Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 05: “HIRED GUNS”

Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 05: “HIRED GUNS”


Funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by When we ended last time we were discussing Locke’s idea of government
by consent and the question arose what are the limits on government that even the the agreement of the majority can’t override that was the question we ended with we saw in the case of property rights that on Locke’s view a democratically elected government has
the right to tax people it has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people’s
property for the common good but it doesn’t require the consent of the each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected what it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation you agree
to be bound by the majority so much for taxation but what, you may ask about the right to life can the government conscript people and send them into battle what about the idea that we own ourselves is the idea of self possession violated if the government can through coercive legislation and enforcement
powers say you must go risk your life to fight in Iraq what would Locke say? does the government have
the right to do that? yes in fact he says in one thirty nine he says what matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary that’s what matters he gives a wonderful example he says a a sergeant even a sergeant let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to the face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die that the sergeant can do the general can condemn the soldier to death
for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order but with all their power over life and death what these officers can’t do is take a penny of that soldier’s money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt so consent winds up being very powerful in
Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be
bound by the majority in the first place that’s the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully the even the limited government created by
the fact that we have an unalienable right to life liberty and property even that limited government is only limited
in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can’t
be arbitrary that’s Locke. well this raises a question about consent. Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation
to obey today we begin to investigate the question
of consent by looking at a concrete case the case of military conscription. now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from the idea that we own ourselves it’s a violation of that right for a government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars. others disagree others say that’s a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected government
anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey let’s take the case the united states fighting a war in Iraq. news accounts tell us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets consider three policies that the US government might undertake to deal with the fact that it’s not achieving its recruiting targets solution number one increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers, option number two shift to a system of military conscription have a lottery and who’s ever numbers are drawn go to fight in Iraq, system number three outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well and who are willing to do it for the existing wage so let’s take a quick poll here how many favor increasing the pay? huge majority. how many favor going to conscription? all right maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription. what about the outsourcing solution? okay so there maybe about two, three dozen. during the civil war the union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in
the civil war it was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn’t want to serve you could hire a substitute take your place and many people did you could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute people ran ads in newspapers in the classified ads offering five hundred dollars sometimes a thousand dollars for a substitute who would go fight the civil war in their place in fact it’s reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount to spend for
a year on fancy cigars now I want to get your views about this civil war system call it the a hybrid
system conscription but with the buyout provision how many think it was a just system how many
would defend the civil war system? anybody? one, anybody else? to three four five. how many think it was unjust? most of you don’t like the civil war system
you think it’s unjust, let’s hear an objection why don’t you like it? what’s wrong with it? yes. well by paying three hundred dollars for to be exempt one time around you’re really putting
a price on valuing human life and we established earlier that’s really hard
to do so they’re trying to accomplish something that
really isn’t feasible. good, so so paying someone three hundred or five hundred or a
thousand dollars you’re basically saying that’s what their life
is worth you. that’s what their life is worth it’s putting a dollar value on life that’s good, and what’s your name? Liz. Liz. well who has an answer for Liz you defended the civil war system what do you say? if you don’t like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or for so it’s up to you and I don’t think it’s necessarily
putting a specific price on you and if it’s done by himself I don’t think there’s anything
that’s really morally wrong with that. So the person who takes the five hundred dollars let’s say, he’s putting his own price on his life on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to
do that. exactly. what’s your name? Jason. Jason thank you. now we need to hear from another critic of
the civil war system. yes. it’s a kind of coercion almost of people who
have lower incomes for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft three hundred dollars
is you know irrelevant in terms of his income,
but for someone of a lower income they are essentially being coerced to draft to be drafted or I mean it’s probably they’re not able to find a
replacement the tell me your name. Sam. Sam, all right so you say Sam that when a poor laborer buys his, accepts three hundred dollars to fight
in the civil war he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off pay the money and not serve I want to hear if someone has a reply to Sam’s argument that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive who has an answer to to Sam. go ahead I’d actually agree with him. You agree with him I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs an individual of his ability to reason properly okay and what’s your name? Raul. ok so Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice
voluntary act is actually coercion it involves coercion it’s profound coercion of the worst kind because
it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of society good, all right so Raul and Sam have made a powerful point who would like to reply who has an answer for Sam and Raul? Go ahead I just I don’t think that these drafting systems are
really terribly different from you know all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies the whole idea of you know having benefits in pay for joining the
army is you know sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join it is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately,
you know, lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country
where you can use the patriotism to try and coerce people,
if you’re like it’s the right thing to do to volunteer to go over to Iraq. and tell me your name. Emily. alright Emily says and Raul you’re going to have to reply to
this so get ready Emily says fair enough there is a coercive element to the civil war system when the laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for five
hundred dollars Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the civil war system shouldn’t that also trouble you about the volunteer army today? and let me, before you answer, how did you vote on the
first poll, did you defend a volunteer army? I didn’t vote. you didn’t vote. either way you didn’t vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting
next to you? no, all right so what would you say to that argument? I think that the circumstances are different and
that there was conscription in the civil war there is no draft today and I think that the volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is
of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the civil war somehow less coerced. less coerced. even though there is still inequality in American society
even though as Emily points out the make-up of the American military is not reflective
of the population as a whole. Let’s just do an experiment
here how many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation not parents family members in this generation and how many have neither served nor I have any brothers or sisters who have served does that bear out your point Emily? Alright now we need we need to hear from most of you defended the idea of the of the all-volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly people consider the civil war system unjust Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the civil war system it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to
buy their way into military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge all right everyone here who voted in favor of the all-volunteer army should be able should have to explain well what’s the difference in principle doesn’t the all-volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone find objectionable in the civil war buy-out provision did I state that challenge fairly Emily? ok, so we need to hear from a defender of the all-volunteer military who can address Emily’s challenge who can do that? Go ahead the difference between the civil war system
and the all-volunteer army system is that in the civil war you’re being hired not by the government but
by individuals and as a result different people to get hired
a different individuals, get paid different in the case of the all-volunteer army
everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount it’s precisely the universalization of all of essentially paying your service you pay your
way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just. Emily? I guess I’d frame the principal
slightly differently, on the all-volunteer army it’s possible for somebody to just
step aside and not really think about, you know, the war at all. it’s possible to say well I
don’t need the money, you know I don’t need to have an opinion about this
I don’t need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country with a coercive system, I’m sorry, with an explicit draft, then you know there’s the threat at least that every
individual will have to make some sort of decision you know, regarding military conscription and you
