Finding the Common Good with Michael Sandel

Political philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel talks about his latest book, "The Tyranny of Merit: Can We Find the Common Good?" Sandel reflects deeply on the fundamental moral principles behind our political institutions and democratic society. His books on justice, democracy, ethics, and markets have been translated into more than 30 languages. He has been described as “a rock star moralist” and “the world’s most influential living philosopher.” Recorded on 02/07/2023. [4/2023] [Show ID: 38718]
Donate to UCTV to support informative & inspiring programming:
www.uctv.tv/donate
More from: Burke Lectureship on Religion and Society
(www.uctv.tv/burke)
00:00 Start
04:50 Michael Sandel Main Talk
54:56 Discussion and Q&A
Explore More Humanities on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/humanities)
The humanities encourage us to think creatively and explore questions about our world. UCTV explores human culture through literature, history, ethics, philosophy, cinema and religion so we can better understand the human experience.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)

[@malikmukhtar3099]

Thought provoking and good concept by Prof Michel Sandel comteporary great political philosopher. Thank u for a good lecture.❤

[@emmma326]

Thank you Professor Sandel.

[@forceforgood4669]

This lecture was a necessary challenge to the common misconceptions. It sure made me examine some of mine. It is this kind of thought provoking ideas that help us to improve the overarching systems of our common good. Great lecture, thank you.

[@jirehla-ab1671]

Does this system include private ownserhip? Ho abt rethinking how we structure families since nuclear families uphold capitalism too though.

[@waynemcmillan5970]

Sandel is one of the greatest political philosophers of our time. Thank you for a stimulating event.

[@31spring]

Most insightful, thank you Prof Sandel.

[@Yukiyau-NgaLai11128]

Thank you very much for the lessons on justice from professor Michael Sandel, definitely educational with in-depth analysis, which can help us build a better future together ❤

[@veroniquechateauneu8525]

Thank you so much for sharing this conference. I wish it were translated into french to grasp every word of it.

[@moskav4918]

I am so very thankful this this lecture and audience participation was recorded, so that the average person could listen to it and benefit from this serious and robust discussion. I agree that Professor Michael Sandel is an 'essential worker' and an excellent orator. This is a much needed conversation that should be heard around the country in all kinds of venues. Thank you so very much again, University of California, for hosting Professor Sandel and making this discussion possible!❤

[@katereggacollins569]

Wow, thanks Prof Sandel. You've indeed done justice to the topic

[@amyrosenold-music-healing-yoga]

Prior to just yesterday, upon first hearing of Micheal Sandel, searching for, finding, and listening to this presentation, I was not aware that such a position as public philosopher exists in modern society. I'd heard that in ancient days, kings would consult with philosophers to help them form their public policies. it is with something like a moral and spiritual sigh of relief that I learn of this man, who is respected, listened to, and taken seriously for his carefully thought out diagnosis of what ails modern capitalist society. Now if only whoever our equivalent of kings are, would listen, heed, and implement his profound societal remedies, we'd really have something to look forward to, rather than the greedy getting greedier and the desperate getting more desperate.

[@moskav4918]

Well said! I couldn't have said better myself. Thank you for your insightful comments.

[@whitedog0007]

The “debate” happens in Flint, Michigan every month with the help and support of the public library, U of M-Flint, local colleges, and the community at large. It is wonderful and insightful.

[@grammasha5109]

Exactly what i was thinking: why not use public libraries as a place to assemble and consider the common good, and debate what that means locally.

[@KaiWatson]

It's like Habermas and Rorty talk about-- the goal isn't, "a more level playing field" necessarily but rather a of preserving the, "effective means of communication with a high availability of evidence..." which enables an, "effective means" of mediating the threat of fledgling authoritarianism by creating a kind of buffer around the individuals and communities that are threatened. The issues I have are: 1) How can the, "effective means of communication" be preserved in what Clinton referred to in the 08' election as, "the deplorables" (?) which make up a an impressive majority of the country? 2) How do we deal with the obvious counter arguments that might be presented like, "well do you want a more or less qualified doctor, lawyer, engineer, insert thing here?" How do we deal with the potential for, "mutings of the more qualified artist(s) or the John Galts?

[@jan-erikjones9376]

Thank you for this!

[@emmma326]

This is a link on Paul Lafargue to further the conversation.

[@nbme-answers]

5:07 start

[@tonygaytan9848]

Michael for your purpose!

[@whatsdoin2392]

It does not signify anything if my physician or lawyer has hubris. What is critical is a high level of competency. Meritocracy is the method by which we get the best people in these jobs.

[@prajottambe369]

555⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@whitedog0007]

It amazes me when religious man start off recognizing God as the one to be worshipped, but then forget that when wealth and power come into play. The first principle is to LOVE, the next is not to be respecter of persons. They should look up those scriptures instead of looking at the bank book or their degree.

[@AdenwalaM]

The talk duly emphasizes the current problems of severe and rising economic and social inequalities, high and rising levels of polarization in the society, and resultant unacceptable levels of intolerance towards the `other’ in the society, which will be detrimental to democracy. It cannot be denied that these problems need a lasting solution on an urgent basis. What is doubtful for me is whether such an important and a worthy aim can be attained through a rational appeal to develop morality required for cohesive society. The doubt arises out of several reasons. First, several factors affected development of democracy as a civic virtue. The Renaissance (Encyclopedia of Diderot) had initiated replacement of science in place of religion as dependable guide to understand the life and the world around us. Many of the ruling powers (feudal and of monarchs) had severely diluted because the incessant wars had bled them to near bankruptcy. There no longer were more uncharted areas where the colonies could expand, bringing in the riches through exploitation, and restore power. Technological developments had empowered the common man to find alternative means for livelihood. It was confluence of these and similar factors that established a global movement of equality, to be attained through democracy or socialism or communism. During that era, most of the people were poor and communities were rural. Poverty does instill a virtue of cooperation because cooperation is the only means of survival during adversities that regularly befall one or the other across populations. As against that, today much of the people are richer and more educated. I wonder if they can be made to heed to some appeal for development of moral virtue, no matter how appropriate, even inescapable such an appeal maybe. David Graeber had highlighted several issues where equality is not pursued. He had said that we are yet to create a simple robot that would take one’s laundry to washing machine and bring it back. Such rudimentary automation would ease the life of common man, but that has not happened. Similarly, we have found drugs like Prozac and Ritalin but have not found cure for several of the diseases that affect masses, or drugs that can cure cancer. Since 1960s, there have been no projects with global vision. Under the dictates of neo-liberal economic theory, one of the basic premises of which was balancing the budgets over at least an electoral cycle, such projects have evaporated. Last such project was declared by Russia to launch hundreds of satellites that could reflect light (energy) back onto the earth, thereby solving the energy problem. Nothing more came out of it. To the extent that these claims are right, and they are, it seems that world is not busy solving problems of the common man, but is busy protecting the hegemony of the ruling class or the rich people. Let us take the issue of data ownership on social platforms, which drives the prosperity of tech giants. The data ownership depends on a single court judgement in late 1970s and can be easily corrected. The tech giants are not only significantly contributing to the social polarization but also drives unbridled consumerism, causing the climate change to the extent that it has brought the planet on the brink of extinction. I am sure that things are much more complex than I have summarized above, but even this rudimentary analysis, all which I am capable of, has led me to wonder whether mere appeal to `better angels of our nature’ will produce necessary results. We know that time and again Capitalism has failed, and failed seriously, eroding democracy to the extent possible. Essential question is: Could we think of a system where democracy and capitalism are sufficiently decoupled to ensure better life for common man?

[@TheWhitehiker]

This triumphalist notion Sandel asserts I wind a weak notion-- who does any system avoid a certain pride for individual achievement?

[@TheAlex613]

Could this argument be encapsulated in the observations of our children? Does one believe a child on their own merit can win a race, game, objective, etc… over another child? Winners and losers exist in life, whether that’s just or not is totally irrelevant. That’s the reality of life on Earth…My 2 cents

[@aperson2730]

In that case the book should be titled "The Tyranny of PERCEIVED Merit" and not The Tyranny of Merit. Misleading title.

[@averayugen7802]

much true merit is never recognized, that's his major point. maybe most...

[@aperson2730]

@@averayugen7802 You might be correct

[@jirehla-ab1671]

​@@averayugen7802so should we rethink abt capitalism?

[@francemaster]

book titles are largely decided by the editorial, they are a marketing decision. Its very common for an author to give a talk about a book they wrote and say their own book's title is misleading