating lecture! I wish someone could address the following question: What would happen if the adoptive parents decided that they didn't feel a bond toward the child and renege on the contract? Would the biological mother be required to take care of the child then? Would the contract be unenforceable in such a situation as well using the same objections?

A lot of people seem to be arguing about the emotional welfare of the biological mother, but don't talk about the emotions of the wife who couldn't bear children, who had to ask another woman for help, but then that woman backed out on her and essentially tried to take the child that this other woman may have been trying for years to have.

Paying the other person to fight for you if drafted is fair for both parties, but extremely unfair to others who are drafted who can't afford to pay someone.

Am I the only one who thinks these lectures are even more exciting than movies ? :)

These lectures are exactly what I love to listen to. Thank you!

Dear Harvard. More of these lectures please! I´m thoroughly enjoying this, as are many of my friends. greetings from holland

In the discussion of the 'civil war' conscription system, I felt one argument was overlooked. By giving the poor the option to be 'bought' the government actually places a burden upon them - similar to "allowing" children the right to work in a factory - as was the case in America's industrialization period. Removing the option for being bought is the most ethical choice.

Very interesting courses on youtube. And Im glued on my tablet watching Prof Sandel hour after hour!

"...no guns, no schoolshooting, but i understand if there are alligators, then we have to defend ourselves from alligators

Dr. Jacobson was the highlight of the day with his personal touch Lol... Justice Michael classes indeed are the most educational on you tube well done Sir. from Africa. Kenya.

Patriotism is essentially intrinsic motivation whereas being paid to go fight in a war is an extrinsic motivation. They are *both* motivational factors that drives an individual to do something and are both valid motivational factors. You simply cannot argue that one is better than the other, as honestly there isn't one that is better as it is entirely dependent on the individual, the activity, etc etc.

By far this was the most interesting video in series (don't know about next, now), I hope more people will watch this

The Consent by Majority in Politics and Decision by the legitimate Government

I agree entirely. He's has a very bright set of student's. However, one still requires the ability to engage. I like his method of teaching . He doesn't simply 'lecture'.

I'm amazed at that poll. That says a lot about the general view of recruitement for the army. Most Harvard students have family in the army. Very amazing. I would want to see an explanation for that.

39:20 the girl in the background is a cracking me up😂😂😂 and all the consequent scenes that follow after that where she talks.

Must be the coolest Professor I have seen. Crowd control at its finest! Smarter than expected. Wow! He could be an actor in a movie. Acting as scientist.

Sandel: "Who has an answer to that?" Raul: pick me pick me Raul: "I agree with him" -_-

Excellent teaching & learning atmosphere.

When he said "let alone a general" all I could think of was the classic "potion seller" skit. The phrase "let alone ____" is forever linked to that skit (for better or worse depending on one's personal inclinations). Thanks, Justin Kuritzkes, you absolute legend.

Knowledge educate growing attitude and attitude growth everything. Thank you somuch.

Raoul is always in it and Sandel can never be bothered remembering his name haha

Michael Sandel: What is your name? Raul: Raul Michael Sandel: Just accept it! Raul: Accept what? Michael Sandel: That your name is actually Rahul!

Certain goods can't be the price of money but must be treasured with love, honor, & respect.

I'm truly enjoying these lectures. Thanks for the video

damn - emily kicked everyone's ass.

Lovely lectures with most engaging topics of life and reason.:)

Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

This is gem of courses, greatful HLS

The coercion isn't of the person giving consent to fight. The coercion is of the draftee who cannot pay a consenting individual and who does not give any explicit consent to risk their life. Carnegie was able to buy his way out of his imposition and yet any regular person would not be able to do that. They are coerced.

that girl behind kathline is appalled by her answer and the ruthlessness in the way she says the contract needs to be enforced here :v

Volunter Army is the best.The Army is managed by the Government and Patriotrism is the Motivating factor

I would rather to have professors who are able to give more interesting and fascinating lectures!

Best reaction shot: 39:22 The shocked look of the girl over her right shoulder at her comment. 44:44 Vivian FTW! "Cause that what happens..." LOL Harvard, MORE, please?

Andrew's the lucky star ✨ He even got credit for the 1st argument which he didn't make.

I love his lessons , every time

I remember reading about Jacobson in the newspaper and the key thing that was discussed was the children's rights to child support from the father.

In the case of Carnegie and hybrid approach to the northern military, is it not unjust because it allows those who gain the most from the consensual majority to continue benefiting notwithstanding responsibility?

He is a Lannister!

I like that the professor takes all points

That’s funny as shit he just distinguished them all as upper middle class/rich in one question about the military and family.

I would LOVE going to class if he was my professor.

Yeah, I bet. I'm just saying that there needs to be more professors like him in universities. It would really encourage students to come to class with the way that he teaches.

I Love Catherine's content with her response

This is engaging and so necessary... To insatiable minds anyway. Enjoying it like it were a great show.

I feel like Professor Sandel is silently judging most of these students.

What I would say on the surrogate mother case: "Contracts are only valid as long as they are legal. I can't make a contract with person A that I will murder person B, and it won't be valid in the eyes of the law. You cannot make a contract that is inconstitutionnal, much like Locke said that the fundamental right to self ownership is unalienable. If it can be demonstrated that taking away a child from her mother, without her consent, is against the chart of fundamental right by the UN or by the states, then this contract is invalidated. I still think that the couple that bought the surrogate pregnancy should be refunded in full". And I quote the universal chart of human rights that is upheld by the united nations, whcih the USA is a part of and should enforce; article 14: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." So, even by the liberalist point of view, unalienable rights are being violated by this contract, rendering it invalid.

