From what kind of injury you deserve to get the Pentagon Purple Heart Medal to whether Clinton lied in the sex scandal, from the cannibalism in rothenburg, Germany, to the gun incident in Baghdad Square by the security guard of Blackwater Company in the United States, you can see how much Sandel knows about this change, and even better, Sandel can also learn to wash and brush the formidable classic philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, Bentham Rawls from the dusty shelf, which has become the most active public topic.

Is it right to take the name of Sandel’s lecture notes in 9 years, or is it this year that Harvard put his classroom videos on worship and sharing? Whether it is in yuube or in the potato wall, philosophers and enthusiasts can experience Sandel’s famous mouth style for themselves.
Compared with Sandel, his peers in China with the same name are characterized by not doing affectionate moral preaching and not pretending to be grumpy to win a full house, that is, occasionally talking about divination is not for pleasing students, but for better moral reasoning.
In the 1970s, Oxford male and female students were divided into different hospitals. Some elderly teachers opposed the opposite sex staying in Saint Anne Women’s Hospital on the basis of unified morality. However, times are changing and they can’t directly corrupt customs. So they came to their views, so they thought about this idea. Because they want to take a bath, there will be more hot water in the hospital, and we will have to change mattresses more frequently to reform and be conservative. Finally, an agreement was reached that each woman can stay in the hospital for up to three nights a week, and each visitor needs to pay 5 pence to the hospital every night. The headline of the Guardian wrote the next day that girls in Saint Anne will have 5 pence
This is the most boring thing to talk about after dinner here in Sandel. The conservative old ladies are ashamed because the virtue language has not been well transformed into the benefit language.
In Sanders Theater, Sandel’s role is like Socrates, a citizen’s square of Athens city-state. Those enthusiastic young people go to experience, see, listen, doubt, hope and dream together.
Jaspers said that philosophy is a verb, not a noun. The essence of philosophy is not to grasp the truth, but to find the truth. In this respect, Sandel just reverted to the philosophy thinking ecology. He pulled the philosophy back from the sky and led the readers to talk about the super concepts of benefit from virtue and righteousness from those big or small or trivial or weird public topics.
Sandel believes that judging whether a club is just depends on its distribution. We value things into wealth, justice, power, opportunities, public posts, honors and so on. But the problem is that different people don’t value different things, and the distribution standard is also different from people’s words. The three key words of benefit by virtue correspond to three different views of justice, utilitarianism and individualism.
Sandel, a collectivist, firmly believes that the purpose of politics is to cultivate citizens’ virtue and promote common goodness. This thinking must be called a good life.
Utilitarianism also thinks about a good life, but they hope that these vague words can be quantified by the public. Compared with benefits, whether they recognize a society depends on whether its policies and laws can maximize benefits or welfare. This wonderful idea is fatal to Sandel.
First, it is a calculation, but it is not. This practice not only devalues moral values, but also leads to absurdity. After that, 5 pence per night for girls in Saint Anne is a good example.
Secondly, it tries to treat human kindness equally with a single and uniform value measure, without considering their qualitative differences. In the 1930 s, psychologists did a survey and how much did they pay to accept all kinds of unfortunate experiences. The conclusion is that the price of strangling a wave of cats with their bare hands is $10,000, the price of swallowing an earthworm raw is $10,000, and the price of spending the rest of their lives on a farm one mile away from the town in Kansas is $30,000. Sandel asked, these experiences are different. Can we make a meaningful comparison?
In a sense, contemporary collectivism has grown up with the argument of individualism, which means respecting people’s choices, whether it is making actual choices in the market or making imaginary choices in the initial state of equality
One of the most widely debated arguments in this long-standing debate is that individualism emphasizes individual egoism and advocates that the two values of the community compete with each other. Sandel thinks that this is an outdated and interesting misunderstanding. The real value is also more life-oriented. The point is whether it is possible to define or defend the good life without setting a specific concept.
Rawls’ doctrine recognizes and may be justified by the fact that in a pluralistic political society, people have conflicting ideas about good life, and the introduction of moral language and religious language into political public discussion will hinder public transport and cause a kind of oppression to others
Sandel retorted that first, we can’t always solve the substantive moral problems when judging the issues of justice and interests. Second, it is possible and not desirable. When the political life of ethics is full of cliches like dnbejudgenaldnleuree, it will not make people feel aesthetic fatigue. More importantly, this kind of ideological discourse will lead to the impoverishment of public discourse and the extreme shrinkage of civic virtue.
Sandel admired Aristotle’s belief in politics to a higher level and lived a good life. The purpose of the Political Department is that people can develop their unique human abilities and virtues, discuss common goodness carefully, obtain practical judgments and share the destiny of governing the mind and body community.
Saul Bellow said that when timid wisdom is still hesitating, we are brave enough to know that we have acted. The implication of this sentence is that thinking and reading may make us understand some basic things, but it can’t directly improve our integrity and courage. I guess Sandel will agree with Saul Bellow’s judgment and he will emphasize the importance of participating in civic life. This may be the only way to turn timid wisdom into action wisdom, just as no one can become a chest muscle bodybuilder without going to the gym and no one can recite the honor and disgrace. On the other hand, all kinds of virtues of adult virtues must be externalized into concrete lines and fixed by habit, so Sandel said that public discussion is not a way for democracy to solve problems, but also a form of civic education.
One of the most common strategies in the debate between philosophers is that absurdity is in righteousness. Sandel has made this strategy perfect, which has made us see the dead hole of various schools of thought again and again. Maximizing the benefits of utilitarianism allows us to put up with the idea that the citizens of Myra, Central Europe, are all happy. It is worthwhile to hide a koo child in the basement to spend a lonely and painful life. I can allow two adults to eat like each other on the basis of mutual consent, which is known as rigor. Kant is also known for escaping from similar moral dilemmas. Kant is firmly opposed to lying. But when a murderer is looking for a good person hiding in your attic, do you
Sandel, a modern Socrates, played the magic flute all the way to lead us through a dense forest of philosophy, telling us where the roses are and where the marshes are. Finally, in front of the concept of cultivating virtue and promoting common good, he said that since all other directions say that this road is blocked, this is our only choice.
But wait a minute, isn’t it that philosophy is a verb and a noun? Isn’t it that the nature of philosophy lies not in grasping the truth but in finding the truth? Can Sandel really acupuncture the theme of righteousness and make it fossilize the collectivist view of righteousness?
It is an indisputable fact that Sandel did not give us a clear blueprint when discussing what a new type of common good politics would be like, but listed a number of possible themes, which are more limited than sacrificing market morality for citizenship, unequal unity of civic virtue and a kind of moral participation politics. The problem is that Sandel did not fully display his moral theory in these themes, but hastily ended his journey of righteousness, making it difficult to read, read and read, and there was no loss.
In my opinion, the more fatal problem is that Sandel has heard that Kong has always been loyal to my way, so he should carry out the fallacy to the end. In this way, his favorite concept of collectivism must face two fundamental doubts. First, it is exclusive. Second, it is strong. For an extreme example, the Kingdom of Bhutan once deprived 10,000 Bhutanese of their citizenship and deported them in order to safeguard the cultural integrity of the ethnic group.
Of course, it may be unfair to criticize Sandel like this. After all, people live in the United States, not Bhutan. In the political context of the United States, the argument between collectivism and individualism is more like a family argument. The political philosopher Gingrica said that the two factions will face 95 practical problems in the United States and they can all reach an agreement. In fact, there are five different opinions left.
Sandel’s lecture course belongs to a qualitative feature of Harvard’s general education, that is, when you receive education, you forget what was left after the beginning. What is this last thing? I think it should be Mr. Chen Yinque’s saying that the spirit of independence depends on thought.
From the long and tortuous journey of thought, we Sandel all pointed to one of the scenery and said that this is my position, but Sandel told us that after saying this, we still blamed the reasons behind this position.
Maybe one day we will start again, because philosophy is not a noun but a verb.
11 years
Is democracy possible here?
Ronald Dworkin has been working in English for 6 years. Is it possible to translate democracy here? The mistake of being translated into democracy in Taiwan Province is meaningful.