Harvard professor Michael Sandel gives a lecture condensed from his popular university class Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning.
In it, he analyzes the meaning of justice in the modern world.
Bio
Michael Sandel
Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980.
He is the author of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982, 2nd edition, 1997; translated into eight foreign languages), Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1996), Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics (Harvard University Press, 2005), and The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Harvard University Press, 2007).
His writings also appear in general publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and The New York Times.
In philosophy, the concept of a proper proportion between a person's deserts (what is merited) and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her. Aristotle's discussion of the virtue of justice has been the starting point for almost all Western accounts. For him, the key element of justice is treating like cases alike, an idea that has set later thinkers the task of working out which similarities (need, desert, talent) are relevant. Aristotle distinguishes between justice in the distribution of wealth or other goods (distributive justice) and justice in reparation, as, for example, in punishing someone for a wrong he has done (retributive justice). The notion of justice is also essential in that of the just state, a central concept in political philosophy. See alsolaw.
I was a bit surprised that so few people were of the persuasion (full disclosure: I ascribe to this) that marriage should not be "blessed" by the state. I greatly appreciated Dr. Sandel's appraisal, and believe he is correct that that is reason, but I find it strange that so many people believe the government ought to have a say in the matter. Do gay or straight people believe it validates their marriage when the court system gives it the thumbs up? Or diminished when it's thumbs down?
I am gay and was very opposed to prop 8. A possible fourth option could be found in the stare decisis of the Supreme Court itself in the now infamous case, "In Re: Marriage." That the state only issue civil unions to all leaving the term marriage for the symbolic religious ceremonies. Of course this would allow some churches to create gay marriages, but those would not be recognized by other churches. But it would have no legal impact and the same rights and protections would be extended to all.
I really hope that the funds and support arrive for this project to be supported by WBGH. Not all of us can get to Harvard to participate in these classes and discussions, but we certainly have something to learn from all of the people involved. Wow!
I think there is a good point here in his three options, and I don't understand how anyone can support position 1. Either marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one. Otherwise you might as well start building separate bathrooms and water fountains again. And religion should not factor in to the argument at the state level.