What Can I Do about Shoulder Tendinitis?

Fairness: what to do is good. Harvard Public Class.

Fairness: what to do is good

(Harvard Public Course)

Chinese name: "Justice: What should I do?

English name: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

Name: Michael J. Sandel

Title: Chair Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University

Degree: Doctor of Political Philosophy, University of Oxford, UK

American philosopher, Chair Professor of the Department of Government at Harvard University, Academician of the American Academy of Arts, Arts and Sciences, one of the most famous theoretical representatives of contemporary western communityism (communism), one of Harvard's "most popular course professors" .

This is an introductory series on ethics and political philosophy, focusing on

Moral side of the first episode of murder

September 13, 2009

Lecture 1: Moral Aspects of Murder

If you had to choose to kill 1 or 5 people, what would you choose? What is the correct way? Professor Michael Sandel proposed this hypothetical scenario in his lecture. A majority of students voted in favor of killing one person to save the lives of the remaining five. But Sandel raises three similar ethical dilemmas-each one is cleverly designed to make the choice more difficult. Sandel made his point when the students stood up to defend their difficult choices. The assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always clear-cut.

Lecture 2: "Similar self-harm case"

Sandel introduced the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham and a famous case from the 19th century. The case involved the crew of four wrecked ships. Nineteen days after they were lost at sea, the captain decided to kill the cabin boy, who was the weakest of the four so that they could live on his blood and body. The case sparked a debate among students about the utilitarian theory that promotes maximization of happiness. The slogan of utilitarian theory is "the best interest of the vast majority of people."

The second episode gives life a price tag / how to measure happiness

September 20, 2009

Lecture 3: "Giving Life a Price Tag"

Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian theory-the theory of maximum happiness-was often referred to today as "cost-benefit analysis". Sandel cites an example of how companies use this theory to make important business decisions by evaluating the value of a dollar in their lives. This has led to discussions of utilitarian opposition: Is it fair to emphasize the interests of the overwhelming majority even when the interests of the majority may be despicable or inhuman?

Lecture 4: "How to Measure Happiness"

Sandel introduces another utilitarian philosopher, JS Mill (Mueller, also translated as "Mill"). He believes that all human experiences can be quantified, but some happiness is more worthwhile and more valuable. Mueller believes that if society values greater joy and justice, then the society as a whole will eventually improve in the long run. Sandel tested the theory by showing three video clips of The Simpsons, reality show "Game of the Brave", and Shakespeare's "Hamlet" in the classroom-then asking students to debate: which of these three experiences One should be defined as "maximum" happiness.

Episode 3 Free Choice / Who Do I Belong to?

September 27, 2009

Lecture 5: "Free Choice"

Liberals believe that the society with the least government intervention is the most ideal social form. Sandel introduced liberal philosopher Robert Nozick, who believes that every individual has the basic right to choose the life he wants. The government should not have the power to make laws that protect people (the seat belt law), it should not have the power to make laws that impose moral values on society, and it should not have the power to make laws that redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel used the examples of Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to explain Nozick's theory: Redistribution of taxes is a form of forced labor.

Lecture 6: "Who Am I?

Liberal philosopher Robert Nozick cites an example of taxing the rich-house tax, health care, education for the poor-which is a coercion. The students first discussed the idea of supporting redistribution of taxes. If you are in a social system with a more advanced tax system, are you forced to pay taxes? Do the poor need the social services they already have? Do they deserve those services? Do rich people often get wealth through fluke or family property? In this lecture, a group of students (called the "Free Will Team") was asked to defend against free will objections.

Episode 4 My Site I'm the Master / Adults of legal age

October 4, 2009

Lecture 7: "My Site Is My Master"

John Locke is both a supporter and a critic of libertarianism. Locke pointed out that in the "state of nature", before any political system was established, everyone enjoyed the natural rights to life, freedom and property. However, once we agree to enter society, we agree to be bound by the legal system. Therefore, Locke believes that even if the government intervenes in individual power, it is the opinion of most people that empowers it to do so.

Lecture 8: "Adults of Legal Age"

Locke talked about the issues of taxation and consent, and how he faced the following two problems: 1) he believed that the personal life, freedom, and property have inalienable rights 2) the government passed most regulations-- Agree, can they be taxed? Doesn't this equal to plundering his personal property without his / her consent? Locke's answer is that we are doing "default consent" to tax laws through social life, so taxes are legal. Moreover, as long as the government does not deliberately tax a groupif it is not arbitrary and arbitrarythe tax does not infringe upon the basic rights of the individual.

Episode 5 Hiring a Gun? / Mother for sale

October 11, 2009

Lecture 9: "Hire a gun?

During the civil war, men were called up to the front-but recruits were allowed to pay someone to replace them. Professor Sandel asked students: Is this policy an example of free market trading? Or is this some form of coercion? Because the lower classes must serve more economic incentives? This has sparked classroom debates on contemporary issues such as war and conscription. Are volunteers today truly voluntary? Do many recruits come from disproportionately low economic backgrounds? What role does "patriotism" play? What are the obligations of citizens? Should citizens have the obligation to perform military service for their country?

Lecture 10: "Selling Mother"

Professor Sandel applies free-market transactions to a new and controversial area today: reproductive rights. Sandel described the strange parents in the modern sperm and egg donation deal. Then Sandel took the debate deeper. He talked about the "Baby M" incident. This famous case had caused the question and contradiction of "Who is the child?" Here's the thing: In the mid-1980s, Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a couple in New Jersey agreeing to be a "surrogate mother" for them on condition that she be paid a large sum. But 24 hours after childbirth, Whitehead decided to leave the child, so the two parties had to go to court. Students discussed the ethical issue of selling lives, and the issues revolved around commitments, covenants, and the rights of mothers.

Episode 6 consider your highest motivation / ethics guidelines

October 18, 2009

Lecture 11: "Consider Your Motivation"

Professor Sandel introduced Kant in this course: one of the most challenging and difficult thinkers. Kant believes that we, as individuals, are sacred and possessors of power, but not because we have ourselves. On the contrary, reason and free choice are our abilities that make us unique and distinguish us from pure animals. When we put responsibility into action (to do the right thing), only then can our actions have moral value. Sandel cites an example: A shop owner refused to change a customer's change because he was worried that it would affect his business. According to Kant's theory, this is not a moral act, because he did not find the right reason to do the right thing ....

Lecture 12: The Supreme Code of Ethics

Kant said that in terms of the moral value of our actions, it is our ability to transcend our own interests and preferences and put responsibility into action. Sandel told a true story: A 13-year-old boy won a spelling championship, but then admitted to the judge that he actually misjudged the last word. Using this and other stories, Sandel explains how to use Kant's theory to determine whether an action is morally correct: When making a decision, imagine if the moral principles behind your actions can become a must for everyone Comply with universal laws. Can this rule serve as a general rule that benefits everyone?

Episode 7 Lesson of Lie / Agreement is Agreement

October 25, 2009

Lecture 13: The Lesson of Lies

Kant's moral theory is so strict that no exceptions are allowed. He believes that lying, even a well-intentioned lie, is an infringement of his dignity. Test his theory with a hypothetical case: If your friend is hiding in your house, a killer knocks on your door to ask him where he is, what would you say to him--don't lie--to save your friend? This sparked discussions of "misleading truths"-and discussions of President Clinton's use of precise language to deny sexual relations with Lewinsky without lying to the public directly.

Lecture 14: "Agreement is Agreement"

Sandel introduced modern philosopher John Rawls and his "hypothetical contract" theory. Rawls believes that the only way to achieve the most fair and equitable governance is if all legislators stand at the negotiating table equally. Imagine if they were all behind a "veil of ignorance"-when their personally identifiable information was temporarily undisclosed (their race, class, personal interests), they had to agree on a set of laws. Rawls believes that only in this way can governing institutions agree on the principles of true fairness and impartiality.

