Meritocracy, Medicine, and the Case Against Perfection: A Conversation with Michael Sandel

December 20, 2021

December 15, 2021

Michael J. Sandel, PhD

Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, Harvard University

Political Philosopher

Author

Information

ID: 7310
To Cite: DCA Citation Guide

Download Transcript

00:00So good evening everyone and welcome
00:04to our Evening conference in the
00:07program for Biomedical Ethics at Yale.
00:10My name is Sarah Hall and I am one of
00:12the associate directors of the program,
00:14along with Jack Hughes and we're joined
00:17by our program director, Mark Mercurio,
00:20and we have the honor tonight of welcoming
00:24Professor Michael Sandel from Harvard.
00:27Michael Sandel teaches political
00:29philosophy at Harvard University.
00:32And actually I took his class
00:33when I was an undergraduate,
00:36and that's how I got bitten by the
00:38philosophy bug and and ended up here.
00:41Now almost 20 years later,
00:43just before I,
00:44I go further into his introduction.
00:46I just want to sort of cover
00:48some housekeeping about how
00:50tonight's program is going to work,
00:52although I think most people probably
00:54already know how how we roll.
00:57But tonight, Professor Sandel
00:59will be speaking on the order of.
01:02Maybe 20 minutes,
01:03maybe a little bit longer,
01:04but not quite as long as our
01:06typical discussions run because
01:08you wanted to leave more time for
01:10discussion in Q&A during that time,
01:12if you you should feel free to
01:14submit any questions you might have
01:16in the Q&A section and we will get
01:19to them afterwards after he speaks,
01:21Mark Mercurio will give a short
01:23response and then we're going to
01:25open it up to questions which I
01:27will moderate along with Mark if it
01:30gets particularly spirited, which.
01:32Which we hope it will and and
01:35and that'll be that we do have a
01:38hard stop at 6:30 as you know,
01:40and so even if you have the
01:43most brilliant burning question,
01:44if it comes in at 6:29 and and we
01:47still are working on another question.
01:49And unfortunately we'll just have
01:50to table that for another time.
01:52But I encourage you to submit
01:54questions early and often.
01:56Will try to get to as much as we can,
01:58and we are very,
01:59very excited to have to hear what
02:02Professor Sandel. Have to say tonight.
02:04So without further ado I will
02:07introduce him formally so again,
02:09Michael Sandel teaches political
02:11philosophy at Harvard University.
02:13His books on justice,
02:15democracy,
02:15ethics and biotechnology and markets have
02:18been translated into more than 30 languages.
02:21He has been described as the world's
02:23most influential living philosopher.
02:25His latest book, The Tyranny of Merit.
02:27What's become of the common good,
02:29was named a best book of the
02:31year by the Guardian Bloomberg,
02:32New Statesman.
02:33The Times literary supplement excuse
02:36me in Paris and New Weekly in Beijing.
02:40His previous books include the
02:41case against Perfection,
02:42Ethics in the age of Genetic Engineering,
02:45his legendary course.
02:46Justice was the first Harvard course
02:48to be made freely available online and
02:50has been viewed by 10s of millions of people.
02:53And again was the brilliant course
02:55that I took and made me fall in
02:58love with philosophy,
02:59his BBC series,
03:00the global philosopher explores
03:02the ethical issues lying behind
03:03the headlines with participants
03:05from around the world.
03:06Sandel has been a visiting
03:08professor at the Solon and
03:09delivered the tenor lectures on human
03:11values at Oxford in the US Sandel has
03:14served on the President's Council
03:15on bioethics and is a member of the
03:18American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
03:19and without further ado I present to you
03:22Professor Michael Sandel. Take it away.
03:25Well, thank you Sarah.
03:26Thanks so much and what a thrill it
03:29is to be introduced by you, Sarah,
03:31hearkening as you hearken back to the time
03:34when you took my my course on trustis
03:37as an undergraduate and thanks also to
03:40mark for for a hosting and convening us.
03:44When Mark and I first talked about
03:47what we might discuss this evening,
03:50we came up with the idea of
03:53speaking about my recent book,
03:56that Tyranny of Merit,
03:58but also an earlier book which echoes some
04:02of the OR anticipate some of the themes.
04:06The book Sarah just now mentioned,
04:08called the case against perfection.
04:10Ethics in the age of genetic engineering.
04:14Now these are two very different books.
04:17The tyranny of merit is about what's
04:20gone wrong with meritocracy these days.
04:23Whereas the case against perfection.
04:26Is an argument against the use of
04:30genetic engineering for enhancement
04:32rather than for medical purposes,
04:35but there is a theme that connects
04:39them and so in these opening remarks,
04:41I'd like to bring out that theme.
04:43See if I can make sense of it.
04:46Then I'll be keen to hear what you think.
04:50So first the tyranny of merit,
04:53which is the recent book on the face of it,
04:57to speak of the tyranny of merit,
04:58is paradoxical.
05:00We normally think of merit as a good thing.
05:04Merritt understood as.
05:06Appointing people to jobs and social
05:09roles based on their being well qualified
05:12for them who could be against that?
05:14If I need surgery performed,
05:17I want a well qualified surgeon
05:19to perform it.
05:20That's merit, and that's certainly a
05:23laudable and necessary form of merit.
05:27So how does merit become a tyranny?
05:31Becomes a tyranny when it turns
05:34into a system of meritocracy.
05:37Now anything that has ocracy
05:39at the end of it?
05:42Aristocracy democracy meritocracy
05:44refers to a system of rule.
05:49And when merit becomes the system of rule,
05:52as in a meritocracy,
05:54it becomes a way.
05:57Of allocating income and wealth,
06:00power and opportunity,
06:02honor,
06:02and social esteem on the basis of
06:06what people are thought to deserve
06:08and the basis of what people are
06:11thought to have earned for themselves.
06:14Now, meritocracy.
06:15So I'd like to argue has a dark side.
06:21The dark side is connected to the harsh
06:24ethic of success that it generates,
06:28but let me explain.
06:30Let's begin by stepping back and having
06:34a look at our present civic condition.
06:39In recent decades.
06:40The divide between winners
06:43and losers has been deepening,
06:46poisoning our politics, setting us apart.
06:50This has partly to do with widening
06:54inequalities of income and wealth,
06:56but it's not only that.
06:59It has also to do this divide with
07:03the changing attitudes toward
07:05success that have accompanied the
07:08widening inequalities.
07:10Those who have landed on top during
07:13these recent decades of globalization,
07:16those who have landed on top have
07:18come to believe that their success
07:21is their own doing.
07:23The measure of their merit,
07:25and that they therefore deserve
07:27the full bounty that the
07:29market bascos upon them.
07:31And by implication,
07:33to think that those who struggle those left
07:37behind must deserve their fate as well.
07:42This way of thinking about success.
07:45Reflect a seemingly attractive ideal.
07:50The ideal of meritocracy.
07:52The principle that says if chances are equal.
07:56The winners deserve their winnings.
07:59That's the key.
08:01Meritocracy is a theory.
08:03It's a principle of deserving Ness.
08:08Now, in practice of course.
08:11Chances are not truly equal.
08:14Well, you see this if we look
08:18at university admissions at Ivy
08:20League universities for example,
08:23there are more undergraduates.
08:26Who come from the top 1%?
08:30Then there are undergraduates who come
08:32from families in the entire bottom half.
08:35Of the country combined,
08:37bottom half of the income scale so clearly.
08:42We don't live up to the
08:46meritocratic principles we profess.
08:49But it's not only that even if
08:52we had a perfect meritocracy,
08:54even if we could fix the
08:58inequality of chances.
08:59Still, meritocracy would have a dark side.
09:03The dark side is that meritocracy
09:07is corrosive, but the common good.
09:10The reason it's corrosive of
09:12the common good is connected to
09:14the attitudes towards success.
09:16I mentioned a moment ago.
09:19Meritocracy.
09:22Even if chances were equal.
09:25Would encourage the winners to believe
09:29their success was their undoing.
09:33Meritocracy induces.
09:34Kind of meritocratic hubris
09:38among the winners.
09:40And humiliation among those left behind.
09:44The hubris among the winners consists
09:47in the idea I burned it on my own,
09:50and therefore I deserve it.
09:53But this hubris forgets
09:56the luck and good fortune.
10:00That help us on our way,
10:02it forgets our indebtedness.
10:04To those who make our achievements possible.
10:09Family teachers community country.
10:11The times in which we live.
10:15Now. It also.
10:18Has and here's how it becomes
10:22corrosive of the common good.
10:25It leads the successful
10:28to look down on those.
10:31Less fortunate than themselves.
10:34And this matters for politics.
10:37Think about our political
10:39moment in recent years.
10:41One of the most potent sources of the
10:45populist backlash against a leaps.
10:47Is the sense among many working
10:50people that elites look down on them?
10:54It's a legitimate complaint.
10:57Because even as globalization brought
11:01deepening inequality and stagnant wages.
11:05Its proponents offered.
11:07Working people, some bracing advice.
11:11If you want to compete in win in
11:13the global economy, they said.
11:14Go to college.
11:16What you earn will depend on what you learn.
11:20You can make it if you try.
11:22These were the meritocratic
11:24mantras in the book.
11:26I called them the rhetoric of rising.
11:30But these elites failed to see the
11:33insult implicit in their advice.
11:36The insult was this.
11:38If you didn't go to college,
11:41and if you're struggling in the new economy,
11:44your failure must be your fault.
11:48So it's no wonder that many working
11:51people turned against meritocratic elite.
11:57So what should we do in the book?
11:59I suggest rethinking 3
12:01aspects of our civic life.
12:04The role of higher education,
12:07the dignity of work in
12:10the meaning of success.
12:12We have made and universities
12:14have accepted the role.
12:16We've turned universities into
12:18arbiters of opportunity in a
12:21market driven meritocratic society.
12:24We've turned them into sorting
12:27machines for opportunity.
12:30But there's a problem with this.
12:32One of the problems is.
12:35Those of us who spend our days
12:37in the company, the credentialed.
12:39Can easily forget it, simple fact.
12:43Most people don't have.
12:46A four year college degree.
12:49In fact, nearly 2/3 of Americans do not.
12:54So it's folly to create an economy.
12:57That sets us a necessary condition
13:00of dignified work in a decent life.
13:04A college degree that most people don't have.
13:09Encouraging people.
13:11To go to college is a good thing.
13:14Broadening access for that,
13:16who those who can't afford it is even better.
13:19But this is not a solution to the
13:23inequalities brought about by globalization.
13:26So, broadly speaking,
13:27we should shift our public discourse.
13:30We should focus less.
13:32But arming people for meritocratic
13:36competition and focus more.
13:38On making life better for those
13:41who may lack a diploma.
13:44But who nonetheless contribute in
13:46important ways to the common good?
13:49Through the work they do the
13:51families they raised,
13:52the communities they serve.
13:54This means renewing the dignity
13:56of work and putting it,
13:59putting it at the center of our politics.
14:04We also so we we need to reconceive
14:09the role of the of the dignity of work.
14:13One prompt to doing so
14:15comes from our experience.
14:17During the pandemic the pandemic
14:20highlighted inequalities that pre existed,
14:23the pandemic, the most vivid being
14:25the divide between those of us who
14:29could work from home and those of us
14:31who are either lost their jobs or
14:33who in order to perform their jobs,
14:35had to expose themselves.
14:37The risks on behalf of the rest of us.
14:41But we did.
14:42I think there was a kind of turning during
14:46the pandemic and opportunity and opening.
14:50Because those of us able to work from
14:53home couldn't help but notice how deeply
14:56we depend on workers we often overlook.
15:00I'm thinking not only of those who
15:03worked mightily in the hospitals
15:06to care for COVID patients,
15:09I'm thinking also of delivery workers,
15:12warehouse workers, grocery store clerks,
15:15home health care providers,
15:17child care workers.
15:18These are not the best. Paid.
15:21Or most honored workers in our society.
15:26And yet,
15:27during the pandemic we began calling them.
15:30Essential workers nobody in the midst
15:34of the pandemic was referring to hedge
15:37fund managers as essential workers,
15:39so this could be.
15:42The beginning of a broader public debate
15:44about how to bring the pay of those
15:47who were calling ascential workers.
15:50The pay and also the socialist scheme.
15:54Into better alignment with
15:56the importance of their work.
15:59But there's something else we
16:02need to reconsider.
16:03We need to reconsider the meaning of success.
16:07To question our meritocratic hubris.
16:12Do I really deserve the talents
16:16that enable me to flourish?
16:19In a market driven society such as ours,
16:21or are my talents gifts?
16:26For which I'm indebted.
16:27And what about the fact that I live
16:30in a society that happens to prize
16:32the talents that I happen to have?
16:35Is that my doing or is that to my good luck?
16:41Insisting that my success is my do makes it
16:45hard to see myself in other people shoes.
16:49Appreciating the role of luck in life.
16:52Appreciating my talents as gifts for which
16:56I'm indebted can prompt a certain humility.
17:00Can prompt me to to say
17:02and to think that there,
17:04but for the accident of birth or the
17:08grace of God or the mystery of fate go I.
17:12This civic virtue is of humility.
17:18Is in short supply these days,
17:20but it seems to me it could be a potent
17:25antidote to the meritocratic hubris.
17:28The harsh ethic of success
17:31that drives us apart.
17:33Now that in very brief compass.
17:38Is the main argument of the tyranny of merit.
17:43But it's connected.
17:46To the theme of the earlier book.
17:49About genetic engineering for enhancement.
17:52The case against perfection and
17:55it's connected in the following way,
17:58what in?
17:59In describing the connection I will be?
18:02Maybe overly telegraphic because I
18:05wanted to see what Mark has to say and
18:09Sarah and and to begin the discussion.
18:13But in the case against perfection,
18:15I argue against the use of
18:18genetic engineering for purposes
18:21that go beyond medical purposes.
18:24To enhance our cognitive abilities,
18:28for example, or those of our children.
18:32To prescribe off label uses,
18:35let's say of human growth hormone for
18:38kids who don't suffer any abnormality but
18:40who want to make the basketball team,
18:43let's say.
18:45Performing performance enhancing drugs.
18:50Or for that matter,
18:52genetic alterations for athletes.
18:54Now there is a vast debate in
18:58biomedical ethics about the moral
19:01status of genetic engineering for
19:04purposes of enhancement beyond health.
19:08And.
19:10For those of us who are critical of that use.
19:15It's not easy to explain exactly
19:18what the moral objection consists in.
19:21One moral objection has to do with fairness.
19:25In an unequal society,
19:27wouldn't the affluent be able
19:28to gain yet more advantages for
19:31themselves and for their kids?
19:33In fact,
19:34might we even inscribe inequality in
19:38genetically overtime if the affluent had
19:42access to an enhancement technologies?
19:44That others do not.
19:48That objection could be met in
19:50principle by providing a form of
19:54universal healthcare that included
19:56access to enhancement technologies.
20:00In the case against perfection,
20:02I argue that there is a further.
20:05Deeper object in this objection
20:08has to do with the way in which
20:12the disposition the attitude that
20:15animates the drive for enhancement.
20:18Is corrosive of important human
20:22and civic goods?
20:25And involves a certain kind of hubris,
20:28and a certain kind of project of mastery.
20:32And the assumption that ultimately we
20:35are self made and self sufficient.
20:38Human persons and that this assumption.
20:42That we are self made and self
20:45sufficient cuts us off from an
20:47appreciation of the gifted character
20:50of our talents and of our children.
20:53End of our human circumstance.
20:57Let me explain.
20:59Take the example of parents.
21:03Who want the best for their kids,
21:05including if it were possible?
21:08Enhancing their cognitive abilities
21:10or their musical ability so
21:13they're they're athletic prowess.
21:15What would be wrong with this,
21:17apart from the worry about fairness
21:20and access to such technologies?
21:23Argued that it would be
21:25corrosive of the notion.
21:27How children as gifts?
21:31This is the ethic of giftedness,
21:34that is, the counterweight to the image,
21:37that we are self made and self sufficient.
21:40It's a counterweight to the
21:42ethic of mastery that informs,
21:44so it seems to me the project of
21:47genetic engineering for enhancement.
21:49Here's what I mean.
21:51To appreciate children as gifts.
21:55Is to accept the mistake come?
21:58Not to treat them as objects of
22:00our design or instruments of our
22:03ambition or products of our will.
22:06Parental love is not contingent on the
22:10talents and attributes our children have.
22:14We choose our friends and spouses
22:16at least partly on the basis of
22:19qualities we find attractive.
22:21But we do not choose our children.
22:24Their qualities are unpredictable and
22:27even the most conscientious parents.
22:31Can't be held wholly responsible
22:33for the kind of child they have.
22:37This is why parenthood,
22:39more than other human relationships,
22:42teaches it,
22:43teaches what the theologian William May.
22:47Calls and openness to the Unbidden.
22:54This is a potent resonant phrase
22:56and openness to the end didn't.
22:58It describes a quality of character
23:01and heart that restrains the
23:04impulse to mastery and control.
23:07It prompts the sense of life as a gift.
23:11It helps us see.
23:13The deepest moral objection.
23:17To genetic engineering for enhancement
23:21lies not in the perfection it seeks,
23:25but in the human disposition,
23:26it expresses and promotes.
23:31The problem isn't that parents
23:33usurped the autonomy of the child.
23:36It's not as if the child
23:39could otherwise choose.
23:40Her genetic traits for herself.
23:44The problem lies in the hubris of
23:47the designing parents in their drive
23:50to master the mystery of birth.
23:53Even if this disposition doesn't make
23:56parents tyrants to their children.
23:59It disfigures the relation
24:01between parent and child.
24:03It deprives the parent of the humility.
24:06And of the enlarged human sympathies.
24:10That and openness to the
24:13Unbidden can cultivate.
24:16Now to appreciate children
24:20as gifts or blessings.
24:23Not to be passive in the
24:25face of illness or disease.
