Episode 169

The Tyranny of Merit: What Has Become of the Common Good? | Michael Sandel

start listening

Episode 169

Michael Sandel

The Tyranny of Merit: What Has Become of the Common Good? | Michael Sandel

start listening

summary

In Episode 169 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Michael Sandel, professor of Government Theory at Harvard University Law School, host of the BBC series “The Public Philosopher,” and author of numerous, bestselling books including his latest, “The Tyranny of Merit.”

When people complain about meritocracy, the complaint is usually not about the ideal but about our failure to live up to it. According to this complaint, meritocracy is a myth, a distant promise yet to be redeemed. This complaint is certainly valid. But what if the problem runs deeper? What if the real problem with meritocracy is not that we have failed to achieve it but that the ideal is flawed? What if the rhetoric of rising no longer inspires, not simply because social mobility has stalled but, more fundamentally, because helping people scramble up the ladder of success in a competitive meritocracy is a hollow political project that reflects an impoverished conception of citizenship and freedom?

Perhaps nowhere has this mindset around success and failure been more evident than in our response to the pandemic, where we were continually assured by our public officials that we are “all in this together.” And yet, for those of who have been working from home during this time or who are economically independent enough to prioritize social distancing, take the necessary health precautions, and access the highest quality health services this catchphrase rings hollow. We know it’s not true. We know that there are two different realities for two different classes of people in this society, the winners and the losers.

In their conversation today, Michael and Demetri explore how we got to this point, what it means for our society, and how we might begin to engage in the moral and political renewal required to fix it.

You can access the episode overtime, as well as the transcript and rundown to this week’s episode through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.

If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:

Write us a review on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to our mailing list through the Hidden Forces Website

Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas

Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou

Subscribe & Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.supercast.com

Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod

Episode Recorded on 12/14/2020

bio

Michael J. Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. He is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government Theory at Harvard University Law School, where his course Justice was the university’s first course to be made freely available online and on television. It has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the “most influential foreign figure of the year” (China Newsweek). He is also known for his critique of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in his first book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). His books What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets and Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? were international bestsellers and have been translated into 27 languages. Sandel’s legendary course “Justice” was the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and has been viewed by tens of millions. His BBC series “The Public Philosopher” explores the philosophical ideas lying behind the headlines with participants from around the world. He received his doctorate from Balliol College, Oxford (1981), as a Rhodes Scholar, where he studied under philosopher Charles Taylor.

transcript

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. At hoc in eo M. Nam si propter voluptatem, quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti? Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis.

Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Tubulum fuisse, qua illum, cuius is condemnatus est rogatione, P. Haec para/doca illi, nos admirabilia dicamus. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam.

Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?

Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas; Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Sed nimis multa. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Non est igitur voluptas bonum. Certe nihil nisi quod possit ipsum propter se iure laudari. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere.

HFT_PREMIUM_EP_169

Full Episode

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Itaque mihi non satis videmini considerare quod iter sit naturae quaeque progressio. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Quae si potest singula consolando levare, universa quo modo sustinebit?

Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. -, sed ut hoc iudicaremus, non esse in iis partem maximam positam beate aut secus vivendi. Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia;

Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Quid de Pythagora? Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Praeclarae mortes sunt imperatoriae; At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Nam Metrodorum non puto ipsum professum, sed, cum appellaretur ab Epicuro, repudiare tantum beneficium noluisse; Haeret in salebra. Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet.

Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae?

intelligence report

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit;

Placet igitur tibi, Cato, cum res sumpseris non concessas, ex illis efficere, quod velis? Refert tamen, quo modo. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt.

Paria sunt igitur. Luxuriam non reprehendit, modo sit vacua infinita cupiditate et timore. Cyrenaici quidem non recusant; Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, Oblivionis, inquit, mallem. Scaevola tribunus plebis ferret ad plebem vellentne de ea re quaeri. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Quid dubitas igitur mutare principia naturae?

In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Hoc est non dividere, sed frangere. Quorum altera prosunt, nocent altera. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Partim cursu et peragratione laetantur, congregatione aliae coetum quodam modo civitatis imitantur;

HF_RD_169

related episodes

Episode 166

Thomas Ricks

What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks & Romans | Thomas E. Ricks

Episode 120

Michael Lind

How to End the New Class War and Save Democracy From the Managerial Elite | Michael Lind

Episode 69

Rebecca Goldstein

Rebecca Goldstein on Why Philosophy Isn’t Going Away: A Conversation on What Matters Most

Episode 41

Jim Holt

Why Does the World Exist? Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science | Jim Holt

Episode 167

David Shor

David Shor | What’s Gone Wrong with the Democratic Party & How to Fix it

Episode 94

Jerry Colonna

Jerry Colonna | Heeding the Call to Adulthood: Lessons on Life and Leadership

Episode 84

Johann Hari

Johann Hari | Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression and Anxiety

Video

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. De hominibus dici non necesse est. Minime vero, inquit ille, consentit. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Etiam inchoatum, ut, si iuste depositum reddere in recte factis sit, in officiis ponatur depositum reddere; Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Cuius quidem, quoniam Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista verborum.

Haec bene dicuntur, nec ego repugno, sed inter sese ipsa pugnant. Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit. Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata.

Memini vero, inquam; An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Quis est, qui non oderit libidinosam, protervam adolescentiam? Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum? An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Ea possunt paria non esse. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Hoc tu nunc in illo probas.

Quam tu ponis in verbis, ego positam in re putabam. Sed plane dicit quod intellegit. Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Certe non potest. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Bonum patria: miserum exilium. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum.