I want to make Friedmans knowledge available here on Odysse. The Video originates from the Free To Choose Youtube Channel. This is the fourteenth lecture in a series of 15 lectures hold in 1978 in different Universities in the United States of America. Even though the lectures were hold almost 45 years ago, they haven't lost any relevance for our problems and struggels of modern day USA and Western civilisation as a whole. The links beneath are not to my own websites but the ones of the Free To Choose Network that was founded by Milton Friedman. If the government has the power and responsibility to promote equality of income, then how do we define the concept of equality? Jefferson, in his Declaration of Independence, meant equality before the law, a concept necessary precisely because people are not equal in tastes, values, or capacities. Later, equality came to mean equality of opportunity - the chance to run a fair race. Within a free market system, both definitions are consistent with other values: Efficiency, justice, and liberty. More recently, equality has come to mean equality of outcome. Equality of outcome cannot be mandated, cannot be insured. Any serious attempt to achieve it would destroy freedom. Recorded at NASA at the College of William and Mary, Newport News Campus ©1978 / lecture till 56:40 then 29:14 Q&A. Visit the media website to find other programs here: http://freetochoosemedia.org/index.php​ Learn more about the company here: http://freetochoosenetwork.org​ Shop for related products here: http://www.freetochoose.net​ Stream from FreeToChoose.TV here: http://freetochoose.tv​

I want to make Friedmans knowledge available here on Odysse. The Video originates from the Free To Choose Youtube Channel. This is the fourth lecture in a series of 15 lectures hold in 1978 in different Universities in the United States of America. Even though the lectures were hold almost 45 years ago, they haven't lost any relevance for our problems and struggels of modern day USA and Western civilisation as a whole. The links beneath are not to my own websites but the ones of the Free To Choose network that was founded by Milton Friedman. John Stuart Mill said, in effect, that self-protection is the only legitimate reason for people to interfere with the freedom of others. If we are to define the role of government in a free society, we must first specify what we mean by self-protection. Defense from foreign enemies and protection of property, including the enforcement of private contracts, are clearly legitimate functions of government. But when we come to two other functions of government - providing a substitute for voluntary cooperation when it appears impossible to achieve, and providing for irresponsible individuals - the justification is much less clear-cut, because in a free society people should be able to take risks but should not be able to force others to pay the consequences. If the proper limitations of government action were observed, the government would not do many things it now does. We should not resort to government regulations until we have adequately explored the possibilities for coordinating our activities through voluntary means. If we understood the implications of our own values, we would not allow ourselves to be "front men" for values we oppose, merely because we are confused about the meaning of freedom and the legitimate role of government in a free society. Recorded at Stanford University ©1978 / Lecture ends 1:00:31 then 25:36 minutes Q&A. Visit the media website to find other programs here: http://freetochoosemedia.org/index.php​ Learn more about the company here: http://freetochoosenetwork.org​ Shop for related products here: http://www.freetochoose.net​ Stream from FreeToChoose.TV here: http://freetochoose.tv​

PART ONE: DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a heated debate about same-sex marriage. Should same-sex marriage be legal? Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral permissibility of homosexuality or the purpose of marriage? PART TWO: THE GOOD LIFE Professor Sandel raises two questions. Is it necessary to reason about the good life in order to decide what rights people have and what is just? If so, how is it possible to argue about the nature of the good life? Students explore these questions with a discussion about the relation of law and morality, as played out in public controversies over same-sex marriage and abortion. Michael Sandel concludes his lecture series by making the point that, in many cases, the law cant be neutral on hard moral questions. Engaging rather than avoiding the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.

PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money? PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.