24:28Healing a sick or injured child does
24:32not override her natural capacities.
24:35It permits them to flourish.
24:39So although medical treatment
24:42intervenes in nature.
24:45It does so for the sake of health.
24:48And so does not represent a boundless
24:52bid for mastery and Dominion.
24:56Even strenuous attempts to cure or
24:59treat disease do not constitute
25:02a kind of Promethean assault.
25:05I'm the given.
25:08The reason?
25:10The reason is that medicine is governed,
25:13or at least guided.
25:15By the norm of restoring and
25:18preserving the natural human
25:20functions that constitute health.
25:25Another way of putting this
25:27is to say that medicine.
25:29Is a practice with a purpose.
25:32Ority loss that orients and constrains it.
25:40Of course, what counts as good health?
25:42Or natural human functioning
25:45is open to argument.
25:47It's not only a biological question.
25:51People disagree, for example.
25:53About whether deafness is
25:56a disability to be cured.
25:58Or a form of identity and
26:01community to be cherished.
26:03But even disagreements such as
26:05these proceed from the assumption
26:07that the point of medicine.
26:09Is to promote health and to cure.
26:13Disease.
26:15Now, some people argue that a
26:17parents obligation to heal a
26:20sick child implies an obligation
26:22to enhance a healthy one.
26:24To make them better than,
26:25well to maximize the child's
26:28potential for success in life.
26:32But this is true only.
26:35If one accepts the utilitarian idea.
26:39That health is not a distinctive human good.
26:43It's simply 1 means, among others of
26:46maximizing happiness or well being.
26:53One utilitarian bioethicist argues,
26:55for example, that health is
26:58not intrinsically valuable,
26:59only instrumentally valuable,
27:01a resource that allows us to do what we want.
27:08This way of thinking about
27:10health rejects the distinction
27:13between healing and enhancing.
27:15It leads to the view that
27:17parents have not only a duty to
27:20promote their Children's Health.
27:22That they may be morally obligated to
27:25genetically modify their children,
27:27provided it can be done safely.
27:31But it's a mistake to think of health
27:34in wholly instrumental terms as a way of
27:38maximizing something else good health.
27:42Like good character is a constitutive
27:47element of human flourishing.
27:50And although more health is better than less,
27:53at least within a certain range,
27:56health is not the kind of good.
27:59That can be maximized.
28:03Nobody aspires to be a virtuoso at health.
28:07Except perhaps hypochondriac.
28:12During the 1920s, eugenicists held
28:16health contests at state fairs.
28:20They awarded prizes to the
28:24so-called fittest families.
28:26But this bizarre practice illustrates
28:29the folly of conceiving health
28:32as something to be maximized in,
28:35and, in purely instrumental terms.
28:38Unlike the talents and traits that
28:40bring success in a competitive society,
28:43health is a bounded good.
28:46Parents can seek it for their children
28:50without the risk of being drawn
28:53into an ever escalating arms race.
28:59So how does this connect up with
29:02my argument against meritocracy?
29:06The flaw, the moral defect in
29:08both and unbridled,
29:10unbridled meritocratic competition that
29:12persuades at the successful their success,
29:15is their own doing and the big from Mastery
29:19and Dominion reflected in the drive for.
29:23Genetic engineering to enhance.
29:27Human capacities what they share.
29:31Is the idea?
29:33That ideally at least.
29:36We are to be fully free.
29:38We must think of ourselves.
29:41As self made and self
29:44sufficient moral agents.
29:48And.
29:49But this misses something
29:51important about our humanity.
29:55The problem. What it misses rather.
30:00Is an appreciation of the gifted character.
30:07Of human powers and achievements.
30:09To acknowledge the giftedness of
30:12our talents is to recognize that
30:16they are not wholly our own doing.
30:20Nor even fully ours,
30:22despite the efforts we expend to
30:25develop and to exercise them.
30:28It's also to recognize that not
30:31everything in the world is open to
30:34any use we may desire or devise an
30:39appreciation of the giftedness of
30:41life conduces to a certain humility.
30:45And this humility, should I think,
30:49lead us to question the harsh
30:52ethic of success.
30:53That arises in a competitive
30:57meritocratic society, such as ours,
31:00that persuades the successful
31:02they've done it on their own,
31:05just as it should lead us to question.
31:08The drive.
31:10To employ genetic engineering
31:13to go beyond health to enhance.
31:17Our capacities, our talents,
31:20or those of our children?
31:23That it seems to me,
31:24is the common thread between the
31:27case against the tyranny of merit.
31:30And the case against perfection
31:33understood is the drive to engineer
31:37our way to greater cognitive and
31:42other capacities than health
31:46itself would require.
31:48Mark what do you think?
31:53Oh, this, this ought to be a piece of cake.
31:55Michael, this is no problem.
31:56I I should have seen this coming,
31:57which is each time I thought wait a
31:59minute I can I can have something to
32:01say about that and then three sentences
32:02later you actually anticipated my
32:04concern and addressed it beautifully.
32:07So I have a couple comments that
32:08that I can make and open it up.
32:10But I I, I think what you say is
32:12extremely insightful and I don't
32:13take issue with any of it obviously.
32:15I mean it's not my place to take
32:16issue with it, but a couple of points.
32:18I read a really good book recently which I
32:20recommend everybody says book here it is.
32:21Here is the case against perfection.
32:23By Michael Sandel. So I read this
32:25and what's interesting about this.
32:26This is your penultimate book.
32:27Yes this was not penultimate but not
32:29the most recent. Of course come.
32:31But but in this I can see the seeds
32:34of the tyranny of meritocracy.
32:36Yes, in which you wrote here and
32:38in particular one of the things
32:39that many things comma but one of
32:41the things that didn't request you,
32:43touched on it tonight was about gift
32:45in this and I think that's such a
32:47beautiful concept. And I absolutely agree.
32:49I think that to paraphrase you that
32:51our natural talents are the result
32:53of good fortune.
32:54The genetic lottery and it's therefore
32:56a conceit to think we're entitled
32:58to the full measure of bounty as
33:00you put it on that stem.
33:02From these talents,
33:03there's an obligation to share with
33:05those who lack comparable gifts.
33:07I quite agree, and this is,
33:08I mean this to me was reminiscent of of
33:11a Bible verse I learned as a as a young man,
33:14which was those to whom much has been given.
33:16Much will be expected that that the idea of
33:20sharing this and the idea of gifted this,
33:22though to me,
33:23had its limits,
33:24which I'll get to in a second.
33:25And I think it has to do with with the
33:28role of parents in all of this and in
33:30in the in the talk that you gave here.
33:33So to some extent I wonder if this
33:35doesn't come down to the common good
33:37because everything you say I think
33:39speaks beautifully for the common good.
33:41And it speaks,
33:41I think of a of a largely
33:43communitarian ethic.
33:44Let's take a look at how to build a world,
33:46how to build a society that's really going
33:48to be the best for all of us overall.
33:51And and I think that that that
33:54makes perfect sense,
33:55but as a physician and as a parent,
33:58one could look at things and say,
34:00well, really,
34:00my obligation isn't to make a better world.
34:03I realize that if I make the world
34:04this much better for everybody,
34:05that's good for my kids too.
34:07But if I can make it this much
34:09better for my kids,
34:10and there is, I think perhaps that.
34:14That tension between our obligations
34:16to society overall to mankind overall,
34:20and our obligations to our
34:21individual kids and as physicians,
34:23our obligations to our individual.
34:28Patience, I would say that that
34:29one of the points you made which
34:31I just raised parenthetically,
34:32I thought was right on the money was the
34:34idea of essential workers and all of
34:36a sudden people had to say well who's
34:38really essential here and who ain't now.
34:39In fairness, a lot of people who
34:40were home working on their computers.
34:42They were essential to for the
34:44functioning of our society.
34:45No doubt. Nevertheless, I mean,
34:47it's the hope that this opens the window
34:49to better pay and better dignity for
34:51people who do things that aren't as
34:54honored in our culture in worldwide,
34:55and so that that.
34:57Looking at I mean,
34:58this pandemic has been very much a game
35:01changer in so many ways for all of us,
35:03and so part of what we spend a lot
35:05of time wondering is how is the
35:07world gonna stay changed even as we
35:09eventually get through the pandemic?
35:10How are things going to stay changed
35:12and one can hope that that's one
35:14way as as a a new appreciation
35:15for the people who who,
35:17who as you say deliver the packages.
35:20The people who stopped to grocery store etc.
35:23People whom for whom we absolutely
35:24depend on and people who had
35:25to put themselves at increased
35:27risk compared to so many others.
35:28In order to keep the wheels turning.
35:31But getting back to my concern about
35:34the parents view, the individualistic
35:36view versus the communitarian view,
35:38which is that I think that what parents
35:40want when we look at the idea of giftedness,
35:43and I think with parents may
35:45want and it maybe is not so much
35:48to accept them as they are.
35:50Of course I think that parents should
35:52accept their children as they are,
35:53but I think that there's also a what we
35:56really want is to maximize any parent wants
35:58us to maximize their child's happiness.
