Episode #204 ... The importance of philosophy, justice and the common good. (Michael Sandel)
37:53 Share

Hello everyone, I'm Stephen West. This is Philosophize This. Thanks to everyone that makes this show a possibility in the world. So we've given quite a bit of time, the last several episodes of the show, to anti-capitalism, post-capitalism. It's been fun. But let's talk about some philosophers who think it's possible to move things into a better place, you know, without overthrowing the economic, political, religious dimension to most people's lives and capitalism. Let's talk about how to do something from within.

Now there's one way to start talking about that, where this turns into a show where I just sit around talking about forward-thinking economic policy. Oh boy. You know, do an episode on reforming the tax code. Do a couple on subsidies and common sense regulations. But there's a sense in which that'd be a bit too conservative. I'd have to change the name of the show to economize this, not philosophize this. But the good news is, there's another level of change that's possible in capitalist economies, where it's not about reforming the existing way we're doing things with all the same tools we have right now,

The other way to change things is to rethink the entire orientation of a capitalist society altogether. To think of capitalism as the engine and what needs to change is the direction that it's moving us in.

See, to other thinkers out there, regardless of the economic system that underlies the Western world right now, what's going to change things for the better is going to be a fundamental change in people's thinking. It's going to be a change in the ways people think about what it means to be a part of a society and how they see the social relations that make their society what it is.

And for that, we don't necessarily need to overthrow capitalism in a way that's no doubt going to lead to a lot of collateral damage for people. But for many of these thinkers, what we're going to need for this change is philosophy, or at least something that mirrors the value you get from practicing philosophy.

And maybe a good place to start making a case for their point here is to talk about a common criticism of people that like to get together with their friends and talk about moral dilemmas. Trolley car problems, axe murderers coming to your doorstep. We've all done this sort of stuff before, back in the 80s.

There's a type of person out there that says, who really is sitting around thinking about this kind of stuff? I mean, what are you even doing? I know what you think you're doing. You think you're running through these hypothetical scenarios where you're forced to explain your criteria for what the right thing to do is. And you think you're becoming a more moral person. But what I think this person might say is,

is that you're just wasting your time. Because in real life, there's no trolley car hurtling down the track where you're standing on the side and you've got to choose to pull a lever or not. Real life, sadly, is never as simple as these idealized moral dilemmas.

In the real world, things are messy. We have imperfect levers, imperfect information about the trolleys, all you're doing when you indulge in one of these philosophical dilemmas. At best, it's you and your friends patting yourself on the back for what's essentially ethical cosplaying.

And at worst, it's you reinforcing a set of ethical norms that you happen to live in, unaware of the ideology that gives you this logic where these moral conclusions of yours always seem like the right decisions to be making, but you're not even fully aware of the game you're actually playing. And by the way, these people that question morality for fun, you know, asking you questions like, why do you think murder is wrong? Because I think it's wrong to hurt people.

Right, right, right, right. But why is it wrong to hurt people? Why not hurt people? As you imagine beating this person senseless with a little philosophy book they have in their hand. Why is this not an example of somebody just being annoying? And by the way, if these are the kinds of genius questions philosophers have to offer us, why is anybody wasting their time on this nonsense? Why don't we just talk about the real political issues that are affecting people, not wasting time talking about first principles? Well, there's a lot of answers to give here.

And at least with the first part of it, where they're saying you're not even really practicing morality when you consider hypothetical moral dilemmas, because it's not a real world scenario that you're thinking about. I think that criticism sometimes comes from people who are already well educated in philosophy. And I think they sometimes forget what it's like to be starting out, wanting to have a forum to think about these things more and to learn some of the history of the theory in this area.

It's not exactly easy to weave into a conversation with someone, well, what about consequentialism? Deontology? What about egoism? Natural law? These hypotheticals can be a great place to see where all these different approaches can bring moral clarity and in what points they start to come up short.

Also, just in consideration to the other point, that the real world is messier than these hypotheticals, yeah, agreed. It is messy. And to continue the metaphor, there's a cleanliness to having these sorts of discussions in this hypothetical environment where you're never going to get held up in one of these discussions with someone because you guys can't agree on what the facts are. I mean, you want to talk about wasting your time. You can spend most of your life doing that.