know perhaps in that way it’s more equitable you know it’s true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case
but in one you know he can completely step aside from it and in the other there is some level
of responsibility. While you’re there Emily, so what system do you favor conscription I would be hard to say but I think so
because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead
of you know having a war that’s maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there’s no you know, real responsibility. good. who wants to reply, go ahead. so I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the
all-volunteer army and then the army in the civil war is that in all volunteer army if you want to volunteer
that fact comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the civil wars system the people who are volunteering, who are accepting the pay aren’t necessarily doing it because they want to, they’re just doing it for
the money first. what motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army? Like patriotism for the country. patriotism well what about pay. And a desire to defend the country and there’s some motivation in pay but the fact that it’s first and foremost in an all-volunteer army
will motivate them first, I think personally okay you think it’s better, and tell me your
name. Jackie. Jackie do you think it’s better if people
serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money yes definitely because that people who that was one of the main problems in the civil
war I mean is that the people that you’re getting
to go in it or to go to war aren’t necessarily people who want to fight and
so they won’t be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted
to be all right what about Jackie’s having raised the question of patriotism that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation
than money for military service who, who would like to address that question? patriotism absolutely is not necessary
in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job of the job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants
to defend what the government believes that
we should do. did you favor the outsourcing solution? yes sir. all right so let Jackie respond, what’s your name? Phillip what about that Jackie? so much for patriotism if you’ve got someone who’s heart is in it more than another person’s they’re going to do a
better job when it comes down to the wire and there is like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line someone who is doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than
someone who’s just getting paid they don’t care they’ve got the technical skills but they don’t care what happens because the
really have they have nothing, like, nothing invested in this country there’s another aspect though once we
get on to the issue of patriotism if you believe patriotism as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money does that argue for or against the paid army we have now we call it the volunteer army, though if you
think about it that’s a kind of a misnomer a volunteer army as we use the term is
a paid army. so what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money? does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription and just to sharpen that point building on Phil’s
case for outsourcing if you think that the all-volunteer army, the paid army is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people’s preferences
and willing willingness to serve for a certain wage doesn’t the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid civil war system to the all-volunteer army doesn’t the the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market doesn’t that lead you all the way if you followed
that principle consistently to a mercenary army? and then if you say no Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something doesn’t that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism
you mean a sense of civic obligation let’s see if we can step back from the discussion that we’ve had and see what we’ve learned about consent as it applies to market exchange. we’ve really heard two arguments two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service one was the argument raised by Sam and Raul the argument about coercion the objection that leading the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there is severe inequality in this society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities
that that’s their that’s their best choice and Sam and Raul say there’s an element of coercion
in that that’s one argument. then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service that’s the idea that military service shouldn’t be treated as just another job for
pay because it’s bound up with patriotism and civic obligation this is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion it’s an argument that suggests that maybe
where civic obligations are concerned we shouldn’t allocate duties and rights by the market now we’ve identified two broad objections what do we need to know to assess those objections to assess the first the argument from coercion
inequality and fairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions
of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor question number one. question number two, to assess the civic obligation
patriotism argument we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship is military service one of them or not what obligates us as citizens what is the
source of political obligation is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have even without consent for living in sharing in a certain kind of society. we haven’t answered either of those questions but our debate today about the civil war system and the all-volunteer
army has at least raised them and those are questions we’re going to return
to in the coming weeks. Do you think you should be able to bid for a baby that’s up for adoption? That’s Andrew’s Challenge. Do I think that I should be able to bid for a baby? I’m not, sure. it’s a market. today at I’d like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation. now with infertility clinics people advertise for egg donors and from time to time in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors, have you seen
them? there was one that ran a few years ago it wasn’t looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial
incentive for a donor from a woman who was intelligent athletic at least five foot ten and with at least fourteen hundred or above on her SAT’s how much do you think the person looking for this together was willing
to pay for an egg from a woman of that description what would you guess? thousand dollars? fifteen thousand? ten? I’ll show you the ad fifty thousand dollars for an egg but only a premium egg what do you think about that? well there are also sometimes ads in the Harvard crimson and in a other college
newspapers for sperm donors so the market in reproductive capacities is an equal opportunity market well not exactly equal opportunity they’re
not offering fifty thousand dollars for sperm but there is a company a large commercial sperm bank that markets sperm it’s called California cryobank it’s a for-profit company it imposes exacting standards on the sperm it recruits and it has offices in Cambridge between Harvard and MIT and in Palo alto near Stanford cryobank’s marketing materials play up the prestigious source of its sperm here is from the web site of cryobank the information here they talk about the compensation although compensation should not be the only
reason for becoming of sperm donor we are aware of the considerable time and
expense involved in being a donor so you know what they offer? donors will be reimbursed seventy five dollars per specimen up to nine hundred dollars a month if you
donate three times a week and then they add, we periodically offer incentives such as such as movie tickets our gifts certificates for the extra time
and effort expended by participating donors it’s not easy to be a sperm donor they accept fewer than five percent of the
donors who apply their admission criteria are more demanding than Harvard’s the head of the sperm bank said the ideal sperm donor is six feet tall with a college degree brown eyes blond hair and dimples for the simple reason that these are the traits that the market has shown the customers want quote, quoting the head of the sperm bank, if our
customers wanted high school dropouts we would give them high school dropouts. so here are two instances the market in eggs for donation and the market
in sperm that raise a question a question about whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money. as you ponder that I want you to consider another case involving a market and in fact a contract in human reproductive, in the human reproductive capacity and this is the case of commercial surrogate motherhood. and it’s a case that wound up in court some years ago it’s the story of baby M it began with William and Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting a baby but they couldn’t have one of their own, at least not without medical risk to Mrs. Stern. they went to an infertility clinic where they met Mary Beth Whitehead a twenty nine-year-old mother of two the wife of a sanitation worker she had replied to and ad that the center had placed seeking the service of a surrogate mother they made a deal they signed a contract in which William Stern agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a ten thousand dollar
fee plus all expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially
inseminated with William Stern’s sperm, to bear the child and then to give the baby to the Sterns well you probably know how the story unfolded Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind she decided she wanted to keep the baby the case wound up in court in New Jersey so let’s take put aside any legal questions and focus on this issue as a moral question how many believe that the right thing to do in the baby M case would have been to uphold the contract, to enforce the contract? and how many think the right thing to
do would have been not to enforce that contract? so it’s about the majority say enforce so let’s now hear the reasons that people have either
for enforcing or refusing to enforce this contract first from those, I want to hear from someone
in the majority, why do you uphold the contract why do you enforce it? who can offer a reason? yes. stand up. it’s a binding contract all the parties involved knew the terms of the contract before any action was
taken it’s a voluntary agreement the mother knew what she was getting into all four are intelligent adults regardless of
formal education or whatever so it makes sense if you know what you’re getting into
beforehand and you make a promise you should uphold that promise in the end. Ok, a deal
is a deal in other words? Exactly. And what’s your name? Patrick is Patrick’s reason the reason that most of
you in the majority favored upholding the contract? yes?