36:00In the long run, in the short run,
36:01but most especially in the long run so.
36:06And openness to the Unbidden,
36:07as you quote Bill may,
36:09and saying is perhaps countered
36:11by an eagerness to optimize and to
36:14optimize specifically our children's
36:16lives as individuals,
36:17and how there might be some tension there,
36:20which is,
36:20if I can use some of this specifically,
36:21the genetic engineering or other things,
36:24if I can capitalize on these
36:26things for my child.
36:28Do I have as a parent some kind
36:30of obligation to my child over
36:33and above the obligations I have
36:35to the Community to society?
36:37And I think the short answer
36:39that for many people is yes.
36:40I have a greater obligation to
36:42my kid and I have to the world.
36:44And if that's so, then again,
36:46that openness to the unbidden may
36:48be tempered by countered by an
36:51eagerness to optimize their lives,
36:53and specifically what parents
36:54want for their kids.
36:55I think, is that happiness,
36:57and sometimes that equates
36:58to financial wealth.
37:00Sometimes that equates to all sorts
37:01of things, but ultimately for some,
37:02if they say well,
37:03I think that my child has a
37:04good shot at happiness.
37:05If he's 5 foot 7 inches tall,
37:07but he has a better shot of happiness
37:09if he's 6 feet tall, I'm so.
37:11Then then,
37:12if I have the means to give him to
37:14optimize his happiness that way,
37:15and my somehow obligated to him,
37:17even though if we all thought that way,
37:20it would be less good.
37:21I mean, there this requires,
37:23I guess what I'm saying,
37:24I think is what you're recommending
37:26rings true to me,
37:27but I think it may run counter to the.
37:29Instincts of many individuals,
37:31specifically with regard to the
37:33obligation of parents and even the
37:35regard to the obligation of physicians
37:37to their individual patients.
37:38So I'm I'm with you.
37:40With that one caveat that I think
37:42that tension is going to exist
37:44for those two groups.
37:45Parents and and health care providers
37:47who looked at the individual.
37:49I thank you so much.
37:50This was an absolute Tour de force and
37:52I I will tell you that, truthfully,
37:53I'm writing things down, saying,
37:55well, I've got an answer for that.
37:56And then you gave me the answer for that.
37:57So this was a real exercise for me.
38:00I appreciate the chance to speak and I
38:02want to turn it over to our moderator,
38:04Sarah and Sarah.
38:05Why don't you take us from here?
38:08Great, well thank you.
38:09Thank you so much to both of you.
38:13Not that there were, really, I I.
38:15I would just echo that there were so many
38:17points that really resonated with me.
38:19But before we open it up, I I just I.
38:23I think it's it's very noteworthy.
38:25What would particularly resonated
38:26with me was your comment that not
38:28everything in the world is is open
38:30to use and and when I think about
38:33using in this sense I I'm really
38:35thinking about the concept of almost
38:38exploitation and the reason I will
38:40say that this is particularly salient
38:42to me is I I just returned from.
38:45A really life changing trip in
38:47Antarctica a few days ago and it was.
38:52It it was a time of a lot of
38:55reassessment of of my privilege,
38:57and also of my my responsibilities
39:00of of environmental stewardship
39:02and planetary stewardship and and
39:04particularly how that's commensurate
39:06with with the excessive amount of
39:08privilege I have with respect to
39:10the average human on the planet.
39:12And I, I think that you know that
39:16that really dovetails nicely with
39:17this with the concept of of having
39:20some degree of of humility.
39:23And you know.
39:26Providing a really important
39:27balance to this sort of very human.
39:32Instinct to sort of conquer and
39:35dominate and exploit you know,
39:37every time we find a natural resource,
39:40we think about how.
39:40How can we exploit this.
39:42To make money,
39:43you know whether that's drilling
39:46for oil or wailing or cutting down
39:49forests so that we can so that we
39:51can herd beef so that we can sell
39:53it to people who want to eat it.
39:55And you know it,
39:56it it really we we have not been good
39:59stewards of of the planet and I think.
40:02You know that that actually dovetails
40:04with this idea of the idea of giftedness,
40:07in that I think that that you can
40:10almost frame the the idea the the
40:13counterweight to meritocracy,
40:14as almost a sort of stewardship of 1's gifts,
40:17meaning that rather than thinking well,
40:19you know I I'm gifted or you know,
40:22I'm I'm smart, I'm hardworking,
40:25all of my success is my own doing
40:26and I therefore I deserve it.
40:28But rather thinking well,
40:29you know I've I've been born
40:32into this privilege.
40:33Where you know I had all of these
40:36advantage given advantages given to me?
40:38What are my duties to give back to really
40:41serve as the best possible steward of these,
40:44the the natural lottery,
40:46these genetic resources or these societal
40:48resources that were bestowed upon me?
40:50And so I think there's a common
40:52thread of this idea of stewardship.
40:54The the one other thing that I think
40:56is also really particularly salient is,
40:58you know,
40:58in our very hyper polarized world.
41:01I think it's important when we,
41:02when we push back against certain.
41:04Instincts to make sure that we're framing,
41:06not just in a way that appeals
41:08to like minded individuals,
41:09but also framing in a way that those who
41:12disagree with us can can understand.
41:14And I think stewardship helps with
41:16that as well because I think a lot
41:17of times sort of a more conservative
41:19rebuttal to this idea of, well,
41:21you know we should be cognizant of the the
41:24role that luck and the genetic lottery.
41:26And you know, unfair societal
41:28privilege plays in our success.
41:30That's not to deny that that hard
41:32work isn't essential for success.
41:34In most cases, hard work is necessary,
41:35it's just it's simply not sufficient for
41:38most people and and sort of reframing
41:40that in a way where we do acknowledge
41:43the important role of hard work,
41:44but but acknowledge it in a way that
41:47that we should feel grateful for our
41:49ability to work hard and and see that
41:52as something where we're proud of it
41:54and we want to give back to share in our
41:58bounty rather than to sort of hoard,
42:01I think is a way that maybe we
42:03could bring some more people.
42:04Into that umbrella because I I
42:06think that it's it's so common we
42:08hear divisive language and people
42:09just automatically bristle.
42:11It's like, oh, you can't.
42:12You can't talk about the role
42:13of luck or the genetic lottery,
42:15because then you're saying hard
42:16work isn't important.
42:17And I think no one saying that.
42:19But it's really important that we're
42:21cognizant of of our framing when
42:23when trying to convince others.
42:24And obviously I know you're aware of that.
42:26But anyway, that came up.
42:28So I I am going to take the liberty
42:31of asking the first question before
42:32we launch into into moderating.
42:34Which is to specifically when you
42:37mentioned about the importance of
42:39renewing the dignity of work and sort
42:41of centering this in our politics,
42:44I was wondering if you could speak in a
42:46little bit more detail on a policy level,
42:48how you envision doing this.
42:50Obviously it's going to be
42:52probably related to,
42:53you know,
42:54changing the way that that payments are made,
42:56or perhaps a tax code,
42:57but I'd love to hear sort of more
42:59of your specific thoughts in that
43:01day. Well, thank you thanks to both of you.
43:04To Mark and Sarah for these generous and and
43:10also illuminating reflections and adjust
43:13if before getting to the dignity of work,
43:16Sarah, if I could just.
43:19Say about your notion of stewardship,
43:21I think this contrast.
43:23Is very important and it's it's
43:26a way of construing.
43:27What I've described is the
43:29ethic of giftedness.
43:31To treat our talents.
43:34To regard ourselves not as
43:36the owners of our talents,
43:38but rather as the stewards of our talents,
43:41which not only implies that
43:44they aren't fully only.
43:46Exclusively ours.
43:48But the the fruits of the
43:51exercise of our talents, Sarah.
43:54We have an obligation to share the
43:56fruits of the exercise of our talent,
43:59but also that there are there
44:01are certain duties that go along
44:04with regard with stewardship.
44:06And in the case of talents,
44:07it would be the the duty to
44:09cultivate our talents and to
44:11deploy them for the common good,
44:13not only for our own.
44:15Individual benefit.
44:16And I think you're right to extend this
44:20to the whole way of thinking about the
44:23environment and climate change to treat.
44:26The natural world that we
44:29inhabit and that we share,
44:31not from the standpoint of ownership or
44:35mastery or dominion or use unfettered use,
44:39but from the from an ethic of
44:42stewardship that also carries with
44:45it certain duties and obligations.
44:47So I think that's a really important
44:51elaboration of what I was describing.
44:54Is the ethic of giftedness
44:56As for the dignity.
44:58Of work.
45:001. I think to renew the dignity of work.
45:07Means beginning with a recognition.
45:12That work is not only a way of
45:14making a living. It's also.
45:16A way of contributing to the common
45:19good and winning social recognition
45:21and esteem for doing so, I think.
45:26One source of the resentment that has given
45:29rise to the polarization in our society.
45:32Is it not only the wage technician as such?
45:37But for for a great many workers.
45:40For four decades.
45:43But also the sense that the
45:45work that many people do,
45:47and here I'm thinking people
45:48without a college degree,
45:49a sense that the that the work
45:53many people do is not recognized
45:56or appreciated or valued.
