Whats Fair? Equality, affirmative action, and meritocracy by Prof. Michael J. Sandel

Prof. Michael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher and a political philosophy professor at Harvard University. In this Infosys Prize lecture, he talks about equality, affirmative action, and meritocracy. This lecture is a part of Prof. Sandel's 'Justice Series' of lectures

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

Efforts are not equal, so why expect outcomes to be the same.

[@ravindertalwar553]

Almighty God bless you and your esteemed organization please

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

Equity allows you to reach someone else's potential, not your own.

[@hiheloByby6902]

Hi , i am A Law Graduate, Per se ipso facto of the Hypothetical Case analysis, If you are follow the philosophy natural school law of jurisprudence, an Individual right is to be equally Given an Importance, Exponent Like plato, Artistotle , St. Thomas aquinus, etc.. propounded , the very outcome of this Critics and affirmative action is that the Law of equity have emergsed, thats why we have equal protection of Law in constitutional laws in order to Do justice . J. benttham - there can not be absolute equality , the Consequences are that absolute would destroy the very Principles of Natural Justice and rule of Law and one can only imagine the outcomes and its Consequences .its complex you have to know jurisprudence to analyze all this and synchronize it. There is no perfect definition of Justice , I have been a topper in my Law college and jurisprudence was my Favorite sub. 😊

[@regasamidekso4566]

It's very interesting

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

The goal of affirmative action is to right some past wrong (real or precieved). In practice it punishes people who had nothing to do with the wrongdoings in the past and is therefore unjust.

[@robertsmithee1455]

Around minute 56 it seems an interesting condensed view was attempted that might have been missed: *When is the 'Start'?* If a 'fair' foundation for Meritocracy is that everyone gets to start at the same place/level (countering the 'accident of birth') the issue becomes that there are thousands/millions of 'Starts' that take place in the life of an individual/society. Those with talent/support/luck change the 'Start' as time progresses.

[@NikhilThokal]

I agree with you. Expanding this a little bit further, I think a fundamental problem with absolute meritocracy is that it will work fine for one generation only. Those who succeed in the meritocratic game can ensure that they transmit their meritocratic advantages to their children, by deploying vast resources.

[@saukuenchan1976]

Starts at 8:38. Enjoy!

[@thegautamamit]

Thankyou infosis

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

A perfect meritocracy would reflect individual freedom of choice. Each person made their choices and the people around them made their choices and the higher salaries for playing sports was the result of everyones choices.

[@RamPMonyPers]

Merthy Family? Who are they?

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

If terrorists know that you will shoot down the plane they will be less likely to hijack the plane in the first place.

[@andrewma3491]

Michael Sandel is a living god!!!!lol

[@jarrodyuki7081]

nope hes a blasphemer philosopher.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

Luck is for the cognitively challenged. The world is ruled by CAUSALITY, not chance.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

A person's birthright is not the results of chance, it is the results of CAUSALITY. You exist as you are as a direct result of the countless choices your ancestors made, therefore you justly deserve your birthright. That being your innate talents, your personal achievements and your family inheritance. A poor person in India could have been born here in the United States, had their parents moved here before they had a child. Take that back as many generations as you like. It still holds true. Recipients of affirmative are not entitled to the benefits they receive. The outcomes do not reflect the decisions made by their ancestors.

[@wutthe8284]

go back to aristocracy then, you'll be the peasant. Unless you think you can "causality" your way into nobility.

[@DaveWard-xc7vd]

If a single individual's presence in society would completely disrupt society perhaps to the point of its collapse then that person should remain in isolation.