But anyway, also, aside from people who are just starting out, I think someone that critiques this kind of stuff too hard is just ignoring the very real benefit of practicing philosophy like this in general. There are real skills that you gain from being in conversations that push you to think, that ask you to explain yourself. The philosopher Simon Blackburn once wrote that when he has to explain to kids what he does as a philosopher, he calls it conceptual engineering.

And what he meant by that is that the same way an engineer might know how to build a bridge, and part of the job of that engineer is to know all the materials that the bridge is made out of, how the pieces connect together, what sections of the bridge bear weight, which sections are poorly designed and won't be able to hold weight or survive in different conditions. The same way an engineer can tell you everything about how a good bridge is put together, a philosopher does that with thinking and concepts to Simon Blackburn.

Is this idea, or this worldview, made up of quality materials that we should be building stuff out of in the first place? How do these ideas connect together? What pieces of the structure are potentially weak and need a more solid foundation of argument? For the same reason you might want an engineer to test your bridge because you don't want it collapse in the second the wind blows in the wrong way and Grandma Beatrice is driving across it. Sometimes you want to put your thoughts through this kind of analysis as well.

And it's annoying, yes, when somebody asks you to get to the bottom of exactly what's wrong about something in your eyes, like murder, something that seems obvious to you.

But basic questions like that are only the very beginning, and they're necessary because for anybody that does put themselves in the gym like this on a regular basis, you know the results that come in the form of an ability to have better conversations, better critical thinking. You're better at arguing. You're better at formulating questions. You're better at spotting exactly where the problem is in other people's arguments. You're better in real time at coming up with examples to show the weaknesses of where other people are making mistakes.

There's a sense in which you would never want to force someone into having these sorts of conversations. That's when you start being annoying. Same way it'd be annoying if you forced somebody to run up the side of a sand dune or something. But to people who are willing participants in all this, the benefits are obvious to them. And the fact is, you're living in a culture where most people would see you talking about something like the limitations of utilitarianism, and you ask them to join in on the conversation. Hold on.

And most people would be like, you know what? I actually can't think of anything I'd like to do less than that right now. That sounds like actual torture to me. That is the world we currently live in. And if that's you, then look, there's many sides to philosophy. Most of this podcast is just an overview of philosophical theory. And you can spend your life getting a ton of value from just reading the end result of all this work. And you'll no doubt improve your thinking just to be intaking more ideas from people that have really thought theirs through.

But there's an undeniable benefit, other people would say, of being a practitioner of philosophy as well. To get uncomfortable and then to be pushed to explain yourself, to practice philosophy in these sorts of ethical conversations we've been talking about. Or street epistemology, if you're more interested in knowledge. Or any of these communities where people come together and voluntarily participate in getting better at this conceptual engineering of philosophy.

Now I get it, Stephen West, you're the philosophical Tony Robbins over here. Hooray for you. But what does any of this have to do with fixing capitalism? Well, I want to introduce you to a book today written by the philosopher Michael Sandel. He's alive and kicking, still doing his work today, world famous, generally regarded as a very kind man, which is a rare find these days as an example for young people to look up to.

But anyway, the book I want to turn you on to is called "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" It's written in a completely accessible way. It's not going to be like that time you tried to read Kant and deeply regretted it. This was written in 2010, designed to get people thinking about justice. Well, with a covert secret point to the book that's very different than justice, which you'll know about by the end of this episode.

The book presents itself on the cover, though, as a philosophical examination of the concept of justice. It has dozens of thought experiments, dozens of real-world examples from the realm of politics. And the goal seems to be, at first, to get people thinking about what we mean when we talk about protecting justice and what criteria we use for determining what the right thing to do is. And what Sandow very quickly lays out is that there have been three primary ways of thinking about justice throughout the history of philosophy. Three different teams, if you will.