45:59400 in the way it should be that
46:03we have so valorised professional
46:06degrees in advanced degrees,
46:08and the kinds of work associated
46:11with those credentials.
46:13That we have,
46:15maybe unwittingly devalued and
46:18failed adequately to recognize
46:20and appreciate and honor.
46:22The the forms of work and of contribution.
46:28That do not involve or require.
46:31Professional credentials so advanced degrees,
46:34and I think this is part of
46:36the one of the ways in which.
46:39Meritocratic attitudes toward success.
46:42Have narrowed our notion of what counts
46:46as contribution to the common good.
46:48We often assume that the money
46:50people make is the measure of their
46:52contribution to the common good.
46:53The measure of their merit.
46:56But this is a mistake.
46:58I mean, nobody really believes.
47:02That a hedge fund manager makes a
47:05contribution. Whose social value?
47:07Is 1000 times greater than that of a nurse?
47:11Or a school teacher,
47:13even though that's what the labor
47:15market measure would indicate.
47:19But if that's true,
47:21if the market is a poor measure
47:24of genuine social value.
47:26Then that suggests that we we should
47:30no longer outsource our moral judgments
47:32about social value to markets.
47:34We need to reclaim.
47:36Those judgments,
47:37as democratic citizens and
47:39deliberate publicly about them,
47:41which raises the question.
47:43What actual policy debates might prompt?
47:47More explicit.
47:48Debate about what really counts as a
47:53valuable contribution to the common good.
47:56Well, here are a couple of examples.
47:59This is not a policy agenda,
48:02but a couple of examples of what
48:05it would mean to debate more
48:08explicitly what really counts
48:10as a valuable contribution.
48:12The tax system.
48:14Yeah, and tax policy is 1 area we should.
48:18We should be debating.
48:19For example,
48:20why is it that we tax earnings from labor
48:24at a higher rate than we tax earnings
48:27from dividends and capital gains?
48:30Why is that?
48:31And what does that say and
48:33reflect about the dignity of work?
48:37There are lots of debates about the
48:39tax code having to do with fairness.
48:41And who can best bear the burden of taxation?
48:46Those arguments about distributive
48:48justice and fairness are important,
48:50but they're not the only questions
48:52to be asked.
48:53Question I'm suggesting we should
48:55ask about tax policy and other
48:58policies is what's the expressive
49:00significance about what we value,
49:03and in particular about the dignity of work?
49:07Here's another kind of example.
49:10An economist whom I quote in the
49:12book in the tyranny of Merit,
49:14calculated that the federal government
49:18spends 164 roughly $164 billion a year.
49:24Helping people. Go to college.
49:29And about 1.1 billion helping people who want
49:34to go to vocational or technical training.
49:39Forms of learning.
49:42162 I think to 1.1 billion
49:44that's a vast disproportion.
49:46We woefully under invest.
49:48In those forms of learning and
49:51which most people depend to prepare
49:53themselves for the world of work.
49:56And here I'm thinking of community colleges
49:58as well as vocational and technical training.
50:01It's not only a matter of funding.
50:04It also reflects the steep
50:07hierarchy of prestige.
50:10That we've created and bought into.
50:12Between the higher education.
50:15Especially prestigious private universities.
50:17And those forms of learning on what,
50:21on which most of our fellow
50:24citizens actually depend.
50:25So finding ways to reverse that steep
50:29hierarchy of prestige in the way we
50:32invest in education and in the way
50:36we regard those who perform work.
50:38Dependent on those different
50:40forms of of education,
50:42I think would be another way of
50:44prompting this broader debate, Sarah.
50:48Thank you so much.
50:51Wonderful, and I absolutely agree.
50:55I'm going to move on to our
50:58first Q&A from the audience.
50:59So this is a long one, so brace yourself.
51:03Wouldn't the arguments against enhancement
51:06based on inequality apply equally
51:08to enhancements derived from books
51:10or tutoring or exercise in training,
51:13or any resource requiring way we improve
51:15ourselves and don't all modes of enhancement,
51:18social or biological require resources?
51:21It seems the primary lesion
51:23is not enhancement,
51:24but excessive inequalities of resource.
51:26Equally, I'm struggling to understand
51:28how life as a gift argues against
51:30enhancement without at least.
51:32Similarly,
51:32arguing against genetic engineering
51:34to remove serious life limiting
51:36conditions such as cystic fibrosis
51:39both seem to be driven by a somewhat
51:41problematic notion of natural,
51:42more assertive than established.
51:46Well, it's certainly true that we do
51:50need some notion of natural human
51:54flourishing natural human capacity.
51:56In order to make any distinction
51:59between health on the one hand.
52:02And enhancement on the other.
52:06Now I I certainly don't and and
52:10didn't assert, merely assert a
52:13conception of the natural that,
52:14as I mentioned in the in the
52:17talk and mentioned in the book.
52:19This what's natural?
52:21That's a contested concept.
52:23It's not biologically defined.
52:27It's it's a normative question.
52:30And it's a normative question that
52:32we need to debate and reflect on not
52:35only within the medical community,
52:36but more broadly in civic life.
52:39So I think the question it's important
52:42to ask how can we reason about what
52:46counts as health and what counts as.
52:51Curing disease or repairing
52:54injury as against. Bulking up.
52:58To hit 75 home runs.
53:02It isn't self happening and we need to
53:04reason about that and argue about that.
53:07And As for intervening to deal with.
53:11Abilities such as cystic
53:13fibrosis fibrosis there too.
53:16We do need a conception of
53:18what it what is it to restore?
53:22Natural human function or flourishing?
53:24We can't get away from that,
53:26but to discuss any account of natural
53:29human function or flourishing,
53:31though these are in some
53:33respects medical categories.
53:35They are also moral categories because
53:38the answers will reflect different
53:41conceptions of what it is to be
53:43a human person. So this actually.
53:48Highlights the continuity.
53:51Rather than the division of intellectual
53:54labor between medical decision making
53:57and biomedical ethics on the one hand,
54:00and normative and civic debate
54:03and reflection on the other,
54:05I see these as continuous,
54:07not as separate specialized compartments.
54:13Which is not to say that that I think
54:17there's a fixed definition for for the
54:20natural or or for human flourishing.
54:22It is to say that what counts as is
54:26health and what counts as a justifiable
54:30medical intervention is a human question,
54:33not only a biological 1.
54:36OK, great, this question sort
54:39of dovetails with some of the
54:42issues brought up in the last.
54:44Please say more about the moral
54:46difference between parental attempts
54:47to genetically modify their children
54:49for success in meritocracy and
54:51parental attempts to educate their
54:52children for success in meritocracy.
54:55Well, it depends.
54:56It can be a thin line.
54:58It depends whether the education
55:02is purely instrumental.
55:04Simply to get in simply for the
55:07sake of making more money or for
55:10accruing the the private benefits
55:12that go with winning admission.
55:15To a college or university.
55:17That's how the education is serving,
55:20and if that's what animates the education.
55:23Then it is instrumental and
55:27objectified in the same kind of way.
55:31As a genetic intervention would be.
55:34Not all education.
55:36Is of that kind.
55:39Not all education is purely instrumental.
55:42Purely for the sake of maximizing
55:45the future earning capacity of
55:47the child or the young person.
55:49When parents educate their children or
55:52promote and support their education,
55:54ideally they're doing so at least in part.
55:59For the to cultivate in the child.
56:02A love of learning for its own sake.
56:06For its intrinsic.
56:08Benefits to make the child to
56:11open the child to learning.
56:14That will enable them better to
56:17develop their human capacities,
56:19their inquisitiveness.
56:22And to to make them fuller human beings.
56:26Now, if that's what education aims at,
56:29and I think it it should,
56:31then it's quite different
56:35from genetic manipulation.
56:38Because it's not.
56:39It's no longer purely instrumental.
56:42It's no longer objectifying the child.
56:45Even making the child an object,
56:49an instrument of its own,
56:50future earnings stream.
56:52That's what's objectionable about both.
56:55So I would agree that sometimes
56:57some forms of education,
56:59especially the kind of cram courses
57:02and tutoring for the sake of learning
57:05the tricks on entrance exams.
57:09The better to get in,
57:10the better to get a good job and so on.
57:14If they're done in the same spirit
57:17as genetic fix would would reflect,
57:21then I think they're morally
57:23problematic in the same way.
57:26It makes sense.
57:29Continuing along the theme of education,
57:32we have another great question.
57:34The need to share our gifts
57:36and bounty translates from many
57:38students into a need to fight social
57:41injustices in medical schools.
57:42Commitment to a variety of causes
57:44has become its own measure of merit.
57:47How do you reconcile the need to
57:49restrain hubris with the concomitant
57:51need to share with others and
57:53demonstrate merit by fighting injustice?
58:00You think that there?
58:05Raining and recognizing our obligations
58:08to those less fortunate than ourselves,
58:11and therefore to obligations to to
58:15serve social justice, I think there
58:17is a close connection between them,
58:20and so I would say that the
58:26moral education that emphasizes
58:28the contingency of our gifts or
58:32Sarah to go to your distinction.
