As far as I'm concerned, Michael Sandel is the most influential philosopher nowadays

if you can't play by the standards set to the game, then you do not have any word to change the rules for your own benefit- do not play any competition, play for passion if you play only to win, you must be equal first

Love how this debate about 'justice' never asks the question of how did we get our hands on the pile of the very best flutes to begin with.

"Honesty is the best of all lost arts" ~Mark Twain (para phrase)

I can't believe this has only 970 likes. I think it should go viral. So pertinent too, now in 2022.

Best. Orator. Ever. And his debate and philosophy are quite good. And they even have these videos online!

if you don't provide flutes to everyone who is interested, then how will they learn to play the flute to their best abilities in the first place? equal opportunity in an area of interest is a must in a society for its advancement in my opinion.

The things he says after being questioned are really what we should be aiming for with education today.

Government is simply the institutionalized way large societies come to collective actions. As long as benefits or restrictions are attached to conditions and actions, government of some form is required. What's sad is that the conversation hardly begins until it rises to the SCOTUS level, where real discussion happens anymore.

I'm starting to think the future of education resides in channels like this. This is just the beginning. I mean if people are willing to make free content, why not have 100% free education for anyone who wants it(and with a connection)? Screw degrees and grades. Channels like this have made me realize my intrinsic desire to just learn. Kids have been conditioned to hate learning, which is a shame.

LOVE this......if only we could learn to give validation to everyone's viewpoints and beliefs ............if only........what wonders we could imagine....

Holy crap, the speaker lets the audience talk? this is a change :D

This talk is marvelous!

Michael would be ashamed of political debate in 2020. Oh how far it has gone downhill since 2013.

Well I'll be damned, if it isn't my old buddy Michael Sandel who I got to know from the Harvard course 'Justice'. This is bound to be an engaging speech.

Fantastic talk.

If you apply this to marrige: Reproduction outside marriage is better than reproduction inside marriage at pure procreation. Therefore marrige is an inferior activity for procreation than not marrige. From this there are two paths: 1) Marriage should not be conducted for purposes of procreation because it is inferior to the alternative. 2) Marriage is not inferior, therefore we have to accept pure procreation is not the purpose of marriage. I cannot see how clearer can this be.

Don't hate, dude! Tolerate those 70% of medieval people on this world.

i just finished reading his book "justice". :D

WHAT DO WE WANT?? Respectful Discourse! WHEN DO WE WANT IT?? Now is good for me, what do you think?

I agree.. it's not about who is right or who is wrong. It is about moving on. Creating. Doing. It is not about words and who wins the best argument. The best argument is worth nothing if it doesn't work being put into action. We need to take action instead or argue. We need to go on an do. It's the best way to learn! Doesn't matter if it works. If it doesn't we can scratch it off the list instead of debating 20 years about it. Action is a lesson learned quickly. Arguing is a lesson never learned

He never excluded himself from "people". And the generalizing is something we always do, as a way to try and understand the world around us. That in itself is not a problem. The problem arises if someone doesn't question the generalizations they have made. If we don't know the reasoning behind other people's convictions, we can't compare our own thoughts and opinions.

I think that perhaps we're confusing the secular notion of "marriage" and the religious notion of "marriage." Our society recognizes the rights of a couple as being different when that couple is "married" vs. a couple that isn't. With the rights and privileges in our system assigned by the law based on being "married," that term has great importance within our legal system. If we changed the term "married" in the law to "joined" (or something) we could let marriage be a religious term only.

The idea of marriage may be out-dated, but tax breaks aren't.

I was just about to compliment the youtube community on having a serious discussion without rage or trolls...

Congress shall make no law regarding the enforcement of a religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. Gay mariage is a religious issue and civil law should allow it.

{The argument against Gay Marriage... is really not defensible.} The problem is that the govt has gotten involved in a religious institution in the first place. Its as if the govt made a mechanism to recognize sainthood, and then started deeming who were saints. All the govt should grant is - not even civil unions, but honor private contracts made between individuals. The whole problem with marriage is that it is a vague contract, and should not stand for those reasons.

{ ...the institution of marriage is detrimental to that quality, because it creates a stigma against procreating outside it.} Getting warmer. Marriage is designed to protect the offspring, and its goal is to provide stability, so of course there is an intentional stigma against the lack of that stability, but this in no way is a broad-based snub at procreation as you have depicted it.

{Gay mariage is a religious issue and civil law should allow it.} The govt should not recognize any form of private contract with the goal of elevating the status of the parties in the public sphere. Marriage has been ruined because it now means "until I change my mind". Its ridiculous. The real discrimination going on here is against committed couples who decided NOT to marry.

God dammit TED! Why is the by far the best channel on youtube?!

If you think marriage in business terms, a marriage is just a merge between two or more companies. A child is a by-product of that merge but not necessary the cause of the merge. A union means conclusive - merges to one, the child emerges only after the union therefore it is not part of the original union.

i simply enjoyed the irony of generalizing the generalizing.. nothing more. no need to get philosophicalish

If someone told you that they are married to a donut, what does that mean? It should mean an acknowledgement of a civil union, not raising a half donut half human; parenting can exist independently with or without marriage therefore marriage has nothing to do with parenting. The process of raising a child is called parenthood.If someone told you they are marriage, what's the first thing that comes to your mind? that they're raising a child? So someone who is not raising a child is not married?

Note how gay marriage debate points require the marginalization of children in marriage. We could say that both things are essential and still make a great argument for traditional marriage, it is only when children in intact biological families are marginalized that gay marriage becomes somehow required. Going to religion, as you have, is ignoring the argument to make a popular emotional appeal.

Scalia didn't question the underlying Aristotelian philosophy, but, rather, pointed out that the rules of a game are arbitrary. The speakers reading ability seems too impaired to point tease this out of the statement. Or, he just hates Scalia. Probably hates Scalia, in fact.

stubbornness and personal benefits.

Too bad politicians have the power and people don't. Politicians have the powers no other man really can have - decide what is good or bad by writing laws and enforce them with threats. Democracy should not be legitimized coercion by any group - not even politicians.

I've never understood why people stay in love with people that are not worthy of them. Neither have I ever understood why non homophobic people want to be married in a religious ritual that fundamentally hate them. I'm not gay, but I'm never getting married anyway. Marriages are as medieval as horsecarts.

Is is why he is Harvard professor of the most attended class at that University ( Justice ) brilliant

Uh... I think that maybe we agree...? People "proclaiming love" and being recognized in some legal way, if equivalent to "marriage," is exactly what I'm advocating for... As for the benefits of a "union"... Not sure, but I don't think that simple terminology is really the problem. The problem is that some people either fit the definition of "together" or they don't... Someone that's with someone else for 20 years has a much better claim on marriage than someone only a few days into it...

We must evolve away from statism and into a new paradigm- a paradigm which doesn't involve aggressive force. A paradigm of universal morality. I think we have all forgotten about the Golden Rule. Such a simple concept, if observed by everyone, has the power to change the world overnight. We need to ditch statism and adopt a new powerful paradigm.

Well, let me phrase it in the form of a question then: What degree of potential emotional harm should we be willing to expose children to in order to satisfy another partys desire to adopt? In raw numbers, what percentage of traumatized children is an acceptable amount?

Wouldn't you say that lobbyists and big corporations have the power? Perhaps it's money that has the power in the end, seeing as it tends to sway the decisions of the politicians.

I hate Scalia, but I agree with him on this one topic.

I like the argument, that golf is just a game, not productive and therefor impossible to decide whever a rule can be allowed or not. The reason for that is, that all pleasures in this world serve a purpose in helping us refilling our productive capacaties and without them our productivity would probably be lower.

It's called a civil partnership.

Yea it’s called total censorship of those deemed too extreme

I concede with you that the democratic and republican parties are imperfect but I don't agree that we should fix that with another party).What we need is a partyless system of democracy.All parties do is divide government and as a very wise Abraham Lincoln once said was "a house divided on itself can't stand".

Marriage is a family commitment. Family is the best environment to raise a child in and is very important. I am not gay and I am also a christian.However I believe that if homosexuals wish to get married then why shouldn't they. A real Christian hates no one and judges no one. We can't condemn people for being how they are. I love gay people as friends, they are good people. However as a Christian my belief is in a resurrection from death into the Kingdom of God and repentance is how you get in.

Leaving our moral beliefs aside before we enter politics... bad idea. They seem to do this constantly and it leads to great scandal. You should only elect people who can adapt to the truth... certainly... but, you want someone who is well formed in the first place.

LOL, because the population isn't already doubling every what, 35 years? Yes so horrible to dent that number

Sir is an Angel❤❤❤

:) Oh, you! The thing is, most of the "benefits" that come with "marriage" are simply allowances for the one spouse to "speak" for the other. But, I'm really not sure what the benefits are that you're talking about. Things like being included on the health insurance, or making medical decisions when the other spouse is incapacitated, or owning the same property, taking care of the children, etc. All "benefits" of marriage. Limiting those benefits would eliminate the entire notion of marriage.

You can't argue democratically when you're involved yourself by either money, emotionally or whatever.

The essential and purpose of marriage cannot be for procreation, for procreation can be done without the institution of marriage. If procreation is the thing worth honoring and recognizing, then arguably the institution of marriage is detrimental to that quality, because it creates a stigma against procreating outside it. Therefore the aim of marriage is either 1) something not procreation or 2) a kind of procreation that is unique to marrige, e.g. where children are raised by a man and woman.

The act of raising a child is filled with such numerous determining factors and complexities, I don't think you can simply assume all children of gay couples will face stigma and therefore this is enough to prevent them from raising children. It is almost like saying black parents should not be having children because the racism is too strong to subject a child to.

{Therefore the aim of marriage is either ...} There is no therefore, for all your premises are flawed.

We would have to discuss the essential nature of the person. This is a good root for natural rights. Then, we could discuss the essential nature of the government. These are good ideas you triggered, but the results are not generally liberal moral results. I have actually undertaken this task myself.

It is a big wonder, at least to me, why we as a human race 2000+ years later need to relearn the art of thinking from a Greek philosopher who had already figured it out 2000+ years ago.

Maybe we don't agree... My thoughts are that someone that's gay should be able to do all of the the things that the government would recognize, basically being "married" to whoever he/she wanted... And the churches that don't like that would be free to continue to not like that... But the civil union model (or whatever you call it) would be ready to recognize everyone in the civil realm (i.e. civil government) that's willing to commit to an "enduring" union. Not sure what else to do here...

I would let him use a golf cart, and anyone else use a golf cart to make it fair, so long as the golf carts where not used during anyone's shot. And didn't destroy the course therefore if a ball lands in a bit that was not previously damaged giving them a disadvantage or possible a advantage. So some way to make sure the carts didn't change the state of play.

If the rules indicate that walking is part of the game... and the SCOTUS decides otherwise... it would similarly be fine for the court to do so in any other game. It makes more sense if you look at the Aristotelian nature of GAMES rather than GOLF, otherwise, we might need to accommodate basketball players who can dribble... but can shoot... To claim that Scalia was anti-Aristotelian is very dishonest.

I used the word "benefit" but I was also including the notion of "rights" If someone is sick their married spouse is able to make medical decisions for them. If they are in a "civil partnership" they can't. This is true for many of the rights that married people have. And I'm not advocating for the people that "decide not to get married" - consider instead the people that would love to get married and declare their commitment to each other. But are prevented from doing so because they are gay.

"Ahh, so the primary purpose of TNT is not to blow shit up, because we have Atom Bombs. Are you one of those people who shun logic altogether or whats going on here?" You are right, the essential purpose of TNT is not to destroy things, but destroy in the way TNT can - cheaply, small-scale and without radiation. That is why it is used in construction projects. On the other hand, the purpose of atom bombs is to destroy things a different way. But you are also wrong; I do not shun logic.

Overpopulation is a very very real issue Humanity is facing. Groups of people not reproducing is fine. This also begs the question if a man and woman get married and find out they can't make children should they be forced to divorce? They aren't reproducing.

I'm not saying that the golf decision was wrong, it may be that in deciphering golf, which is a specific thing to do when making a decision on golf, not considering walking essential seemed important. I think giving in to the golf cart is a type of politically motivated emotional decision, on the face of it, because player actions on the playing field always seem to be regulated... even if for commercial purposes... it seems natural to move larger scale to the nature of GAMEs in general.

My bad, my comment wasn't worded well. I meant that he (a person) generalized about a group of people. I did not mean that all people generalize about different groups of people.

you americans are so lucky; for a much smaller countries such as mine (South Korea), things you call "poor debates on our televisions" are considered luxuary here... rationalism and adultic approach in policies are much more rarely to be found that happens when tv program producers and reporters can't make enough money by making legimate quality debates and deep-inspected policy articles, because the fact that the percentages of people who care about those stuffs are low makes bigger deal here, because total population is much smaller

Too bad people generalize about groups of people.

Your objection is weak, for in face indeed the essential purpose of jokes cannot be to induce laughter, for there are more effective ways of inducing it. For example, laughing gas or tickling. Therefore the essential purpose of telling jokes is 1)something that is not inducing laughter or 2) a kind of laughter that is unique to jokes. 2) is the answer to what is the essential nature of jokes. I am guessing it is the kind of laughter that showcases the excellence of wit and sense of humour.

I only wanted to prove that supporters of heterosexual marige needed to prove that raising children with a mother and father is the purpose of marrige. I think you agree with me that you need to prove this, and provided the beginning of an arguement by nature. Thomas aquainas and many other philospjers have already begun this, but this is beyond the scope of my aim.

My case still stands. If procreation cannot be the purpose of marrige, for there are far more effective ways of doing it, and thus marrige would be a poor institution to uphold, one that does not displays the exellence of its purpose. n order for someone to argue heterosexual marriage on procreation grounds, they need to prove that the purpose of marrige is to proceate in a way that generates children with 2 opposite sex parents.

Yup...we totally have an extremely low number of human beings...

You can find full lectures @apple store for free under Harvard justice.

If indeed gay couples are proven to be the same as straight couples for rearing children, then this shows proponents of straight marriage cannot use the rearing children argument to support their case. If you think marriage should exclusively be a private agreement, then having the legal institution of marriage is inappropriate and should be abolished, since it only serves to needlessly involve public parties should issues arise. Then marriage would not be a legal issue at all.

Almost - not really, for that would be denying their natural rights, which adoption is not. As for your first point, not all speeders need get in accidents for us to prohibit speeding. Keep the children out of it.

You said that if Z can do Y better than X, then the primary purpose of X cannot be Y. You also said that the primary purpose of marriage cannot be reproduction because reproduction outside of marriage happens more freely- more abundantly. So I was just saying that forced impregnantion (slavery) is a more baby producing method than either, reducing your argument to the absurd. YT: The State and the Family - Our Political, Economic and Social Decay

While the examples given bare an interesting discussion, he sidesteps the main issue in his examples, specifically the role of government in these activities. Is the SCOTUS qualified to rule on golf? Should Congress be deciding what marriage means for everyone? I think it should be left for individuals to decide and not governments.

Oh, I think Marriage is a right, gay or not - I was making the point that objections are usually either honestly described as religious OR just dishonestly described. As for the first amendment, the free practice of an individuals religion isn't harmed by the Government not weighing in on a religious position. Does marriage serve a secular purpose and should the secular laws that govern marriage apply equally to all? I think the answer is yes. Let the Churches worry about the religious aspects.

To assert that is to reject the aristotlean principle of finding the single function of an activity in the first place which is what this video is about. This then actually supports the homosexual marrige, for there would be no ground for opoments to argue against it regarding the purpose of marrige as heterosexual.

There's many legal advantages to getting marriage: filling joint taxes, being eligible for health benefits from your spouse and being allowed to see you spouse in the hospital and make decisions when needed, just to name a few. & same sex couples are denied these and many other privileges that married couples have in areas where they can't marry (or get a civil union). I do think a lot of things about marriages are antiquated, but I also feel it can evolve & that it should be a choice for all.

May I inform you that was exactly my fucking point. Defenders of heterosexual marriage must clearly articulate what is the purpose of marriage and why the special type of procreation inside a hetereosexual marrige is worth elevating and encouraging. This is a very hard thing to do. And I would like to point out another flaw in your rebutta. Notice I said "procreation outside marriage" not 'procreation at leisure". What I wrote actually includes forced impregnation.

take his justice class on edx. you won't regret it.

I meant inclusive, not conclusive... I don't know but it seems like to me that we are living in a more inclusive world, such as the stuff you see on television about gay atheletes, churches marrying gay people, and it's only a matter of time when all this will be a non-issue. Are you going to be that person x years from now that said "yeah, I was against gay marriage when they over-turned it x years ago and I still am!" :) Cause you know it's coming... might as well just take it like a man.

I'm just saying every activity has multiple functions. I never mentioned marriage.

The golf example reminds me of that picture that says 'equality to a conservative and to a liberal'. KZfaq won't let me post it, so google it

Interesting that none of the arguments actually had anything to do with what someone deserves.

it's true to what you are saying, but marriage is more than just symbolic and traditional. It's tax cuts and other civil rights, that certain folks are denying to gay folks. i do agree that it is weird that same sex marriages follow the same procedures of religious traditions, when those certain religions condemn them to hell

I think the general problem with your angle is if we assume the affirmative: Lets say marriage was an institution absolutely focused on the effective production and rearing of children exclusively... does that make the gay marriage argument any less valid? This is just a public fight over the meaning of what should be a private agreement that suits the parties involved, whatever that is. Most of the social recognition of marriage strikes me as supremicism really.

Can't it be argued that instead of producing humans, gay couples improve the human race? Obviously they can't create a child of their own but they can adopt a child and raise them with good values. That child will most likely grow up to be straight, thus passing on these good morals and traits. Regardless, there are a ton of people in the world already. People of the same sex marrying each other won't decrease the population significantly.

So I'm guessing his idea of global democratic debate never happened?

(X)TNT may be "better" than (Z)Nukes in some cases when Z is impossible to obtain. Sure, if Z can do everything X can and is obtainable, that (In this case) doesn't make X useless, chances are X is cheaper, and even if not, X still has value as a chemical ingredient to learn about. Nothing in life has a single use and can only be used for that, TNT might be used as decoration for one person, and Nukes as a power source for someone else. You can't compare anything perfectly and find a better one.

I would have to strongly disagree with the golf analogy that the speaker presented. Golf, like many other sports, requires tremendious amount of dexerity if one wants to compete in the highest level, especially where you get paid milions. Small minute things, such as holding your breath for example, could mean the difference of winning and losing. Therefore, if one doesn't already have the trimendious talent to compete with someone else who does... the PGA should allow me to implant cyborg-arms.

Well that just is not true. The job of a politician is to make decisions for the greater good. Just because some politicians observation of what the greater good is does not make them evil nor does it make them good. A politician who does not agree with same sex marriage for example is not evil, they just have a different idea on what the general public wants, however that does not mean they are correct.

well done. generalize the generalizing.

Unfortunately, marriage caries certain legal benefits that cannot be overlooked.

Your model is the same as my model - looks like we agree after all! :) Let the Government worry about "Government stuff" like rights and benefits - whatever you want to call the recognition (i.e. "union") it would effectively be the same for everyone... Let the Church worry about the "Church stuff" like the "God endorsement" - find a church willing to recognize your "marriage" and you can have a "God endorsed" "marriage" too... But we need to change the law to equate "union" and "marriage"

take his justice course on edx.

First, your langauge is slightly inaccurate, I am not talking about how good someone is at X but not good at Y, or 'being superior at X' as you put it. I am talking about the activity X itself effectiveness for a purpose. The logic of my original comment is perfectly clear. Activity X is better than Activity Y at purpose P Therefore Y is an inferior activity with regards to P. This is the end, but I have a second condition: Y is not an inferior activity. This contradiction is the proof

The argument against Gay Marriage, unless based on religious grounds, is really not defensible. All of the arguments I can think of are actually false when examined. i.e. procreation: so a sterile male-female couple shouldn't be allowed to be married? Raising of children: an abusive dysfunctional "normal" marriage is preferable to a loving same sex marriage as an example of how to behave? I could go on... Seems like an excuse to engage in bigoted behavior and imposing religious values on others.