You have one, team utilitarianism, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or more accurately, utility. Two, you have team libertarianism, where justice is seen as what maximizes people's individual freedom. And three, you have team virtue ethics, where a just society is one where people recognize the type of society that they want to live in, and then take steps to cultivate the kind of virtues in the citizens that would help produce that kind of society.

Now he goes through each of these and shows how they're strong, the types of situations each of these excel at bringing moral clarity to, and then he shows examples of where they all start to run into issues. For example, for something like the trolley car problem, utilitarianism can seem on the surface to be pretty convincing. You're on the side of the tracks, you pull the lever and save the five people and kill the one person instead.

And because utilitarianism is essentially a calculation that's being made, where you're weighing the pros and cons, the suffering and pleasure of people, because of that, it can be extremely effective at showing how, yeah, and the trolley problem, it seems obvious that the correct decision is to pull the lever and kill one person instead of five.

And it can seem super attractive as an ethical theory overall because of how simple it seems to make these ethical decisions. I mean, imagine that. Imagine that, as they say in England, if morality was just a math problem where you're weighing human suffering in different levels of utility. Imagine that.

But then as Sandell and many others throughout history have pointed out, not the least of which was Philippa Foot, who was the woman who originally formulated the trolley car problem people know today, for Herb, Sandell, and many others, utilitarianism starts to run into problems when it comes to the consideration of individual rights.

For example, as an alternative Michael Sandel gives to the trolley problem, if it is so right that we should pull the lever to kill one person to save the five, imagine instead, new scenario, you're a doctor and you have five patients. All of them are in need of an organ transplant and all of them are going to die if they don't get one soon. One needs a lung, another needs a heart, a kidney, a pancreas, and a liver. Five people are going to die, Sandel says,

But then, there's a guy sitting in the other room who just came in for a routine physical. Good news, as it turns out. His organs are all working fine. And as it just so happens, he's asleep right now in the other room. Should we, using the wisdom of utilitarianism, kill this one guy and harvest all his organs to save the other five? Now, clearly most people would say that we shouldn't. But why is that?

What has changed about the specifics of the situation that makes the outcome most in line with justice, not simply the one that produces the most happiness for people? Another example he gives for this is to ask, was it okay for the Romans to throw Christians into the center of the Colosseum to get eaten by the lions? I mean, sure, it was pretty bad for one person, the Christian, but there were thousands of happy Romans there.

He says, even if you say that that would lead to a lot of other Christians feeling scared about their future, and thus that's not what provides the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run, then okay, he says, even if that's true, is that the reason that it's not okay to throw innocent people to the lions? Just that moral calculus that you've done there? Or is there obviously something much more to morality that just isn't covered by utilitarian calculations like this?

And we'll get into this in more detail. There's so much more to utilitarianism than this. I'll talk about it at the end of the episode. But for the sake of making Michael Sandel's point in the book, just notice here that when it comes to generic utilitarianism like this, problems are often going to be arising the second it starts to become necessary in a situation to consider people's human rights.

Because sometimes it doesn't matter if we can save a thousand people or ten thousand people if we just have to kill one. No, as modern human beings, there's a consideration we make of the individual rights of a person that you'd just be massively overlooking if you went purely by utilitarianism.

So in the book, Sandel says, when people notice these limits, another popular direction for them to go in is the second of these three teams he talks about. This one's called team libertarianism or team freedom. The idea being that it doesn't matter if there's some calculation that tells you something leads to more human flourishing than something else.

There are basic fundamental rights that people have. Or if you wanted to have a just society, if that was really your goal, then the best strategy, people on this team would say, is just to respect people's ability to be free. As Sandell puts it, the goal of the society is to respect the rights of people to choose for themselves what ends to pursue, what lives to live.

And you know, freedom really is a level playing field that we can aim for that seemingly solves a lot of the problems created by utilitarianism. Where it doesn't matter if what you do in life contributes to more or less happiness in the world, on Team Freedom, as long as you don't directly mess with anybody else's ability to be free, then what's right for you to do with your life is basically just your preference. You decide how you're going to live your own life, not society. And this also, as a strategy, sounds very good on the surface.