58:34It emphasizes how a stewardship
58:36relation to our talents and gifts,
58:39rather than an ownership relation,
58:41is conducive to social justice into
58:44a greater sense of obligation to
58:46those who may lack the talents that
58:49the society or the opportunities
58:51that the society happens to reward.
58:56Yeah, I'm you know.
58:57I'm reminded as as as you speak.
58:59I'm I'm taken back to that time
59:01almost 20 years ago when I took
59:04your course and you know, I,
59:05I believe you summed it up very
59:07succinctly as as the concept of doing
59:09the right thing for the right reason.
59:11And I, I think that distinction
59:14is is really critical here.
59:16You know, as simple as that sounds,
59:17it it really it?
59:19It's really a very powerful
59:20concept that you know doing
59:22things because they're they're
59:24intrinsically the right thing to do.
59:26Rather than because of
59:27their instrumental value,
59:28is is a really critical concept here.
59:33Well, Sarah, in response to this
59:35with Michael's comment was is that
59:37I think one is relevant to that.
59:38Much necessarily follows from the other.
59:42Which is to say that once one accepts
59:45the notion of that we are not that
59:49we have not earned all of our gifts,
59:51that that in fact that we are
59:54the benefactors of the genetic
59:56lottery or the financial lottery,
59:57or we are lucky with the parents
59:59we had or with the circumstances
01:00:00where we were born etc.
01:00:02Once if if one can get students
01:00:04or others to accept that premise,
01:00:06which I think is a very good premise
01:00:08and I agree with it that we're here
01:00:10largely because of our good fortune,
01:00:12that we have these talents largely
01:00:13because of our good fortune.
01:00:15Economic, genetic circumstances, whatever.
01:00:16Then it's then if one doesn't move
01:00:19from that into an appreciation for
01:00:21the need for greater social justice,
01:00:24then something is missing and someone
01:00:26is just general moral compass.
01:00:27If you actually believe everything I
01:00:29have I earned, I deserved just me.
01:00:32Then I think it's totally moral as to say.
01:00:36Therefore, I'm not obligated to share it.
01:00:38I think once one accepts that I didn't
01:00:41actually get all this on my own,
01:00:43that that I don't deserve all this,
01:00:44then I think.
01:00:45Most folks with a sound moral
01:00:47compass will then say therefore,
01:00:49I really have an obligation to share it.
01:00:51I really have an obligation to make
01:00:53this road easier for other people
01:00:54who didn't get the same gifts
01:00:55who didn't have the same luck.
01:00:57I'm so it follows,
01:00:58but I think it starts with the premise
01:01:00that's really in both of the books, right?
01:01:02And it was in and so beautifully
01:01:03presented in your talk, Michael,
01:01:04it starts with the premise that it's not all.
01:01:08It's not all earned, and it's not.
01:01:11Therefore,
01:01:11we don't deserve all the bounty
01:01:13as you put in the book.
01:01:14From what we from those gifts.
01:01:16Once that premise.
01:01:17So I think that in terms of trying to
01:01:19teach the students about social justice,
01:01:21I think 90% of it would be to
01:01:23get not just the students,
01:01:25but all of us to appreciate that
01:01:27first fundamental point that
01:01:28that Michael made in his talk.
01:01:31Absolutely.
01:01:35So kind of following from that
01:01:37I think we have another question
01:01:39that nicely moves us along.
01:01:42So in a society where we do not value merit,
01:01:47what drives us to succeed
01:01:49and what defines success?
01:01:51How do concepts of laziness
01:01:53versus hard work change?
01:01:57Well, I'm not suggesting that we should not.
01:02:01Value merit understood as meaning
01:02:04the exercise of our talents for
01:02:08the sake of the common good,
01:02:11that's a way of understanding merit.
01:02:14The question is whether we consider
01:02:17our success our own doing the the
01:02:21question is whether we consider.
01:02:24The exercise of our merit.
01:02:27A ground for thinking that we deserve
01:02:30the benefits that flow deserve.
01:02:32As individuals,
01:02:33the benefits that flow from it.
01:02:36So valuing merit in the
01:02:39sense of appreciating people,
01:02:42cultivating their talents for
01:02:43the sake of the comment, would.
01:02:46That is not something that I'm criticizing.
01:02:51To the contrary,
01:02:53but that's a very different way
01:02:55of valuing merit than believing
01:02:58that my success is my own doing,
01:03:02and I therefore deserve.
01:03:04As an individual that benefits
01:03:06that flow from it now,
01:03:08you might think there or the questioner
01:03:12might worry that loosening the hold.
01:03:18Of the conviction.
01:03:22That our success is our own doing.
01:03:26And we therefore deserve the benefits
01:03:29that flow from it will lead people
01:03:32to be lazy or to fail to exercise.
01:03:36Their talents and gifts.
01:03:40I'm skeptical about that.
01:03:42Because I think what really motivates
01:03:46people are motivated by extrinsic
01:03:49rewards to work hard to make money to win,
01:03:52honor and recognition.
01:03:55But also by intrinsic rewards.
01:03:59To feel that they are fulfilling
01:04:02an important mission in curing
01:04:04the sick or healing the injured
01:04:07or contributing generally to the.
01:04:10To the common good. So.
01:04:13I I think.
01:04:15That loosening the hold of individualistic
01:04:20notions of moral desert deserving Ness.
01:04:25I think that might diminish the
01:04:28incentives that animate some.
01:04:30I think it actually would clear the way.
01:04:34Four in place.
01:04:36Greater emphasis on more intrinsic
01:04:38sources of satisfaction and of
01:04:41motivation in cultivating our guests
01:04:43and contributing to the common good.
01:04:46It's an open question,
01:04:48but it seems to me that the individualistic
01:04:53notion of merit and its success,
01:04:56the ownership notion.
01:04:59Of our talents that Sarah identified is.
01:05:05Actually corrosive,
01:05:06not only of the common good,
01:05:08but if the intrinsic satisfactions.
01:05:11That we derive when we.
01:05:15When we work to contribute
01:05:17to the common good,
01:05:18and when we win recognition.
01:05:20And and esteem for having done so.
01:05:26So is there a middle ground? Michael?
01:05:27Is there a middle ground to be had where
01:05:30one says that your your your success?
01:05:33Your wealth is a is a combination
01:05:35is a result of a combination of your
01:05:37good luck and your hard work and and
01:05:39therefore to some extent you still
01:05:41want to incentivize that hard work.
01:05:44I I appreciate your point that for many
01:05:46of the incentive is going to be this
01:05:48internal satisfaction or the recognition,
01:05:52but I think for many the the incentive
01:05:53is still going to be economic.
01:05:55So is is there a middle ground where we say.
01:05:57That those who have greater luck
01:05:59as well as work hard should see
01:06:02a responsibility to share some
01:06:04as opposed to to surrender all.
01:06:08Well, the middle ground mark I think has
01:06:11to do above all with our stance toward.
01:06:18Tord effort
01:06:21to loosen the hold. As I am arguing,
01:06:24we should loosen the hold of the
01:06:27idea that our success is our own.
01:06:29Doing is not to embrace
01:06:33or encourage fatalism.
01:06:35That there is no human agency that
01:06:40everything that happens to me,
01:06:42my fate in life is strictly a matter
01:06:46of the luck of the draw or the genetic
01:06:50lottery or the mysterious grace of
01:06:53God unrelated to anything I do.
01:06:56That would be a kind of fatalism.
01:07:00That would be hard to reconcile
01:07:03with any notion of human agency.
01:07:06What I'm arguing against is
01:07:08a kind of hyper agency.
01:07:11Bound up with notions
01:07:13of mastery and dominion,
01:07:15and self sufficiency that.
01:07:18I think our corrosive not only
01:07:21of the common good,
01:07:22but of any sense of indebtedness.
01:07:26To say nothing of luck.
01:07:28Now, how does strike the balance mark?
01:07:31That's that's a hard question to answer.
01:07:34One way to think about it.
01:07:37Is to ask ourselves how as parents.
01:07:41Would we encourage our children?
01:07:45Tu regarde either a great
01:07:48success that they had,
01:07:50whether in sports or in school or
01:07:53on the playground or with friends.
01:07:56And how would we encourage them to
01:07:59think about a setback or a failure?
01:08:02Now when we we do this naturally all
01:08:05the time, sometimes we wrestle with it.
01:08:07The answer is not always obvious.
01:08:10But if our child enjoys a great success.
01:08:15Winning a debate tournament.
01:08:19Being getting good grades,
01:08:22making the Deans list.
01:08:24Winning a sports championship.
01:08:27Pitching a no hitter.
01:08:31We do think about what form of
01:08:35praise and encouragement to convey.
01:08:38And when we think about that Mark,
01:08:40we always calibrating exactly the
01:08:43balance that you're asking about.
01:08:45We want the child to take
01:08:48pride in her achievement.
01:08:50Let's say on the sports field.
01:08:53Without forgetting.
01:08:57The the child's indebtedness.
01:09:01And good fortune. And.
01:09:06So the way we calibrate this with the
01:09:11way we couch our praise and calibrate
01:09:15our judgment shapes the message we sent.
01:09:18It's a kind of moral teaching praise of kids.
01:09:22And also helping them contend with failure.
01:09:26Is one way that in human terms we calibrate
01:09:31this this difficult balance all the time.
01:09:34We don't want our children to believe.
01:09:37That nothing they do will matter
01:09:39and how well they will fare in life.
01:09:41That's the pure fatalism.
01:09:43But neither do we want them to believe that
01:09:47every time they fall short it's their fault.
01:09:51Or that every time they succeed.
01:09:55It's thanks only.
01:09:56To their effort in striving.
01:09:59So I've not given a direct answer.
01:10:01I suppose mark to your question,
01:10:03it's too difficult to question,
01:10:05but it's the kind of question we put to
01:10:08ourselves, sometimes even unreflectively.
01:10:09Whenever we're trying to figure
01:10:11out what to say either to console,
01:10:14our child who's encountered a set back,
01:10:17or to praise our child when
01:10:19they've achieved some success, no.
01:10:22No, I think that's a very insightful answer.
01:10:24In fact, I mean and you
01:10:25can't have it both ways.
01:10:26As you point out, so that if I
01:10:28tell my child when he fails, well,
01:10:30you know it wasn't entirely your fault.
01:10:32Then it seems that I can't
01:10:33really have it both ways,
01:10:34that when he succeeds I can't say.
01:10:35Well, that's all entirely due to you,
01:10:38exactly, that there's the the
01:10:40balance has got to be there.
01:10:41I think that's very insightful
01:10:42answer actually, exactly.
01:10:45I you know I would just piggyback on that.
01:10:47I think there's a natural tendency to want
01:10:49to cast luck and skill as a false dichotomy,
01:10:52when in fact they're both interrelated
01:10:55in in almost all of our outcomes,
01:10:57perhaps to different degrees,
01:10:59and certain outcomes may be more
01:11:02dependent on luck versus skill.
01:11:04But for for most metrics I I think that it's
01:11:08overly simplistic to to cast them as being
01:11:11the product of just one versus the other.
01:11:14And I and I think that recognition.
01:11:15Can allow for room for both pride and a job.
01:11:18Well done and for some humility and gratitude
01:11:21with respect to to those gifts that that we
01:11:24have through no moral desert of our own,
01:11:26but rather through the the genetic
01:11:29lottery or through through society.
01:11:33And you know the one other thing that that I
01:11:35I would add to this discussion is, you know,
01:11:38it's it's interesting the the paradoxically,
01:11:41even though we like to the defenders
01:11:44of the status quo may argue, Oh well,
01:11:46you know that it's important to keep things
01:11:48as they are because they encourage hard work.
01:11:49But but to your point,
01:11:51earlier in in fact,
01:11:52a lot of the financial incentives that
01:11:54currently exist don't do that at all.
01:11:57And you know to your point about why is it
01:12:00that passive income is taxed at a lower rate?
01:12:03Then labor related income.
01:12:05That's actually a slap in the face
01:12:08to people who argue about the
01:12:10the merits of of working hard.
01:12:12What about the fact that you know the
01:12:15relatively low taxation rates for estate tax?
01:12:17Doesn't it?
01:12:18That seem very even.
01:12:19If and again, they're.
01:12:20They're two separate questions, right?
01:12:22One is it is a meritocracy ethical at all,
01:12:26and two if if it is ethical, it does.
01:12:29Our system actually reward merit in
01:12:31the way that we think it does, and.
01:12:33And I think that even if you you
01:12:35accept the notion that you know
01:12:37merit based on hard work,
01:12:39it is a reasonable metric to reward people.
01:12:41Actually,
01:12:42our system doesn't really
01:12:43support that at all.
01:12:44Our system,
01:12:45it supports very entrenched wealth
01:12:48and and opportunity through a
01:12:50taxation system that that actually,
01:12:53you know,
01:12:54enhances and and perpetuates
01:12:57generational wealth,
01:12:58which is is very anti meritocratic
01:13:01and and passive income and.
01:13:03So we don't actually have a system that
01:13:05that rewards hard work above all else,
01:13:08and if we did I I think it would
01:13:10look very different both in terms
01:13:12of of taxation policies and also
01:13:15in terms of of dignity and respect
01:13:17for certain work that is very hard,
01:13:20but that often isn't regarded very highly.
01:13:22If it doesn't come along with a lot of
01:13:25technical or professional skill or training.
01:13:28Yeah,
01:13:28well said thank you.
01:13:30This next question is is short but I think it
01:13:33it kind of dovetails nicely with this idea.
01:13:35How do these arguments relate to
01:13:37the ongoing drug overdose epidemic,
01:13:39which I I will add has
01:13:41often been described as
01:13:42sort of an epidemic of of despair as
01:13:44as it certain populations who who
01:13:47may not feel that they have a lot of
01:13:50of dignity or purpose or or meaning.
01:13:54This this is a closely connected
01:13:56to this very important book,
01:13:59deaths of despair by two economists
01:14:03and case in Angus Deaton.
01:14:06And what they found was that during
01:14:08these very same decades that I
01:14:11write about in the tyranny of merit,
01:14:13essentially the last three to four decades.
01:14:18Of finance driven globalization
01:14:21widening inequality wage stagnation
01:14:23for most working people,
01:14:27there has been an upsurge
01:14:29in deaths of despair,
01:14:31which is to say deaths due to suicide.
01:14:36Alcohol abuse or drug overdose.
01:14:41Among. Those and this is what
01:14:45connects it to the tyranny of merit.
01:14:48This increase in deaths of despair
01:14:51disproportionately has taken place
01:14:54among those without college degrees.
01:14:57Which reflects not only diminished
01:15:02economic prospects.
01:15:04But also a sense.
01:15:07Of demoralization and even
01:15:09humiliation by the system of
01:15:12work and by the credential list,
01:15:17prejudice and privilege.
01:15:20Of.
01:15:23Of those on top.
01:15:26It really excludes or devalues.
01:15:30Appreciation for the kind of work
01:15:32that working people do so and and
01:15:36case and Deaton mentioned the the
01:15:42powerful meritocratic pressures.
01:15:45That seemed to be at work is
01:15:48certainly one factor in explaining.
01:15:51The increase in deaths of despair
01:15:54among those without college degrees.
01:15:56One of the most one of the deepest sources
01:16:00of the divide in our polarized society,
01:16:04politically is between those with
01:16:06and those without a college degree.
01:16:09We saw this in the voting for Donald Trump.
01:16:13We saw this in the Brexit vote in Britain,
01:16:17and sadly we see it in the.
01:16:21Incidents of deaths of despair.
01:16:24So I think there is a very close connection.
01:16:29Thank you.
01:16:31Work we have some questions now.
01:16:33Going back to two concerns about enhancement,
01:16:36so we're going to shift a little bit here.
01:16:39You argue against enhancement
01:16:41of one child potential.
01:16:43How does that influence the opposite action?
01:16:45That is, a decision to terminate
01:16:47a pregnancy when informed
01:16:48of the genetic impairment,
01:16:49such as Down syndrome?
01:16:50What about pre implantation
01:16:52decisions to use or not use a
01:16:54genetically abnormal embryo in IVF,
01:16:56right? Well, this is really an important.
01:17:01Question. And. It depends.
01:17:04I mean terminating a pregnancy.
01:17:11On to avoid it goes back to the
01:17:15discussion we were having about the
01:17:18distinction between a health related.
01:17:24Ailment and. A kind of choice
01:17:29now Down syndrome Down syndrome.
01:17:33There are many who would argue.
01:17:37Including parents of
01:17:39children with Down syndrome.
01:17:41That Down syndrome? Is.
01:17:47Not inconsistent with leading. A.
01:17:52A full and satisfying human life.
01:17:56With distinctive contributions.
01:17:59And sources of joy.
01:18:04For the child and for the parents.
01:18:08And many parents have
01:18:10written and spoken movingly.
01:18:13About what they had learned in human terms.
01:18:17Raising a child with Down syndrome,
01:18:20they would contest vigorously the notion.
01:18:25That this constitutes a health impairment
01:18:29that justifies terminating a pregnancy.
01:18:33So. I think that. This is a.
01:18:39This is morally complicated terrain.
01:18:42Now there are other. Conditions.
01:18:48That cannot be described in a similar way.
01:18:54As blessings or as distinctive ways of being.
01:19:00Clear, unambiguous, genetic abnormalities.
01:19:06That lead to.
01:19:09Serious health impairments and
01:19:12radically reduced life expectancy.
01:19:16That would be in a different category
01:19:19and the line is not clear and distinct,
01:19:22nor is it a merely biological line.
01:19:24This is back to our discussion about what
01:19:27constitutes Health and Human flourishing.
01:19:30But terminating a pregnancy?
01:19:34For the OR or selecting an IDF.
01:19:40For. Let's say picking and choosing
01:19:46on consumerist like grounds.
01:19:49Wanting a boy rather than a girl.
01:19:51Let's say sex selection.
01:19:53To take one straightforward example.
01:19:57That seems to me unrelated to health.
01:20:00That seems to me more like a eugenic choice,
01:20:03more like a consumer choice.
01:20:08Where as selecting for against embryos
01:20:14with serious health related genetic
01:20:19abnormalities, that's different.
01:20:22Even though there may be borderline
01:20:24cases where we could debate,
01:20:26you know what counts as a serious
01:20:31health related genetic abnormality,
01:20:34which I think morally.
01:20:37Would be different from simply choosing if
01:20:40if as if we if we could screen embryos for,
01:20:46you know, IQ, let's say or athletic prowess.
01:20:50If we could do that.
01:20:52Then it becomes really morally
01:20:55analogous to enhancement.
01:20:56Then it becomes a kind of eugenic. Choice.
01:21:02Rather than a choice that is genuinely
01:21:05for the sake of the health of the child.
01:21:07So sex selection.
01:21:10I would say purely preferential sex
01:21:13selection would fall on the the eugenic,
01:21:17not the health related
01:21:18or the medical purpose,
01:21:20and would be morally objectionable.
01:21:23I think terminating a pregnancy
01:21:26because you want a boy rather than a
01:21:28girl which happens in many parts of
01:21:30the world is morally objectionable.
01:21:33And it's clearly unrelated to
01:21:35a medical purpose.
01:21:38Down syndrome I, I think.
01:21:42Well, I've I've spoken about the.
01:21:45The moral argument against selecting
01:21:49against a fetus with Down syndrome,
01:21:53but there are other clear genetic
01:21:56abnormalities that would be such
01:21:59significant impairments that they would
01:22:01they would be in a different category.
01:22:05And perhaps one way of measuring that
01:22:07Michael just simply be the degree
01:22:10of suffering when might anticipate
01:22:11for the child. That you know.
01:22:15I think that would certainly
01:22:16be an important part of it.
01:22:17That would be a very important part of it
01:22:19and and what parents have Down syndrome,
01:22:23children emphasized.
01:22:24Is the richness of the life
01:22:27and the happiness of the life.
01:22:31So I think the.
01:22:34I think the prospect of suffering
01:22:35is certainly a very important
01:22:37ingredient in the judgment.
01:22:40I I think you know.
01:22:42Interestingly, a lot of disability
01:22:44advocates bring up the fact that healthy,
01:22:48able bodied individuals grossly
01:22:50overestimate the decrement in quality of
01:22:53life that certain displays would play,
01:22:56and that and that when,
01:22:58when previously able bodied people
01:23:01become disabled, they actually,
01:23:03or they realize that actually
01:23:05does not really significantly
01:23:06decrease their quality of life and.
01:23:09And this is something that's come up a lot.
01:23:11In particular, during the COVID pandemic.
01:23:14With disability advocates really
01:23:16underscoring the importance not to
01:23:18use quality of life considerations.
01:23:20For example,
01:23:20in in in decisions about rationing,
01:23:23scarce resources.
01:23:24Because because of these sort of
01:23:27institutional ableism of the medical
01:23:30profession and of society in general,
01:23:32and so it's it's you know that while it it
01:23:36it does seem like that would be a great,
01:23:39or at least a helpful metric to use it,
01:23:42it too is really fraught with a lot of.
01:23:44Of of Ablist thinking that that that those
01:23:49in the establishment are often prone to.
01:23:54Yes, and if I could just add Sarah this,
01:23:56the ableist prejudices
01:23:59that you're describing.
01:24:01Really have a long history and
01:24:03the name of that history is the
01:24:05history of the eugenics movement.
01:24:07And so I think we need to think very
01:24:10hard about the ablest prejudices
01:24:13and the the Providence of them in
01:24:18eugenic thinking and, and that,
01:24:20I think should should should
01:24:22bring us up short in in failing
01:24:25to reflect on those on ableist
01:24:27prejudices in this context.
01:24:30Absolutely alright.
01:24:31Well we have only a few minutes left,
01:24:34so one more question that
01:24:36sort of piggybacks onto this?
01:24:39It's a two part question,
01:24:40so it's it's a lot, but well,
01:24:42you can take a quick stab at it.
01:24:44A question regarding enhancement.
01:24:46Many have suggested that generalized
01:24:48artificial intelligence is very
01:24:49likely within the next century.
01:24:51Some have suggested that enhancement
01:24:52of humans is important in order
01:24:54to be able to deal with impending
01:24:56artificial intelligence on anything
01:24:57approaching a basis of equality.
01:24:59Your thoughts, and then the second part.
01:25:00And I'll let you choose which
01:25:02which you want to address more,
01:25:04because again of our limitations,
01:25:06assuming that enhancement is coming
01:25:07for the sake of this discussion,
01:25:08do you have thoughts on how to address
01:25:10concerns regarding worsening inequity?
01:25:14Well, I I'm aware that there are people
01:25:17who who would make this argument,
01:25:20since artificial intelligence is looming.
01:25:24If we don't want our machines
01:25:26to be smarter than we are,
01:25:27we'd better do what we can to enhance
01:25:30our own cognitive capacities, but.
01:25:361st. I think that we need to reflect
01:25:40on what artificial intelligence
01:25:42consists in and what it can do.
01:25:47Whether it poses a threat?
01:25:512. Our own capacities.
01:25:55Really depends on the purposes.
01:26:00To which artificial intelligence is put?
01:26:03If it's used to determine.
01:26:07Who should be convicted of a crime?
01:26:09For example AI algorithmic?
01:26:13Prediction models or if it's used to
01:26:16determine how to grade the paper,
01:26:19is the philosophy papers in my class,
01:26:22or if it's used to determine whom
01:26:24to arrest her and where to send,
01:26:26in what neighborhoods to send police.
01:26:30Or if it's used to determine how better
01:26:33to target advertising to people so
01:26:36that they will consume more, I mean.
01:26:41Or if it's used to to replace.
01:26:45Workers rather than used.
01:26:49To augment the productivity of workers.
01:26:54There are a multitude of possible
01:26:57uses and purposes of AI technology,
01:27:01and whether these weather AI is threatening.
01:27:05Or whether it's liberating.
01:27:08Depends not so much on the technology,
01:27:11but on the purposes to which we put it.
01:27:15So I think once one recognizes that
01:27:18it's not a technological matter,
01:27:20AI is coming as if it were a fact of nature.
01:27:24Only a technological development.
01:27:27And we had better.
01:27:31Better enhance our genetic
01:27:33cognitive capacities to keep up.
01:27:36I think that misunderstands
01:27:38the role that human judgment,
01:27:41and I would say also going back
01:27:43to the common good civic judgment.
01:27:45Could play in determining how
01:27:48exactly we want to develop AI
01:27:51technology and for what ends.
01:27:54I would rather we focus our deliberation
01:27:57as democratic citizens on that question.
01:28:01Then assume that AI is a technologically
01:28:06determined force of nature to
01:28:09which we will have to adapt,
01:28:11and that if we want to catch up and hold
01:28:14our own against these autonomous machines,
01:28:17we'll have to crank up our own genetics.
01:28:19I think that's the wrong
01:28:21way to think about it.
01:28:22I think it's a disempowering.
01:28:24Way to think about technology.
01:28:28Both the technology of AI and the
01:28:32genetic technologies of enhancement,
01:28:36it assumes that technology is a
01:28:40determined force rather than and it
01:28:44forgets the importance of of our deciding.
01:28:49Based on human and civic considerations.
01:28:53How technology should be used to
01:28:58advance human flourishing and
01:29:00to promote the common good?
01:29:02So that's how I suggest we we
01:29:04think about the prospect of AI.
01:29:07On the one hand and cognitive
01:29:09enhancement on the other.
01:29:11Well, thanks, that is beautifully said
01:29:13and I and I think that's a perfect
01:29:16note upon which to end because we
01:29:19are actually a hair over our hearts.
01:29:21Stop in fact, but I I'm really so
01:29:24pleased and so grateful that that
01:29:26we could have this discussion.
01:29:28Thank you so much again,
01:29:30Professor Sandel for for taking
01:29:31the time to speak with us.
01:29:33This was a really really enlightening and
01:29:35and very important and timely discussion.
01:29:38And I'm so glad that that we could host you.
01:29:41Virtually, and I would like to thank
01:29:45everyone else for coming tonight.
01:29:47And since this is our last session
01:29:50of the calendar year,
01:29:51I'd like to wish everyone a
01:29:54happy holiday season as well.
01:29:56And lots of health and happiness in
01:29:58the New year and we look forward to
01:30:00seeing you then mark any less comments.
01:30:03No, except thank you to both of you.
01:30:05Search for a wonderful job
01:30:06tonight and it's leading this
01:30:08conversation and Michael for
01:30:09making the time to join us.
01:30:10It was a terrific night.
01:30:11We're really grateful.
01:30:12Thank you. Thank
01:30:13you, mark. Thank you, Sarah.
01:30:15I've really enjoyed it.
01:30:16Thank you so much.
01:30:18That bad? Goodnight