0:36:37.769,0:36:38.969
all right now let’s hear from someone who would not enforce the contract what do you say to Patrick? Why not? Yes well I mean I agree I think contracts should
be upheld when all the parties know all the information
but in this case I don’t think there’s a way a mother before the child exists could actually know how she’s going to feel about that child so I don’t think the mother actually had all
the information she didn’t know the person that was going
to be born and didn’t know how much she would
love that person so that’s my argument so you would not, and what’s your name? Evan Wilson Evan he says he would not uphold the contract
because when it was entered into the surrogate mother couldn’t be expected to know in advance how she would
feel so she didn’t really have the relevant information when she made that contract who else who else would not uphold the contract? I think, I also think that a contact should
generally be uphold but I think that the child has an inalienable right to its actual mother and I think that if that mother wants it then that
child should have a right to that mother. you mean the biological
mother not the adoptive mother. right. and why is that, first of all tell me your name. Anna. Anna, why is that Anna? because I think that that bond that is created by nature is stronger than
any bond that is created by you know a contract. good thank you. Who else, yes. I disagree I don’t think that a child has a inalienable right to her biological mother I think that adoption and surrogacy
are both trade offs and I agree with the point made that day it’s a voluntary agreement, an individual
made, and you can’t apply coercion to this argument you can’t apply the objection from coercion to this argument. correct. what’s your name? Kathleen Kathleen, what do you say to Evan, that though there may not have been, Evan
claimed that the consent was tainted not by coercion but by lack of adequate information she couldn’t have known the relevant information
namely, how she would feel about the child I don’t think her emotion content plays into this I think the emotional content or her feelings
plays into this, I think in, you know, in a case of law, in the justice of this scenario, her change of feelings are not relevant
if I give up my child for adoption and then I decide later on that I really want that
child back too bad, it’s a trade-off it’s a trade off that the mother has made. so a deal is a deal, you agree with Patrick? I agree
with Patrick, a deal is a deal, yes. good, yes. I would say that though I’m not really sure if I agree with the idea that the child has a right to their mother I think the mother definitely has a right
to her child. and I also think there are some areas where market
forces shouldn’t necessarily penetrate, I think that the whole surrogate mother area smacks a little bit of dealing in human beings it seems dehumanizing and it doesn’t really seem right so that’s my main reason and what is could, tell us your name. I’m Andrew. Andrew. what is dehumanizing about buying and selling the right to a child for money, what is the humanizing about it? well because you’re buying someone’s biological right I mean you can’t and the law as it states you can’t sell your own child
like were you to have a child I believe that the law prohibits you selling
it to another person. so this is like baby selling? Right. To a certain extent, I mean though
there is a contract with another person, you’ve made agreements and whatnot there is an undeniable emotional bond that takes
place between a mother and child and it’s wrong to simply ignore this because you’ve
written out something contractually. you want to reply to Andrew? to stay there you point out that there is an undeniable emotional
bond I feel like when in this situation
we’re not necessarily against adoption or surrogacy in itself we’re just sort of pointing
out the emotional differences well but wait, it’s easy to break everything down to
just numbers and say well we have contracts like you’re buying and selling a
car but there are underlying emotions I mean
you’re dealing with people I mean these are not objects to be bought and sold
but what about Andrew’s claim that this is like baby selling I believe that adoption and
surrogacy should be permitted whether I actually will partake in it is not really relevant but I think that
the government should, the government should give its citizens the rights to allow for adoption and surrogacy. But adoption,
adoption is not according to.. Is adoption baby selling? well do you think you should be able to to bid for a baby that’s up for adoption that’s Andrew’s challenge Do I think that I should be able to bid for a baby? I’m not… sure. it’s a market I mean, I feel like the extent to which it’s been
applied I’m not sure if the government should be able to permit it and I have to think about
it more but, Alright fair enough, are you satisfied Andrew? well ya, I think surrogacy should
be permitted I think that people can do it but I don’t think that it should be forced upon
people that once a contract is signed it’s absolutely
like the end-all I think it’s unenforceable so people should be free, Andrew, to enter into
these contracts but it should not be enforceable in a court not in a court no. who would like to turn on one side or the other I think I have an interesting perspective
on this because my brother was actually one of the people who donated to a sperm bank and he was paid a very large amount of money he was six feet tall, but not blond he had dimples though, so he actually has, I’m an aunt now and he has a
daughter she donated sperm to a lesbian couple in Oklahoma
and he has have been contacted by them and he
has seen pictures of his daughter but he still does not feel an emotional bond
to his daughter he just has a sense of curiosity about what
she looks like and what she’s doing and how she is he doesn’t feel love for his child so from this experience I think the bond
between a mother and a child cannot be compared to the bond between the
father and the child. That’s really interesting. what’s your name? Vivian. Vivian so we’ve got the case of surrogacy, commercial
surrogacy and it’s been compared to baby selling and
we’ve been exploring whether that analogy is apt and it can also be compared, as you point
out to sperm selling but you’re saying that sperm selling and baby selling or even surrogacy are very different. Because they’re unequal services. they’re unequal services and that’s because Vivian you say that the tie, the bond, yes and also the time investment that’s given by a mother, nine months cannot be compared to the man, you know going into a sperm bank looking at pornography you know, and depositing into a cup. I don’t think