You can see the benefits of this kind of setup in a lot of modern Western justice systems, where when you judge a situation about what the right thing to do is, and you begin from a place where people have these non-negotiable rights, then judges and lawyers and prison systems don't need to get bogged down in the minutiae of every single ethical consideration imaginable.

No, somebody's ability to be free and the rights that come out of that assumption. This becomes a goalpost for judges to aim for that saves us a lot of time. It's not a mystery why human rights are such a popular direction for people to go in these days.

Now, as Sandell says, a couple important differences from the utilitarian approach to justice. One important one, he says, is to recognize that this libertarianism is a step up in terms of complexity and responsibility for the average person. Because now, instead of just being able to run the numbers and calculate what's good or bad, now there's a responsibility on the individual to come up with what they think is good or bad. Giving people this freedom places more of a burden on people.

It also needs to be said that in our modern world for Michael Sandel, there's an important split between two different camps in this team freedom view of justice. It's a split you'll be familiar with. One side of this are people that think that freedom is letting people be whoever they want to be within the parameters of the laws and free markets.

You know, get the government out of my way and let the market decide who or what is valuable. That's one side of it. But the other side of this are those that think that people can't actually be free until there are certain background conditions that are met that allow people to be free. One example he gives is somebody who works at a sweatshop. Like, is somebody free when they're working at a sweatshop? Well, in one sense you could say that. I mean, technically, they can always choose to not work at the sweatshop.

But the other side of it would say that the fact this person's even working in those conditions for such little pay is an indication they're so desperate they don't have much of a choice. So the tension between these two camps and Team Freedom oftentimes becomes about determining how many of these background conditions need to be in place before we can consider people to be truly free. And this is an ongoing tension in the world we live in, obviously.

But like all other attempts to reduce morality down into a single ism, this libertarianism that Sandel talks about starts to run into problems as well. And the problems arise, he says, because of something about this strategy that we might typically see as a very good thing, being liberal-minded people living in a modern democracy. The problems arise because of the strategy's appearance of supposed neutrality.

See, if utilitarianism can say, "Look, I'm pretty neutral because there's something impersonal about the moral calculus of weighing the pros and cons, happiness and suffering, etc." And if Team Freedom can say something similar, "I'm neutral because, look, we may disagree on what we want to do with our freedoms or what sort of society we want to bring about, so let's just avoid all that and focus on individual freedom." When both of these popular approaches seem to be so neutral,

then what sort of social effects are going to come out of that being the way that we structure things? Well, to see what changes, we've got to compare these two approaches to justice to the third common view of justice that Michael Sandel lays out in the book, which is far from a neutral strategy, by the way. If you remember, it was the virtue ethics approach to justice, and Michael Sandel is very quick to point out how this way of viewing justice is not a new approach. It goes all the way back to the work of Aristotle.

See, Aristotle believed that the first question of any political project is not how do we maximize utility or how do we respect people's choices. The first question is how do we live well together? That's an important difference. Again, the point of any political project is not just to live, you know, to survive by any means necessary. The point is to live well.

Why are we teaming up and pooling resources if we're not trying to do something together that's greater than the sum of the parts? So on that note, to Michael Sandel, a just society by this standard is going to be one that concerns itself with the preferences that we bring to public life in the first place. A just society is one that cultivates the kind of society that we as people want to be living in. And part of doing that for Sandel is going to be cultivating the kind of citizens that bring that society about.

See, for somebody like Aristotle, a just society is not going to have justice for very long if it doesn't have citizens that are capable of civic involvement, people that are educated, people that are aware of the issues that are going on in their society and are capable of having the difficult conversations that get us closer to what Aristotle called the common good.

We aren't generally doing that right now. Right now, we're maximizing utility and individual preference. And that is what is missing for Michael Sandel. A just society is going to be one that cultivates the civic involvement that is necessary for people to be truly aware of the common good and then to do the things that are necessary to bring it about. And just so we don't kind of interrupt the show at any point beyond this, I want to thank everyone that supports the sponsors of the show today that signed a contract to be here and keep Philosophize This going.

