In the past political influence were restricted to the few who had privilege, wealth, power, influence and, though not always, education. Today, privilege is less of a factor but the result is that those with power and influence now more often lack the very best education. Therefore they may not use their authority as wisely as they should.

Many today are ignorant of the qualities of argument that the best philosophers employed, like Aristotle more than 2000 years ago. Take, for example, the current scandal over expenses in the British parliament. If you look at the evidence to Sir Christopher Kelly’s committee at http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/OurWork/MPs__Expenses___Evidence.html, you may be appalled, as I am. Having read through about a third so far, it is dreadful to see how many submissions are no more than self-serving opinions with not a shred of logic or moral argument to support their positions.

So, in fact, I think we need to return to the old kind of citizenship, not for the privilege of a sometimes undeserving aristocracy, but for the quality of argument that was expected.

The contemporary tragedy as the quality of life improves and as technology allows easy communications and therefore we have more discourse, so the quality of debate in public life diminishes towards the lowest level. You have only have to look to some of the leading ancient civilisations and compare them to those today in China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and indeed the West.

I believe that a significant reason for Moslems fundamentalism may be growing decadence in the West. If so I share that concern. Part of the reason for terrorism may be a lack of education, the ability only to argue a case crudely and inappropriately, often not being able to rationalise their case at all.

In short, ignorance is the biggest enemy of civilisation and as the developed world advances (or does it?), so the relative level of ignorance is allowed to increase in direct proportion to greed and avarice. Perhaps if modern man valued philosophy as he should his moral compass would be more in evidence.

So, Professor Sandel, what do you propose to do about that?

[Open in new window]

1. The snark at the beginning about economists is an odd one. Sandel recapitulates the standard economic orthodoxy distinction between positive and normative science, then complains that economists describe the positive implications of policy, and leave the normative decisions to democratic processes. But if you buy the distinction, that’s surely what social scientists, including economists, ought to do. The usual, and more convincing, criticism is that the claimed fact-value separation is spurious.

2. Kieran will presumably have something to say about the blood donation example, if he gets around to commenting.

3. I found the criticism of emissions permits for CO2 to be totally unconvincing, and not only because of the economic efficiency arguments. The premise of the argument is that emitting CO2 is bad, and that people who do it should be punished. But, on that unequivocal basis, we are all guilty. The problem with CO2 is that some emissions are unavoidable, but our aggregate emissions are much too high. So, we have to find a way of sharing out the limited absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. There’s a pretty strong case that the fairest way to do this would be to give everyone on the planet an equal allocation, and then allow trade (that is, ETS + contract & converge). By contrast, picking some entirely arbitrary allocation and fining anyone who exceeds it seems to lack any moral justification at all.

4. Despite the criticisms above, I agree with the general theme. But like other commenters, I’m hoping for a stronger presentation than this in future lectures.

I absolutely say that, though I couldn’t get all my co-authors here to agree to a full scale endorsement

http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/362-Bruce_Chapman_Supporting_4.pdf

What Sandel calls “the age of market triumphalism” was an age in which Medicare and Social Security were untouched (yes, a small radical sector of the elite tried to take one of them down and, at the height of its power, failed fantastically), the most dynamic sector of the economy grew directly out of public investment (the internet), while large sectors of the economy continued to be supported by government outlays and subsidies (ag, for example, and public employment itself). Other sectors are similarly circumspect as p0ster children for the triumph of market-norms vs. non-market norms.

Sandel wants to talk about reinvigorating citizenship in the face of…market-based schemes for blood transfusions and refugees? I mean, if you’re concerned about refugee crises, there have been any number currently and in the recent past that stem directly from US foreign policy. The blood crisis, I will admit, remains an area in which I am uninformed. But if he is actually interested in reinvigorating citizenship in the face of something more oppressive, shouldn’t he be saying that, right off the bat?

“Market fundamentalism” or “market triumphalism” will be understood as a political campaign in the very old struggle between social cohesion and social privilege. Actual, socially-embedded markets remain a messy knot of analysis. I don’t understand why this should need to be said, but the fact that it does makes me very suspicious of Sander’s goals here.

The global downturn certainly provides a cultural and political opening for communitarian ideas. What’s interesting, and dangerous, about communitarianism, is its appeal to moralists on both the left and the right. On the one hand, it may lead to tactial cooperations between those two sides to elevate some of their moral imperatives into laws. On the other hand, it may make the “cultural war” clashes between those two sides more intense, because it removes the libertarian “live-and-let-live” option and replaces it with a “society must decide what is right” attitude.

I find the system both philosophically defensible and charmingly egalitarian, but as a practical matter, fines on that scale would tend to introduce corruption into the system.

Does anyone know if they ended up capping the fines?

Wasn’t the Finnish ski jumper Matti Nykanen (1988 Olympic multiple gold medals) likewise fined some huge amount for speeding, because of his high income? Go Finland!