those are equal good. Alright so we, Because that’s what happens in a
sperm bank. alright so, this is really interesting we have notice the arguments that have come out so
far, the objections to surrogacy the objections to enforcing that contract, are of at least two kinds there was the objection about tainted consent this time not because of coercion or implicit coercion but because of imperfect or flawed information so tainted or flawed consent can arise either because of coercion or because of a lack of relevant information at least according to one argument that we’ve
heard and then a second objection to enforcing the surrogacy contract was that it was somehow the humanizing. now when this case was decided by the court what did they say about these arguments? the lower court ruled that the contract was enforceable neither party had a superior bargaining position a price for the service was struck and a bargain
was reached one side didn’t forced the other neither had disproportionate bargaining power then it went to the new Jersey supreme court and what did they do they said this contract is not enforceable they did grant custody to Mister Stern as the father because they thought that would
be in the best interest of the child but they restored the rights of Mary Beth Whitehead and left it to lower courts to decide exactly what the visitation rights should be they invoked two different kinds of reasons along the lines that Andrew proposed first there was not sufficiently informed consent the court argued under the contract the natural mother is irrevocably
committed before she knows the strength of her bond
with her child she never makes a truly voluntary informed decision for any decision prior to the baby’s birth is, in the most important sense, uninformed. that was the court then the court also made a version of the second argument against commodification in this kind of case this is this the sale of a child the court said or at the very least the sale of a mother’s right to her child whatever idealism may motivate the participants,
the profit motive predominate, permeates and ultimately governs the transaction and so regardless the court said, regardless
of any argument about consent or flawed consent or full information there are some things in a civilized society that money can’t buy, that’s what the courts
said in voiding this contract well what about these two arguments against the extension of markets to procreation and to reproduction how persuasive are they? there was, it’s true, a voluntary agreement a contract struck
between William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead but there are at least two ways that consent
can be other than truly free first if people are pressured or coerced to give their agreement and second if their consent is not truly informed and in the case of surrogacy the courts said a mother can’t know even one who already has kids of her own, what it would be like to bear a child and give it up for pay. so in order to assess criticism, objection number one, we have to figure out just how free does a voluntary exchange have to be with
respect to the bargaining power and equal information question number one. how do we assess the second objection? the second objection is more elusive, it’s more difficult Andrew acknowledged this right? what does it mean to say there’s something
dehumanizing to make childbearing a market transaction? well one of the philosophers we read on this subject Elizabeth Anderson tries to give some bring some philosophical
clarity to the unease that Andrew articulated she said by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child surrogacy contracts convert women’s labor into a form
of alienated labor the surrogate’s labor is alienated because she must divert it from the end from the and which the social practices of pregnancy rightly promote, namely an emotional bond with her child so what Anderson is suggesting is that certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit certain goods are properly valued in ways other than use what are other ways of valuing and treating? good that should not be open to use? Anderson says there are many, respect, appreciation, love, honor, awe, sanctity there are many modes of valuation beyond use and certain goods are not properly valued if they’re treated simply as objects of use. how do we go about evaluating that argument
of Anderson? in a way it takes us back to the debate we had with utilitarianism is use the only, in utility is use, the only proper way of treating goods? including life military service procreation childbearing? and if not, how do we figure out how can we determine what modes of valuation are fitting are appropriate to those goods several years ago there but the scandal surrounding
a doctor an infertility specialist in Virginia named
Cecil Jacobson he didn’t have a donor catalog because unknown to his patients, all of the sperm he
used to inseminate his patients came from one donor doctor Jacobson himself. at least one woman who testified in court
was unnerved at how much her newborn daughter looked just like him now it’s possible to condemn doctor Jacobson for failing to inform the
women in advance that would be the argument about consent the columnist Ellen Goodman described the bizarre scenario as follows doctor Jacobson, she wrote, gave his infertility
business the personal touch but now the rest of us, she wrote, are in for a round of second thoughts about sperm donation Goodman concluded that fatherhood should
be something you do not something you donate, and I think what she was doing and what the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson
is doing and what Andrew was suggesting with this argument
about dehumanization is pondering whether there are certain goods
that money shouldn’t buy not just because of tainted consent but also perhaps because certain goods are properly valued in a way a higher than mere use those at least are the questions we’re going
to pursue with the help of some philosophers in the weeks to come don’t miss the chance to interact online with other
viewers of Justice
0:54:01.280,0:54:03.829join the conversation, take a
pop quiz, watch lectures you’ve missed, and learn a lot more.
Visit justiceharvard.org, it’s the right thing to do. funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by

You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes

100 Comments

  1. So then Locke believes that nature law says no one can take your life and you cannot give your life. He also believes that the govt cannot take your life by sending you to war arbitrarily. He also believes that the govt can take your life by sending you to war as long as it is a general process by which you were selected. So once you have been generally selected into the army and sent to war which is okay with Locke you can then be individually selected to face the enemies cannon and die. So let's sum this up, Locke says the govt cannot arbitrarily take your life but it is allowed to put you in a position(being sent to war) in which you can be singled out arbitrarily forced to give up your life. So as long as the violation of taking your life is done in a round about way with a middle man to white wash the fact that the end result is your life being taken arbitrarily by means of a govt action then that it is okay? Sounds like a bunch of bs to me.

  2. A male person who wish to have surrogate baby also have 50% right on the baby beyond the contract because he donate his sperm which is a haploid cell and a female contribute her egg which is a haploid cell and these two haploid cell merge and make a diploid cell which take shape of baby

    another view female part did not have adequate knowledge of emotion she might have about the baby in future but male part had the importance of baby for his family. so if consider about the feeling of male we should enforce contract

  3. 39:20 The moron in the top right laughing is clearly not adult enough to have this philosophical discussion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say she did poorly in this course.

  4. Sam & Raul and the girl almost got it. The Civil War system was coercive, the payment system is does involve coercion, but you're misplacing the source of that coercion. Life cannot be bought therefore it has no price. The rational decision if you're life isn't in danger is not to add such a risk to it; if in your life you had all the material things you needed to thrive you would not accept any amount of money to so gravely risk your life unless for some extremely compelling reason like an imminent threat. Therefore it is the circumstances of poverty that are coercive on the individual, such that the individual is compelled to take the bad deal that is a few thousand dollars in exchange for their life.

  5. I can't seem to understand why breaking out of a signed contract of an action you knew would take place is justifiable…

  6. Honestly this video convinced me that bearing children might be inherently unethical. If it seems unjust that the fate of a child (i.e. which parents that child grows up with) can be determined by the wealth of the highest bidder, isn't it also unjust in another sense for a child to be forced to be raised by any set of parents, just because they happened to be the people who biologically created that child (or adopted them)? I mean I'm not gonna go around telling all parents that they're awful people, but certainly I personally couldn't imagine the weight of responsibility and potential guilt it would entail to be such a strong determining force for a powerless (for 18 years at least) person's quality of life…

  7. Michael always does a great job extrapolating the thoughts of the students sometimes poorly expressed thoughts. This is the first time I saw an argument go a little side ways it looked like one of the students pointed out the injustice of a poor man being conscripted not having the wealth outsource their duty as compared to say Carnegie but the lecture went sideways and focused on the legitimate transaction between the wealthy and the merc

  8. a Lot more battles have been lost than won b/c of mercenaries,
    also some wars could nt have been fought at all without them
    as for surrogate case contract should be enforceable

  9. 12:20 Raoul DOES go for a 3rd attempt to make his name known to the professor. The crowd starts to like it.