For an ad-free experience of the show, sub at any level at patreon.com slash philosophize this. First up today is Rocket Money. How closely do you track your bank statements and credit card history? Are you combing through every single charge on a regular basis? Or do you just assume everything's fine until you notice something weird? Honestly, I don't have time to watch my accounts that closely. I have a baby.

But now that I'm using Rocket Money, it does all that for me, so I don't got to worry about it. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so that you can grow your savings. It's definitely saved me several times in the last year or so. Love the interface too. It's very visual. It's an aesthetic delight to find out you've been wasting money on a

on a Showtime max plus minus subscription for eight months of your life. It's a delight to the senses, but more importantly, Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all the app's features.

Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to rocketmoney.com slash pt. That's rocketmoney.com slash pt. rocketmoney.com slash pt. Moving along, next up is NordVPN. So a VPN is a virtual private network. It creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and a VPN server.

Two main reasons I started using a VPN. One was for when I was traveling. You know, Wi-Fi in an airport or a coffee shop is a joy, don't get me wrong. But being on public networks like that can be sketchy if somebody knows what they're doing. Let's be honest. Nice to have a little more peace of mind, I guess. Second was that it allowed me to view content that's region locked across the globe. You can watch shows or sports games that otherwise are only available to people in a certain area.

NordVPN is the fastest VPN in the world. It's the one I can recommend honestly because it's the one I use every day. It's the price of a cup of coffee per month and you can protect your whole family on one account because it works on up to six different devices.

It's also a great way to support the podcast. To get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to nordvpn.com slash philothis. Our link will also give you four extra months plus a bonus gift. There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee, and you'll help support our podcast. The link is in the podcast episode description box. Lastly, this episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.

So life is full of moments when you're not the center of attention, especially if you have a family. Life is oftentimes about being there for the other people that you care about, keeping things in check, handling the maintenance of life so that they don't have to.

In one sense, to me, it's one of the most beautiful things in life to live long enough and build something where you're not the center of attention anymore. But that also puts you in a place where it's very easy to overlook yourself for a long enough period of time that you don't feel as good as you used to. It can sneak up on you. Therapy can be a great place for a third party to give you a neutral take on how to be a version of yourself that you just like hanging out with more.

The problem is sometimes navigating the channels of actually finding a therapist you vibe with. That's the strength of BetterHelp as a service. BetterHelp is a company that's trying to help. And the way they try to do that is by being a bastion of discovery. Five-minute questionnaire, and they match you with a licensed therapist. They take away that awkward barrier that sometimes gets people too frustrated to find someone great to talk to, the kind of person that can literally change the future of your life.

Take a moment. Visit BetterHelp.com slash fill this today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash fill this. And now back to the podcast. Now, there's so many questions that immediately come to mind here. And Sandell's aware of all of them, by the way.

First of all, isn't this a bit judgmental of people to be a policy in a democratic society? I mean, whatever happened to one person, one vote, where it doesn't matter what your opinions are, your opinion is worth the same as everybody else's opinion. Also, isn't this demanding a lot from the average person to pressure them into developing their worldview even more than the libertarian view on things does? More than that, who determines what the common good is that you're even talking about?

doesn't this all start to sound like it could move into totalitarianism very easily? I mean, you can just imagine someone defines a common good one day and then says, hey, hey, we need to cultivate the citizens to bring about this common good of mine. You know, wonder how that could go wrong. Point is, many Western societies before have moved away from this kind of thinking in the past because of the problems we think it's inviting when you have this kind of setup.

But for Michael Sandel, while he acknowledges all of these as points and certainly is not proclaiming that there's some utopia he's uncovered where all the political problems have been solved, despite that he definitely would say that this engaged civic involvement of people and an understanding of the common good is a big ingredient for a just society that is glaringly missing in a lot of modern Western cultures. It's an ingredient that former societies have had that we have lost. And it comes with a price tag that may be difficult to immediately see.

Maybe the first thing to consider for Michael Sandel is that these other two approaches seem like strong options to you because they appear to be more neutral than this third one. What he would say is that when it comes to any substantive political issue that one of these neutral societies are dealing with, just beneath the surface of the issue, we're making all sorts of non-neutral declarations in the positions we take on the issues about who deserves what, or what virtues are worthy of honor, or what versions of the common good should be recognized and embodied in the law.

His examples in 2010 are going to be things like same-sex marriage, the bailouts of the banks back then, health care, reformation of the tax code. But you can just shift his point here to the issues that are going on today with a little imagination. Take his example of the bailouts, though, to illustrate this. He asked for the bailouts of the banks in 2008. Would you say that's something that was unjust?

And if your answer to that is yes, then why were they unjust? Common answer, he says, is something like, well, because the people at the top of these companies that received the bailouts didn't deserve to get bailed out. And they certainly didn't deserve to use taxpayer dollars to give giant bonuses to the people that caused the situation in the first place.

Okay, understandable. But let's dig a little deeper into the reasons there so we can understand them. Why don't these people deserve all that stuff? Answer could be, well, because they're greedy when it comes down to it. Look, everybody knows what happened there. These people gambled recklessly. They made a bunch of money on the upswing of this. They got us into this mess. And now we have to pay the price for a bunch of greedy people. In other words, greed is a vice. And now that's something we're going to be rewarding in our society? That's wrong. That's not my idea of what justice is.

Again, to Michael Sandel, whether we're paying attention to what's going on here or not, regardless of how neutral our freedom, let the market decide approach to things may seem to be on the surface, we are making normative considerations in our politics about what kinds of virtue should be rewarded, which ones should be punished, what kind of society we want to live in.

It's almost like, similar to our morality example at the beginning of last episode when we talked about tolerant relativism, it's almost like it's impossible to not be supporting a common good or universals of some sort. It's just possible for us to live in societies that don't prioritize real civic engagement to a level that the people living in those societies don't realize the version of the common good that they're endorsing by supporting the policies they do.

We are cultivating citizens that are just not having these deeper conversations about morality or policy or what the common good is that we're aiming for. What we're cultivating are people that don't see the point in having deeper conversations or understanding where the strategies we use start to run into problems. That sounds like literal torture to them.

So instead of having the type of awareness that's required for a just society, if you're Aristotle, civil discourse in our time turns into people just screaming at each other about TikTok conspiracies, or making debate videos where it's about trying to publicly dunk on each other for two hours for content, rather than trying to get to a better understanding of the issues, or people that mistake civic engagement with copying and pasting the same take over and over again on social media.

And isn't that the problem when it comes to where our standards have gotten to these days? People will say things like Twitter is the public square of our time.

And it's like, no, it's not. Twitter is a company. It's an online entertainment activity, and one that incentivizes things like visibility, surface-level takes on massively important issues, and not to mention radical takes that often obscure so much of the complexity of the world that they're the perfect kind of Twitter posts that can be said in 300 characters or less. That's not the public square. That's not the salons of Enlightenment France. And the fact someone could ever think that it was shows the real lack of education standards that were missing to Michael Sandel.

To him, we simply just need to be raising the bar when it comes to the type of civil discourse that we're incentivizing. An open society's ability to maintain justice is only as powerful as the quality of conversations that are being had in it.

Because in the moral vacuum that's created by the supposed neutrality of these other approaches to justice, what falls by the wayside to Michael Sandel are social norms that set important expectations for people's behavior. And the reason this happens, he says, is because in our world, that's far too over-indexed on markets sometimes, one consequence of that is that social norms become replaced by market norms.

You can understand the process he's talking about here pretty easily because you can see it all around you. Markets are great at doing some things. To Sandell, markets are effective instruments for organizing productive activity, for sure. But that doesn't make a market the moral arbiter of humanity. And it certainly doesn't make the distributions of markets something we should be bowing down to as the ultimate way to determine how valuable something is.

To show how this can be a problem, he says, let's take the bailout example from before. When somebody says that the people at the top of the banks didn't deserve the bailouts because they were greedy, someone could say back to that, look, regardless of how greedy any of them were,

The fact they got paid as much as they did has nothing to do with greed. It's actually a supply and demand issue. Fact is, there's not many people that are qualified to do the jobs these people are doing, so they're well compensated for it. In other words, this is the market deciding the norms for how valuable an executive is to a company. We've got to trust the market because it's wiser than any of us individually. But as Michael Sandel says, consider the other side of this.

