Tamar Gendler: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics and Economics
Tamar Gendler, Department of Philosophy Chair at Yale University, Cognitive Scientist Who gets what and who says so? These two questions underlie and inform …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
*People have gone from BS to BS. We take lies as truth and truth as lies.
Some people take everything as lies, because there are so many lies… The
truth is buried under the heap.*
*If you’re a serious truth seeker and want to know the **TRUTH OF LIFE,**
go to TruthContest◙Com and open “The Present”. This book could turn our
world around.*
I just found myself having a questing: is money of any value if there are
more then one, or more then 2 people in the community? Becouse you usually
need a third party to enforce the value of the money. And is the 3d party
the government?
saggy tits
The problem with Nozick’s position is that the wealthiest often got their
advantage through ILLEGITIMATE means and then capitalized on it through
further illegitimate means, otherwise things would be relatively equal
because people have similar capacities. But nobody is going to admit that
they got their advantage because their family had slave plantations. This
could be considered “legitimate” according to the laws of the time, but
ultimately was absolutely unfair to the slaves. So we’d need to find a much
better definition of “legitimate” than whatever the law happened to allow.
Further, Nozick doesn’t consider the results. If the vast majority are
doomed from birth to a life of struggle and poverty that’s OK with him as
long as the few who lord it over them got their advantage “legitimately”.
Thus you could have a radically unfair world, and he’d have to give it his
stamp of approval. If 90% of the population starved and 10% had millions of
times more than they needed, he’d have to agree with it. Even if it was
just 1% he’d have to agree.
He allows people to be completely selfish and irresponsible as long as they
follow laws which they are likely to have used their own advantage to
tinker with bringing into being in order to further their advantage. I’m
sure he is loved by the 1%. But he’s not really a philosopher as much as an
apologist for slave holders.
Why is it, that people always critize utilitarianism in a myopic way. I
don’t see utilitarians advocating for doctors to snatch patients and
cutting them open, yet that seems to be the “go to” move when criticizing
utilitarianism, regardless if it’s a strawman or not…
This is one of the best lectures I’ve ever heard. But I guess that’s what
you get from a Yale department chair.
thank you >>>its really an incredible lecture
Hobbes basically makes one giant ‘argument from ignorance’, as well as a
‘false dichotomy’. I understand he was a stepping stone of progression in
political philosophy, but we should be rejecting his conclusions. Yet too
many still think his conclusions are valid in this day and age.
25:19 – a higher income average income doesn’t mean I will be guaranteed to
make more there. Median and average are completely different things.
Just because the average is higher doesn’t mean I will have a higher
income.
Does anybody know the names of the authors (or article itself) that’s
mentioned at 27m11 – 2005 psychology survey on distribution of wealth?
A mental device to enable individuals to formulate a standard of justice
while not knowing their place in or value to their society. Veil of
ignorance.
Implement this into the corporate world, Senate and Congress. Make clear
that corporate sized ‘religions’
implement this device, as well or pay discriminatory taxes.
John Rawls had it right, as did Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine.
My goodness! I was blown away with this enriching lecture! Learning
philosophy in just a short time I am changed. My your Name forever be in
our hearts! . I will definitely go a little deeper into the subject!
Why don’t you go and do that? 20:30
She gives Rawls way too much credit. He didn’t come up with this idea that
people have rights anyone who’s read the Declaration of Independence can
tell you that. More to the point, Rawls was really responding to the ideas
of Objectivism (only the individual matters) and Subjectivism (only society
matters) which are the two extremes and they argue by pointing out the
flaws in the other. Rawls was trying to come up with a criterion on when
we can be subjective and when we can be objective. The lecturer seems to
side step this.
Well, one thing I know now, I have right to keep my organs. Do I ? Guys …
The philosophical debate over the just distribution of wealth was best
addressed, I suggest, by those who embraced the principles of the French
Physiocrats, Turgot, Quesnay and du Pont de Nemeurs. What they argued was
that the most fundamental right of all persons is our equal birthright to
the earth. They concluded that the system of law that extended property
rights to nature to individuals or private entities violated this human
right. The historical conversion of nature as a commons into private
enclaves created a rentier elite (i.e., an elite empowered by law and
protected by the state to claim a portion of what others produced). This
amounts to an initial redistribution of wealth by force, fraud and theft.
The Physiocrats were ignored, of course, by the landed interests who
controlled societies. Their writings influenced Adam Smith, who was also
ignored. And, Benjamin Franklin declared his adherence to physiocratie, and
was also ignored. Thomas Paine’s great essay ‘Agrarian Justrice’ echoes
the physiocratic call for the landed to compensate society for their
privileged control over land by the payment of a “ground rent” therefor.
Sadly, modern political and moral philosophers largely ignore the land
question. The last serious effort to raise public conscience on the matter
came from Henry George in the late 19th century. George, in the end, was
unsuccessful. His social movement dwindled to just a few thousand
adherents, but among them were some rather thoughtful individuals,
including Winston Churchill, Sun Yat-sen, Leo Tolstoy, Louis F. Brandeis
and philosophers John Dewey and Robert V. Andelson.
i’m not trolling or anything but this is a bit focused on history than
philosophy
I see injustice in states ignoring the common UNO rules and doing bad
things but without any penalties. And individuals exploiting the society by
using their overwealth and political influence.
Personal goods gathered in a legal way are certainly intouchable and should
be protected. But who defines what is legal and what is not. In the today’s
political system controlled by monopoly powers over the two parties using
campaign dollars I don’t know if we are living in justice.
This is one of the best lectures I’ve ever heard. But I guess that’s what
you get from a Yale department chair.
According to Nozick the system does not support fraud, so he does not
support selling your vote … She is so wrong
φιλοσοφια = φιλος(friend) + σοφια(wisdom) = friend of wisdom
I´m just sick to my stomach when people consider communism and marx as a
step forward in any way. There is absolutely no field of science, moral,
ethic or any other context in which it should be mentioned as a positive
example. period.
Janice from Friends suddenly sounds pleasant…