  10. Michael Sandel and others were awesome and genius.however, that will lead me to one questions raised.Is it possible to reach the absolute ideal theory about, what is right and what is wrong?.we must withdraw from such as Losar battel and let all of this issues to the one who has the perfection in an argument.Allah who had created our brains and our arguments.

  11. This is a case that 'teeters on the edge of "human trafficking", a life up for adoption has now had a price placed upon it for which breaches the commitment and agreement made into the "right to life". Contracts are only as good as the paper they are written on, in this case the agreement entered into of the biological mother was not informed, she had no full understanding of what she was being held accountable for – therefore the consent is null and voided. Pro-abortionists would argue too, that the life of the baby starts in the womb – and that as an impregnated embryo in all stages toward the start of life, there is a natural bond that will be formed within the vessel from which they are birthed. The emotional bond – that feeling – is beyond measurable and invaluable.

  12. There is also a physics fact that the only atoms we touch is the ones in the womb of our mother, everything else we just feel through pressure but never directly touch other atoms because we would fall apart or deconstruct and the strong nuclear forces don't allow that to happen; so it is not only emotional, but it is a legit scientifically logical connection between the mother and the child.

  13. whenever our life threaten by death,we automatically defend it.It doesn't required voluntary recruitment or lottery,any way we will come.For invasion these methods are may be questionable.

  14. I am actually curious about whether a contract that harms fundamental right can be made. If a person A made a contract with a person B about, B can kill him without committing a crime, is this okay to make this contract? and is this a crime for B to kill A?

  15. i dont fucking understand what the problem is with the army being just/fair in the civil war. yes it is not fair that some people can afford paying poor people to go to the army, but its not about the fairness at all.
    Example:
    Person A is poor and got drafted – no way out, he has to serve. [uncertain to survive}
    Person B is rich and got drafted – he can buy his way out. [certain to survive]
    Person C is poor and did not get drafted, but is ill and cant pay treatment*. [uncertain to survive]
    Person D is rich and did not get drafted, is ill, but can pay his treatment. [certain to survive]

    see? this system the army used is legitimate. from the beginning on, the different individuals lifes are NOT equal.

    *suppose the medical treatment is just something else besides serving in the military which may affect his life. it doesnt matter if you say "but if he enrolled hed get treated by the army" no that doesnt count

  16. 21:10 Jackie didn't really sufficiently justify why being motivated makes someone a better soldier. She should have stated that once a soldier is put in a situation where they no longer feel it is worth the money to be doing what they are doing, they will skimp out.

  17. some of the students here will pick a path of thinking and will stop off half way and arrive at a halfassed point instead of fallowing that logic all the way through to a completely different conclusion

  18. Who's common good. It's called a draft. Can a sergeant tell a soldier to fuck your wife. How about a government who
    takes people to concentration camps to get murdered..The civil war was supposed to free the slaves but after Lincoln was assassinated Andrew Johnson became president who was a southern simplifier.

  19. As an outsider, I would feel safer being defended by a guy who volunteers to defend me/the country and who is willing to put the effort into getting trained for war, who gets fit, who kinda always wanted to do this since he was a little boy, etc, than by a poor man who doesn't even know how to fight, who doesn't have the body for it, but who has no choice but to put his life up for hire because he needs to feed a woman with small children or some elderly parents:(( I mean, I wouldn't feel safe at all, I would feel ashamed and outraged and I would cringe inside because it would be such an ugly thing to do:((

    And there is also the question of the 'children's war'. Was never good at History in school, but wasn't the first world war fought by teenagers who got drafted by force or/and who naively bought into this dream of glory and bravery?:(… Was that right?! To send thousands of children to their death?! There is definitely something wrong here!

    In an ideal world, there should be no need for wars and violence in general, but you have to be realistic about it: there are national threats everywhere and you DO NEED a national army to defend you. However, it's got to be done by 'big men' who are trained for this, who are mentally and emotionally fit and who want to choose this fighting war thingy as a career and who are also paid in accordance with their bravery and patriotism.

  20. Couples who cannot conceive naturally shouldn't try to buy a child this way! Let them look into adoption or learn to live childless. There is a good reason Mother Nature said no to them.

  21. Henry George later argued (consistent with Turgot and Patrick Edward Dove) that taxation is both unjust and unnecessary. By this he meant that taxation is, by definition, the confiscation of legitimate private property. What these great political philosophers argued is that the rent of land (i.e., of natural assets, more broadly than just surface land) IS societal wealth. The collection of this rent fund is necessary for a just society to exist. The failure to collect this rent fund to pay for public goods and services (or more expansively as Paine argued in "Agrarian Justice") results in entrenched rentier privilege. It also results in the perception that taxation of earned income, of produced capital goods and of commerce is necessary to support the functions of government.