In 2010, the average split between what a CEO made and what the low-ranking worker made at their company was that the CEO made 344 times what they made. Now you may think that's going to be his whole point here, like who should ever make 344 times what anybody else makes? Class warfare! Eat the rich people! No, Sandell's point here is, let's say that reflects the true value that a CEO is providing to the company.

Well, in the year 1980, just 30 years before that, the same split between CEO and worker was only 42 times what they made. Sandell's question is this. Is a CEO in the year 2010 eight times more valuable to a company than a CEO was back in 1980? Or is there some aspect of the market or the people that manipulate those markets that can explain that eightfold increase where the market's not, in fact, a perfect representation of the value of something?

We are thinking of markets in the Western world as things that are way more than what they actually are. And what happens is markets start to bleed into areas of life and determine the values of things that used to be decided by human beings. Healthcare, education, prisons, security, reproduction, even whether or not to go to war with another country and kill innocent people. You know, people will say that conscription or being drafted to join the military, how that not being as much of a thing anymore is a good thing for people.

But some have argued that really what you're doing there is giving governments the green light to fund mercenary or rebel groups financially that then go on to commit violence in the name of a country's political interests. You know, violence is being committed, but in today's world, there's no public outcry when a draft happens anymore. There's no civil engagement about how necessary the conflict is where people feel like they actually have to pay a price for it.

See, because when it comes to complex political issues like this, the ones that define important pieces of our societies, you can't just rely on whether this policy is efficient from a utilitarian perspective, or whether the people that were involved in something were technically free to do it or not.

If you just relied on those to Michael Sandel, you're missing something important about what a just society is. And that is that we are people that ultimately are working together to accomplish something that is only possible when we work together, a common good. And allowing market norms to replace social norms in this way is clearly a deterioration of that process.

Tons of issues he says can illustrate this further. For example, should surrogacy be legal in countries where people are obviously offering the service for way cheaper than in other countries? I mean, why not? There's two consenting people. Both of them are benefiting from the transactions. In fact, governments are passing laws all over the world to facilitate this booming industry of surrogacy. Why not let the market decide?

How about those programs in the inner city where schools pay kids money to read books and write reports on them? Should that be seen as a problem? Again, why not let the market drive people's behavior? They're always free to not do it. These are all situations we should be reflecting on more.

As Michael Sandel says, the book is called Justice, but it's really about democratic citizenship. Because a democratic society that shrinks in the face of big moral questions, one that tries to keep these big questions out of the public sphere for the sake of remaining neutral, that will always be a society that doesn't really answer to what it is to be a citizen. You have to ask yourself, does the country you live in look like a country being run by citizens that are educated and engaged with the problems facing the country?

Well, the only way that happens in a democracy is if you're able to have productive conversations among citizens that understand the importance of having these conversations. See, that's the thing. Most people that are having these conversations are really not focused on what one of the big takeaways should be from them.

To Michael Sandel, these conversations should be getting us closer to an understanding of the common good. And that doesn't mean for him that everybody agrees with each other. The point of a conversation about politics is not that at the end of it everyone's going to be agreeing. You'll no doubt disagree on a lot of things. That's part of the point.

What you will get to, though, if you pay attention in these conversations and come with even just a little bit of openness, patience, and a good faith attitude towards the other person, what you'll get to at the end of it are the common purposes or ends that both of you are aiming for in this political project that you're both a part of. You may drastically disagree on how those ends should be implemented, but having a mutual understanding of the common good that we're aiming for, that becomes an ingredient to all this that is tragically missing in the modern world.

And again, the intentions you set out within these conversations matter. When the entire purpose of a discussion is just to dunk on people that disagree with you, then it makes any hope of understanding each other or the issues better almost impossible.

I think that's why a lot of people are turned off by debate culture or call-out culture on social media. In contrast to tolerant relativism, maybe the goal here should be a type of intolerance towards certain positions, but maybe we need a better understanding of what respectful intolerance should look like.