Awwwwsome. This is a brilliant professor. Those who have this gentleman as a teacher do not ask question just thank God and run with it. May God bless him and his family eternally.

Your doing great prestation sir.

I really liked Emily's note on the coercion in modern societies. However, I must admit the whole debate in the first part of this episode makes me sad. It seems that, even for well-educated and self-aware people, war, violence and mutual aggression are unavoidable. I would prefer to watch a discussion on how to make the world a peaceful place, rather than how to make people fight for something completely worthless. The only thing left is hope.

These students seem to be failing to see why the civil war system was a violation of the social contract. If, by Locke's logic, conscription is justified if and when it is not arbitrary, then the civil war system violates this principle. The difference is that rather than making the conscription an arbitrary governmental decision, individuals are chosen arbitrarily by those with economic advantage. If the goal of justifying conscription is to make sure it is not an arbitrary system, should it be permissible for those with economic advantage to use said advantage to avoid civic duty?

Andrew has a valid point. That law is really unenforceable.

Good Professor. Very good.

The man would have never contributed the sperm had he known that he would not get his baby. The baby was the sole reason why he agreed to contribute his sperm. This case is a little different from donating sperms for commercial purposes. This aspect has not been properly dealt by the courts in delivering judgments. . .

He is Tywin Lannister with Stuarts (from Big Bang Theory) mannerisms. XD

The conscription system with buyout is MORE UNJUST than regular conscription, because in a conscription system, everyone has equal probability of being sent to war, but in the civil war system, a. If a wealthy person gets drafted, he doesn't have to go to war, he simply buys out a substitute who is in desperate need of money. b. If a poor gets drafted, he would have no option afterall but to go to war. So, it not just includes the factor of COERCION but also the UNJUST system that reflects discrimination .

Every part of my being, wishes I could have been an active participant in this discussion. I would have posed to Professor sandel and to the room..... "how many of you have served in Iraq?" "i served 2 back to back tours in Iraq, 2 tours in Afghanistan as a Combat Medic" "I wasn't bound by social economic gains, but to experience the very worst in humanity and to view the social disorder and failure of diplomacy in the western world"

39:21 look at the reaction of the girl in the background

37:18 is the only person till episode 5 who tells his second name as well..

11:04 He's so nervous, he's literally shaking.

IMPORTANT POINTS ❤️❤️❤️ The government is an institution that makes political decisions on running a country. The government performs various functions such as maintain law and order, provide basic facilities, take action on social issues, protect the boundaries, undertake relief measures, make rules for everyone, etc. The government has economic presence also. Social welfare is possible only when there is economic prosperity. Infrastructure refers to the basic structure or requirement for the development of an economy. For, electricity, health, education, etc?👍👍👍👍👍

If the biological mother of the child had 2 other children previously, then she should have known the strength of the bond that she was going to have with the new one. So, I don't think that the "tainted consent" argument is a good one.

With regards to the Motherhood lecture (considering the scenario given, and not the outcome that occurred after the contract was invalidated). If contracts lose their credibility over someone's feelings and lack of emotional awareness, however strong they may be, how far can this go? I also question why the feelings of the non-biological parents aren't factored in. -Mrs Stern had Multiple Sclerosis, so chose not to have her own baby. Imagine that feeling; giving birth would mean a difficult life for the child, so you choose a surrogate. Nine months preparing to find out you still can't have a child. -Mr Stern gave a part of his being, his sperm, on the condition that he would receive the child. In voiding the contract, you are violating his right to his own body. It's presumptuous to only consider the feelings on one individual involved. Personally, I believe a compromise should be made in such cases; e.g. monetary compensation or split custody.

But still I am impressed how he always picks up on the different names throughout the whole discourse.

39:20......That face in the background says it all.

Maybe it is a cruel thing to say, but when people struggle for survival, they don't care about patriotism. Patriotism for the sake of patriotism is crap. Nobody cares about that anymore. The values of the society have changed, everybody cares for themselves before anyone else. The question is not which is the moral, the right solution for the army. The fact is it is necessary because of the society we live in. War sucks. Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is dumb. I don't want a soldier that runs in the face of the enemy out of madness or a martyr sacrifice, I want a soldier who is able to fight and withstand adversities until the idiots who have decided we need a war have had enough of it. If we would have lived in the era of knights(at least how it is portrayed in movies), maybe honor(not patriotism) would have had a word to say, but in this era, money talks and money does. If there's somebody patriotic out there, they are free to enroll. Either way, people are going to die. If there is something to debate here that is which would be the best actions we could take, with the best probable outcome, in which we should treat a future situation of that sort (Consider Ukraine 2014). Because without battles, we need no army. If we are to talk about the American army, people should know the world basically thinks they kind of butt in everywhere. They don't fight just for the Americans, so patriotism is not really the issue. We don't mind if they fight our battles, but let's admit they follow their own interests (like oil in Irak) also.I accept the society we live in, because I know when push come to shove they will probably be our only chance. A great leader has its weaknesses, but nobody is perfect, so I would have USA over Russia anytime of the day. 25 years after our communist revolution(Romania), ignorant as I was, I thought the world has become a little smarter than to fight and kill for God knows what, but I realize as long as power overwhelms some and the masses lack better knowledge, the world and peace are a fragile. If you really want a solution to war, educate the masses.Teach them to think for themselves, not what the society teaches them to think. If there are not enough people desperate enough to fight their war, I hope that will at least improve things in some way. I was reading Isaac Asimov's foundation series and wondering whether the "dude" got the future right - a future in which science turns into religion and we turn it into such an art that intelligence in few is able to surpass the numbers and establish a previously planned future path for humanity. Books may not be just science-fiction.

How does Professor Sandel still not remember Raúl’s name? 😂