Episode 8 What is the starting point for fairness? / What should we get?

November 1, 2009

Lecture 15: "What is the starting point for equity?

John Rawls applies his "veil of ignorance" theory to the focus of debates on social and economic equality, as well as issues of fair governance. He asked if every citizen must be involved in the redistribution of taxes-when they do not know whether they will eventually become poor or rich among members of society-most of us would not prefer to eliminate financial risks and agree to the fair distribution of wealth What?

Lecture 16: "What should we get?

Professor Sandel recapitulates three different theories concerning how to distribute income, wealth, and opportunity in life. He summarized the theory of liberalism, elitism, and egalitarianism, which led to discussions about the fairness of pay differentials in today's society. Sandel compared the pay of Justice O'connor ($ 200,000) and Justice Judy ($ 25 million) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandel asks everyone, is this fair? If not, why? Sandel explained John Rawls's point of view-he believes that personal "success" is often a random outcome that has nothing to do with honor: luck, inherited wealth, positive family environment. But for an individual who puts in more effort and time to succeed-how to measure his / her effort?

The ninth episode discusses anti-discrimination actions / purposes?

November 8, 2009

Lecture 17: Discussing Anti-Discrimination Actions

Students discuss anti-discrimination actions and college admissions. Is it correct for schools to consider racial and ethnic factors when enrolling? Does it violate individual rights? Is it as equal and subjective as a star athlete? Does such a debate tend to justify diversification? How should this view be opposed to the view that a student's effort and achievement are more important?

Lecture 18: "What is the purpose?

Sandel introduces Aristotle's theory of fairness and justice. In short, it tells people what they should give and what they should get. Aristotle believes that when one considers the issue of distribution, one must consider the goal, end point, and purpose of distribution. For him, it's about a person finding the right place to use his virtues.

Episode 10 Good Citizen / Freedom and Adaptation

November 15, 2009

Lecture 19: The Good Citizen

Aristotle's theory of justice has caused debate about golf, and in particular the "purpose" of golf. The students debated whether the PGA's approach to this matter was wrong--disabled player Casey Martin was not allowed to use golf carts on the Pro Tour.

Lecture 20: "Freedom and Adaptation"

Sandel pointed to the most prominent objection to Aristotle's views on freedom-his defense of slavery. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle's theory and debate whether his philosophy limits personal freedom.

Episode 11 Society's Needs / Where Is Our Loyalty

November 22, 2009

Lecture 21: "Needs of the Society"

Professor Sandel introduced Kant and John Rawl's opposition to Aristotle's theory. Aristotle believed that the individual should have the freedom and ability to choose his ultimate goal. This led to the introduction of communist views. As individuals, how can we measure our obligations to the family, our obligations to society and our obligations to the state?

Lecture 22: "Where Is Our Loyalty"

Professor Sandel initiated a discussion: among various social groups, from small groups such as families to large societies, do we have the obligation to cooperate and cooperate and the obligation of members. In response to different events, students debate whether loyalty is more important than responsibility, and when.

Episode twelve debate on same-sex marriage / good life

November 29, 2009

Lecture 23: "Debating Same-Sex Marriage"

If the principle of justice depends on whether the end of the rights service has moral or intrinsic value. How does society deal with different people having different ideas and concepts of "good"? Using the example of same-sex marriage, students debate whether it is possible to separate the moral legitimacy of sex from the ultimate purpose of marriage.

Lecture 24: "Good Life"

Professor Sandel raised two questions. Is it necessary to find the cause of a good life to decide what is justice and what are the rights of the people? If so, is it possible to argue or prove what the essence of a good life is? During the student debate, the role of the government in determining the purpose of marriage was further discussed. In conclusion, Sandel pointed out that as individuals we may never agree with many issues of moral philosophy. However, he believes that, on the one hand, debate on these issues is inevitable. On the other hand, it gives us a good opportunity to better understand the values of others.