There's much more to talk about with Michael Sandel. Because when you have these conversations and you try to get to the bottom of which social norms we want to protect from being replaced or eroded by market norms, the pieces of society that you start rethinking start to become enormous. Like, for example, the entire social norm of success being the ultimate thing that we honor in our societies. What are the consequences when people start to do that? As Sandel talks about in his more recent book, The Tyranny of Merit, our

Are the consequences of that that we got a bunch more successful people in the world rolling around in Bugattis

Or do we just have a society that ends up more divided? One where, as he says, we flatter the successful in the world and humiliate the unsuccessful. I mean, in a world where we sometimes think that the biggest obstacle we face is to try to find a way to make things truly equal and get the barriers out of the way of certain people to be able to succeed. Here's Michael Sandel asking, is that even a good strategy in the first place? Is that a type of society that we actually want to cultivate and then live in?

Again, there's so much more to talk about in his work. I'll leave it to you people that listen to vote as to whether you want more from him or not. Please send me an email or a Patreon message. I'll get back to you. But to wrap this up for right now, someone could come back to all this that we've said and say, oh, goody, Michael Sandel.

Sandell, you know, in all seriousness, how can you even be saying that with a straight face without having real, concrete policy proposals as to how our societies are supposed to get there?

I mean, we live in a digital panopticon. People are screaming at each other about TikTok conspiracies because they're locked in an echo chamber that they can't get out of. And if you don't have a way to fix that situation, then with all due respect, you should just stay quiet on this. But somebody could defend Sandell here and say, look,

We just did a series on Zizek, and people often say much of the same stuff about him, that he's talking about all these things that are wrong about the world, but doesn't have anything to say when it comes to solutions. What's with that? But if you're Slava Zizek, there's room in this world for having areas of expertise. All right? It's unreasonable to expect someone to not only be the one that spots the asteroid headed towards Earth, but also be the one that builds the rocket ship and then engineers the thing that's going to change the trajectory of the asteroid and then lands the thing on the asteroid.

Someone could say, Zizek's the one that can see the problems. It's the job of an engineer to fix things from here. Well, the same thing can be said about Michael Sandel. In a world where people might blame the digital panopticon for capturing people's subjectivity in a way where they're hopelessly imprisoned, do you really have that little faith in the malleability of people's psyche?

Do you have that little faith that people with the proper incentives set up in a society could change what they pay attention to enough for the quality of civil discourse and the standards of education improved to a place where society is better off than it is now? I mean, if you doubt that, then maybe you doubt people's ability to change at all.

which is certainly a very cynical, postmodern, frustrated point of view, but it's still a point. Michael Sandel is identifying what he thinks the problem is, and then is encouraging us to see ourselves within society in a different way. He's calling on people to have a revitalized respect of the responsibility we have as citizens, and he's doing so in a way where ultimately the problems we're facing may not be solved best by overthrowing capitalism and just putting something new in its place.

In other words, maybe it's something else, something non-economic, something that's equally systemic that needs to be changed instead. Real quick, there's something I gotta say about utilitarianism here. As I said earlier in the episode, there's a lot more to it than the time we spent today just setting up Sandell's greater point about justice. There's responses to all the criticisms we gave.

In fact, we're going to be doing a deeper dive on utilitarianism coming up soon. Yeah, it turns out in 204 episodes, we've never actually dedicated an episode to utilitarianism. And I just got news a couple days ago that I'm going to be interviewing Peter Singer and Katarzyna DeLazari-Radek, sorry about her name, about utilitarianism. Two of the absolute best living philosophers to have as representatives of that subject.

object. By the way, don't worry. This show is not an interview show. Nothing's going to change. I am going to be talking to them and I am going to be doing an episode about the contents of that interview in the Philosophize This traditional format. I'll just be posting the raw interview to Patreon for anybody that's interested. Wow, I'm losing my voice at the end of this. Zizek is still in the works, by the way. You'll know when I know. That's all I can say. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this one. Thank you for listening. I'll talk to you next time.