  22. There is another, equally important moral issue regarding the obligation of citizens to enter the military when one's country is at war. As with the Andrew Carnegie illustration, many (but certainly not all) of the more wealthy individuals find a way not to serve. At the same time, the wealthy have the most to lose if the nation is defeated. Yet, the expenses of war are almost never absorbed by those who have the most ability to pay. Taxes are increased across the board, but only to a limited extent. Governments raise the needed revenue by issuing bonds. The bonds are purchased by those with available disposable income and EARN interest payments.

  23. Wow, I guess joining the military is in a way financial coercion for the poor, if they have few opportunities to earn money/benefits going other routes.

  24. Paying another to fight for your country makes a mockery of patriotic duty, which all owe equally. No common bond of fellowship can exist between ordinary people and those who could easily buy out of their obligations, since they cannot be said to live in the same society; conversely, those who allowed themselves to be used out of desperate necessity cannot be said to owe anything to a society which treats their lives as worthless.

  25. i find it hilarious how they all thing their opinion is the right one. whenever someone else raises their hand for something that is not their opinion you can see the dirty look they all give its hilarious.

  26. if you believe in free choice, then the reasons for choosing to join the military are relevant. what is important is that people have a choice to do so. however if the need for you to join the military is to defend the social contact, to which protects the right you have to which you gain utility, than you as a citizen have an obligation to contribute to fight to protect such rights.

  27. In my view the difference between the civil war system and the actual warfare of the USA is huge, which gives a totally different aspect in people participating in them. Money is always an issue, but patriotism comes only, or mainly, when fighting against other nations.

  28. The Harvard students missed one point which shows why the mixed method of acquiring soldiers in the US civil war described was unjust. If a rich person can buy their way out of conscription by hiring someone else, a poor person may not have enough money to do the same. That means poor people did not always have choice about whether they went to war even though the rich people did have that choice.

  29. I was kind of at first agreeing with Not forcing the lady to give on the child because of emotions and their value but again how any why should we only think of the lady who is giving up the child the other party has emotions too I mean they had also waited 9 months for a baby and now their emotions are important too… So I guess enforcing the contract is the right thing to do.

  30. that girl behind kathline is appalled by her answer and the ruthlessness in the way she says the contract needs to be enforced here :v

  31. I just started my masters and i felt this video more engaging and knowledgeable then almost all of my bachelors classes. This was an assignment for my first master class. I hope it follows suite.

  32. Women who will never be conscripted supporting conscription, privileged students who will never serve saying they are against the privileged not doing their part in the military…

  33. “#HiredGuns?>#GunsFromWhereAndHow?>#GunPurchase?>#GunsInDangerousHands?>Reportedly Daily Gun Violence’s?>#Daily🇺🇸DeathsHomicidesSuicides?>#ProgressiveDemsRelentlessDrivesToEndGunViolence!<#GunSense?>#MomsDemandActions!>#SandyHookAtrocities!>#ActionsAtUrgentCitizensConcerns!>#JudicialCompoundingReviewsAtTheSecondAmendments🌏💡🌏✌️🙅‍♂️👶🎁👍:).>#EnoughIsEnough!>#EndKKKClowns!>#JudicialAddressAlsoAtNRAGOPSElectionsCoerseWithPowerfulMonetarySupports?>#WhyOnEarthJudicialCitizensFreeGunSalesWithoutSweepingBackgroundChecks?>#SubstansiveGunSalesForWhomByWhatToWhom?>#JesusOnTheCross!>#EnoughCompoundingTransmittableGenerationalTraumas!>#LeaveNoOneBehind!>#🙏ActionsProgress!).>#SDGs?>#DemocraticCitizenshipRespects!<#HistoricalAndModernSlaveriesNoMore!>#VisionsOfDreamersDREAMers!>#PeaceOnEarth!>#WeCanShareGiftsAtGOD’sCreations!).>#GODNeverMakesMistakes!).”

  34. Respects!>”#PowerfulVisionaryAcademicDebatesOnGlobalStage!>#ProfessionalEducatorsEnrichingGlobalAwarenessInAllHumanitarianPerspectivesDeliveriesProgressSustainability!>#MavericksAtHelmOf21st.CenturyEmbrace!>#Thanksgivings!>#ProgressivePeacefulHealthyWorldOfHugeGifts!>#GenerationalHopes🌏💡💡👶🙅‍♂️🎁💕👍:).”

  35. “#ProgressiveAcademicProdigiesOnGlobalStage!>#ChangingPerspectivesAtHugeGiftsLives?>#PerspectivesOfProgressiveSTEMCellsResearchFindingsDeliveriesSustainableActsEmpoweringVisionaryLegalSurrogacy!).>#BlessedChildrenAtInnocenceOfBirths!>👶🙅‍♂️🎁❤️✌️💡💕🙏👍:).>#LeaveNoOneBehind!>#ChildrenOurFutures!>#AllChildrenInSchools!>#UN,>#WHO,>#UNDP!>#PresentFutureYetUnbornOurGlobalResponsibilities!>#SaveOurChildren!>#ChildrenInCagesAndDetentionCentresShameOurProgressive21st.CenturyWorld!>#AllHandsOnDeck!>#ChristmasApproaching!>#GlobalEducationalNativityPlaysAtChristians’ActsOfWorships:>#ChildrenSingForUs!>#GentleJesusMeekAndMild…..PityMySimplicitySufferMeToComeToThee!👶💕🎁🌏💡🙏✌️.).>#SDGs!”

