Michael Sandel is a Harvard professor famous for teaching thousands of undergraduates, mostly from rich families, about “justice.” Semyon Dukach, one of our Boston-based software entrepreneurs, was recently tapped to be opposite Sandel on a public radio talk show (link; the amazing novelist Marilynne Robinson
Of what value is this philosophy to someone who doesn’t have a Harvard degree or come from at least an upper-middle-class family? Most people who work in a local Walmart, McDonald’s, or Department of Motor Vehicles rather than at J.P. Morgan did not make that choice affirmatively. What can people who live and work in a town without a global non-profit organization do after learning that the righteous path is to work for a global non-profit organization? Or consider Angelika Graswald, the Latvian immigrant who had to decide whether to sabotage her fiance’s kayak and collect $250,000 in tax-free life insurance immediately or instead to get pregnant and collect $872,796 in tax-free child support over a 21-year period from the guy. How are Sandel’s philosophical musings relevant to her?
Is it fair to say that Sandel is a philosopher only for the rich? And, if so, can a philosopher for the rich be considered an important philosopher?
I would say that philosophy is generally only for the rich anyway. There must be a leisure class to support it, much like other higher art forms.
You should read all the philosophy you need in your 19th summer. Paperbacks will do just fine. Pick two or three philosophers at random, the names don’t matter. Or better, read a collection of works. At the end of that summer watch Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stamford Commencement address and print the text. Put the text in your pocket for future reference. You now have something far more valuable than a Harvard education. You have access to real life wisdom if only you heed the call.
video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA
text http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html
Keep in mind the universe does not make moral judgements (right vs wrong). People do. As Steve says: “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”
Perspective — Once a year or so listen to Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” for a tune-up in perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Enjoy the journey.
I think it is a mistake to use the word “philosophy” or “philosopher” in this context. Before reading your post I did not know who Michael Sandel was. I read a very brief summary of some of his ideas in Wikipedia. I suspect at least some of his philosophy could be of use for many people, weather they work at Walmart or not.
Now, his social and economic proposals may be silly (you can be a good philosopher and a lousy economist, I guess).
Sam, someone like Peter Singer is clearly not a philosopher for the rich.
Perhaps Sandel is not for the common man, but if his ideas encourage young self-centered patricians to seek a greater good, then he brings benefit to the world, albeit to a small but highly influential segment. A more extreme example is Bill Gates’s Giving Pledge that pertains to only the 400 wealthiest individuals and could continue to bring benefits to millions for several generations,
David, perhaps I should read more Singer, but it seems to me the crux of his argument is that rich people should give away their money to poor people because noone is more valuable than another person. If there are no rich people to give away the money, then his philosophy isn’t applicable. Point being that his ideas depend on the existence of a wealthy class.
See Singer’s seminal argument in “Famine, Affluence and Morality”
“that we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift. This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of a Bengali refugee” [the poorest example he could find at the time]
So this applies to everyone, not just the rich. Since he wrote this 1971, his argument has been refined somewhat but the basic impetus applies to all, not just the rich. He currently gives away 30% of his income to charity.
David: Is it clear that charity makes “millions better off? Couldn’t giving money to charity make people, on average, worse off than if the money had been invested in profit-seeking enterprises? Suppose that the charities waste the money? Or that the charity is the Metropolitan Opera, which uses the cash to put on shows for rich people and/or pay stage hands $500,000/year? (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/arts/hey-stars-be-nice-to-the-stagehands-you-might-need-a-loan.html ). How is giving to the Metropolitan Opera going to make the world a better place than, for example, if the money were invested by Honda or Toyota to design more efficient cars?
Singer would not be in favor of charities such as the Met. His moral argument is that we must help the most impoverished. He is wary of the notion of charitable organizations in first place (From the same article: “These organizations see themselves in this way – if you send them a check, you will be thanked for your “generosity.” Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified.”)
He does not explicitly say how the given money is to be spent, such as investment, better car design, water projects, clothing or direct donations, but focuses on the moral imperative to help others rather than more conspicuous consumption.
For the convenience of those who just want to write a check, he maintains a list of recommended organizations at http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/