  36. In the case Stern vs Whitehead one argument i didn't hear is as follows:

    Forget the contract between 2 parties and whether they have any unalienable right to the baby but as soon as baby is born (or in the womb after certain period) it has a right to Life and Liberty.
    This right to Life and Liberty of the baby includes the right against slavery. You are trading a human being without its consent that amounts to slavery.
    The baby's right to its life is unalienable and precedes any other right that mother has over the baby and certainly it precedes any contract drawn without the baby's consent.

  37. The effects of economic duress have yet to be fully realised…. desperate men do desperate things.

    if a man feels he can better secure the lives of his family through his death then he may be further tempted to sacrifice his life in order to provide for his family in the best way he can…. five hundred dollars is a lot of money when your children have no shoes, no education and no food.

  38. @24:05 If you think that those people (in the civil war system) who accept money to be a substitute for someone else's conscription are doing so out of a desperate need for money and hence are coerced into it, then how about poor people who can only afford to eat plain bread every meal? Aren't they coerced too since they wouldn't only eat plain bread if they had enough money? And how about rich people who choose to eat plain bread because they want to save money for something else? Aren't they also coerced to eat bread since they wouldn't have chosen so if they had enough money?

    What exactly is considered as coercion? What's the definition or the real test to know if something is a coercion or not?

  39. Where can I get eggs and sperms of happy inventors/ really smart people? Im talking about people who learned to read/write 4 languages at 6 years old.

  40. The woman who agreed to be a surrogate was already the mother of two children. I think she knew pretty well about the bond a mother develops with her newborn child. More importantly, did the man get his 10k$ back?

  41. Mostly volunteered soldiers are from the part of the population which doesn't do well economically. Of course one cannot ignore that the soldiers are true patriots. But it's also a fact that most rich people are far off from going to war even to defend their own country. So there's definitely an element of coercion even for the volunteered army. They, for being, mostly less economically privileged, are in fact automatically coerced to take that path that they might otherwise avoid being a rich kid. And of course the draft and selling and buying of the draft is even brute version of coercion. Because not all people who ultimately goes to fight civil war using the draft system are paid the same. So even with in the soldiers themselves they are not being treated equally. At least in this respect volunteer system is better off than draft system. Because all voleenteers are treated the same. And that is also why in voleenteerd system patriotism can be observed. In case otherwise it seems that mostly poor people are going to war only for money. Anyone who volunteered is treated the same as the other voleenteers, allow for the patriotism to come forth. This is why even though both the system are coerced, still voleenteerd system is more preferred. Because it allows for certain respect to build up in the eyes of others for the soldiers who fight for the country made up of both rich and poor.

  42. Because citizenship is birthright, and because living within the society without a birth certificate is practically impossible, none of the citizens except those who immigrated here and were then naturalized as citizens have voluntarily given consent or have given consent without duress. Thus the consent is not valid, and so the tax approved by the majority and imposed on the individual is unjust and not a result of consent, but rather the result of force.

  43. payed soldier and the man that use their service all get benefit ,depend on overseer

    contract is contract ,even its for bad. like crime

  44. Apparently there is a disconnect between creation and sexual pleasure. I suspect it's caused by birth control and abortion. Well you can do what you want until someone's fist meets the end of your nose. Sad lecture.

  45. The argument for the mother keeping the child are pretty flawd . Just because she spend 9 months being pregnant doesn't mean you can just shrug off the feelings that the father might have for this child . Just saying that it's not compatible is sexist at best . The woman already has 2 children and knew how much she loved those . On top of that the father is in a better financial situation and will be able to provide a better life to this child .saying that his interest in this child isn't valid because he is a guy is wrong . The child should be with the family that caused this child to exist in the first place .

  46. Actually there is certain point for Stern Couples. The surrogate mother have biological right and you can say she didn't know how she will feel about the baby and that make just the contract breaking. But it's not all about contract. Stern couples hadn't any child. After making the contract they were dreaming about the child. You know after expecting child people name there child; think about there future and just so many plans come into head. So there is also a emotional point in the side of Stern couple. The felt it horrible. The surrogate mother had time to prepare for giving up the child. But they had not. So it's not breaking contract it's breaking the dream

  47. I agree with a volunteer army… and one shouldn’t be able to sale/ or pay for a replacement…

    The courts made the right decision in the baby case, but the biological mother should’ve been forced to pay all the received funds back or the father should’ve gotten an optional discount on child support. The father was screwed the worst in that situation…

  48. All of the parties are emotionally involved in this, the surrogate mother, the father, & his wife who has been waiting also for the child to be born… instead of any of them having right to the child, they can all be a father & two mothers for the child & raise her/him together… so no one's emotions are sidelined…

  49. You can introduce your children to military life and it should be there free choice of will either they want to serve or not… I as a parent have no problem with it I wish I could have served 4 years in my 20s.

  50. College can be a waste of time especially if they keep you from completing your studies. #communitycollege

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *