Michel Montaigne

I knew the name Montaigne before I knew the person. There was a Montaigne school in Amsterdam, but I had no idea who Montaigne was. Michel Montaigne was a French writer from the 16th century who wrote philosophical essays about just anything that popped to his mind. Some of this I learned bit by bit, but a very fine summary I got from a recent issue of Philosophy Bites.


Sarah Blakewell was on the show to tell us about this writer and made me appreciate him a whole lot more. It turns out, Montaigne is more or less the inventor of the essay and with his essays he influences many thinkers of later age, from Descartes to Nietzsche. And it also seems he is very readable. It think I am off to the library to get a copy of his works. (feed)

More Philosophy Bites:
Justice according to Michael Sandel,
Three issues of Philosophy Bites,
Morality,
The genocide and the trial.
Dirty Hands,

Three issues of Philosophy Bites

In recent weeks the eminent podcast Philosophy Bites has released three excellent new issues, which I recommend one by one. (feed)

Inequality. Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds spoke with Alex Voorhoeve about inequality. Our main stream line of thought seems to sort of imply that inequality is bad, but is it really so? And if yes, why? Voorhoeve gives very insightful answers to the question and shows how inequality eventually disrupts human interaction.

Moral Responsibility. Gideon Rosen is a skeptic on the subject of moral responsibility. We normally assume people are morally responsible for their actions and the only exceptions we might accept are extreme cases of ignorance about facts or moral incapacity such as mental disease. Rosen shows another set of possible exceptions and this allows for a huge close on th range of responsibility - yet he does not rule it out completely.

What is philosophy? This sort of seems to be the question for this podcast to start with, yet the question has not been asked until this bonus episode, or more accurately: the answers have not been compiled until this episode. What does it mean? Are Warburton and Edmonds making some kind of inventory? Is this the beginning of a hiatus? In any case, listen and find how many of the philosophers explode in embarrassed laughter as they have to answer the question.

More Philosophy Bites:
Morality,
The genocide and the trial,
Dirty Hands,
Understanding decisions,
Nietzsche repossessed.

Warburton about Hume

Philosopher and podcaster Nigel Warburton, whom we know first and foremost from the podcast Philosophy Bites (see post yesterday), has written a book Philosophy, The Classics. This book gives an entry point to philosophy by means of an introduction to a series of classical works in philosophy. From Plato's Republic to Kierkegaard's either/or.

True to his calling Warburton has made a promotional podcast for this book: Philosophy: The Classics. (feed) Among others there are two episodes about David Hume and I enjoyed those greatly. One is about the Dialogues by Hume, the other about the book Enquiry. The two podcasts have some overlap, just as Hume's works overlapped, but that will only enhance recognition and understanding.

I knew Hume and his version of Skepticism as it addressed the problem of induction - we make induction all the time, assuming that what he have seen repeatedly will also be repeated in the future. But Hume shows that there is strictly no rational reason to make such an inductive assumption. Warburton introduces to us a couple of other (related) issues Hume discusses in these works. Proof of God's existence and proof for miracles for example. Here I learned how Hume's Skepticism played a role in theological matter and how Hume was assumed to be an atheist although he may not have wanted to identify himself as such.

More:
Philosophy, The Classics - Nigel Warburton

What is exploitation - Philosophy Bites

For those who are reluctant to engage in philosophy, I would still recommend to listen to Philosophy Bites. Although philosophy by its essence tends to the abstract and therefore can be so lengthy, vague, boring and seemingly pointless, the podcast does everything to stay concise, clear and to the point. In addition, by looking at the titles as they pop up in the feed one can freely pick and choose. Select the subject that you connect to and Philosophy Bites will not disappoint.
(feed)

An example of such a very concrete and clear issue, in my opinion, is the recent chapter in which Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds spoke with Hillel Steiner about exploitation. Here we also see the virtue of philosophy: Steiner makes a very convincing attempt to narrow down and define exploitation in abstract terms. Such a definition then allows for easy identification of exploitation cases in spite of their differences. In addition it serves to explain why exploitation is morally wrong. And eventually it opens up for the theoretic possibilities such as a rich person being exploited.

Maybe it is because I was trained a a legal professional and taught law myself, I am charmed by such an analysis as the one offered by Steiner. I would assume this speaks to everybody as issues of morals touch us all, but even if I am wrong about that point, the point of the first paragraph remains. When you have a subject you are passionate about or have spent some time pondering about, an issue of Philosophy Bites about any relevant point will be a real treat.

More Philosophy Bites:
Morality,
The genocide and the trial,
Dirty Hands,
Understanding decisions,
Nietzsche repossessed.

Philosophy Bites on Morality

As usual, Philosophy Bites is worth to listen to at least twice. Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds received Susan Neiman to talk about morality in the 21st century. Neiman makes in important point against the moral relativism that most people tend to hold to. Ethics are not like beauty, where the good and the bad are in the eye of the beholder. She claims that in opinions on morality, people think remarkably alike.

Her views are in that a response, not only to relativism, but also to fundamentalism and she proposes a reinforcement of morality within liberalism. Liberalism seems to be identified, or easily slide into relativism and Neiman points back at the roots of liberalism, the Enlightenment. However, what in her mind has gone wrong is that liberalism, deteriorated into rampant capitalism in which consumerism took over from most moral values. Fundamentalism may well be just a reaction to that and there, she admits sits a valid criticism.

She extracts four values from the Enlightenment and argues that this is a defense of 'the modern world with its capacity of self-criticism and transformation'. The values she chooses are: Happiness - people have a right to strive for the good life. Reason - against superstition and blind authority. Reverence - the capacity to feel respect and awe, without sliding into the authoritative structures of organized religion. Hope - the incentive to keep trying for the best.

More Philosophy Bites:
The genocide and the trial,
Dirty Hands,
Understanding decisions,
Nietzsche repossessed,
What can you do with philosophy?.

The genocide and the trial - NBIH

Before I direct you to the two recent issues of New Books in History that touched on the issue of genocide and the trial of the perpetrators, I would want to advise you to listen to an old episode of Philosophy Bites. In this interview Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics analyzes the concept of genocide, its history and its legal meaning. He also formulates a proposal for improvement of the term. The points that stick out are that in a wide definition, genocide could imply acts that are not mass murder or destruction, but that are still aimed at eradicating a certain group, such as the burning of libraries, forced assimilation and measures to stop breeding. Yet Kukathas wants to refocus on the methods and make sure genocide will cover especially the murderous aspects of the crime. And then he wants to add more groupings to the definition and not reserve genocide only for the mass murder of ethnic and religious groups.

His expose of definitory problems are relevant in both issues of New Books In History, that I would like to recommend here, but especially for the interview Marshall Poe conducted with Ben Kiernan who witnessed the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer regime in Cambodia (both he and Kukathas define this as genocide even if it might be problematic definition-wise). He wrote a book about genocides (Blood and Soil) and even though he seems to engage in an entirely different kind of definitions than Kukathas (More historic and less legal) he comes up with the same examples and Poe takes him through those after having extensively touched upon Kiernan's experiences in Cambodia.

The next issue of NBIH to high-light goes into the details of one example of the genocide par excellence, the holocaust. Marshall Poe had a fascinating conversation with Hilary Earl about the history of the SS-Einsatzgruppen and their trials in Nuremberg. Apart from grazing the problems of definition (and of trial) again, Earl's research also gives a little bit more insight in how ordinary people, even educated, upper-middle-class people can be turned into murderers. And once a whole nation has been turned into a nation of murderers, how can trials be conducted, is a large additional part of the story.

A lot more about the subject of genocide can be had from the podcasts of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (which is also on iTunes). Another interesting addition is to follow Berkeley's History course that delves into the history and practice of Human Rights. Last but not least the LSE Podcast had several relevant issues, among others about the genocide in Rwanda and about the ICC.

More Philosophy Bites:
Dirty Hands,
Understanding decisions,
Nietzsche repossessed,
What can you do with philosophy?,
Morality without God.

More NBIH:
Nation and Culture,
Three New Books In History,
The fourth part of the world,
How the Soviet system imploded,
Vietnam War perspectives.

Philosophy, The Classics - Nigel Warburton

Here is a book I would like to have: Philosophy, The Classics by Nigel Warburton. Philosopher Warburton gives us an entry point to philosophy by means of an introduction to a series of classical works in philosophy. From Plato's Republic to Kierkegaard's either/or.

Does the name Nigel Warburton ring a bell? Yes, he gave us also the podcasts Philosophy Bites, Ethics Bites and Prospect Magazine. True to his podcasting nature, he has made a promotional podcast for his book, a podcast by the same name: Philosophy: The Classics. (feed) Here we can enjoy the material, bite sized, as usual.

Be prepared though that Warburton is conducting a monologue here. What makes Philosophy Bites so easily accessible, is in part the format of interview, which is so much easier, so much more natural to listen in to. On The Classics, Warburton reads a summarized version from his book, complete with paragraph titles. This works less well on podcast and if Nigel is considering to continue this series I would want to suggest to him to find a way of livening the podcast up a bit. Nevertheless, for the prepared listener, these are veritable jewels to collect and to listen to at least twice.

Three minutes Warburton - Prospect Magazine

Do you like Philosophy Bites? You should. And if you are into quick philosophical podcasts by Nigel Warburton, you should try the promotional podcast of Prospect Magazine.

Nigel Warburton brings the Prospect Magazine Podcast with an audio version of his monthly column (feed). In up to three minutes the philosopher reviews a popular aspect of the news. The death of Micheal Jackson brings him to Sartre, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama exchanging gifts trigger thoughts about giving. Even the BNP cause a thought in philosophy.

If you like Philosophy Bites, you will enjoy this podcast as well.

Dirty Hands - Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites is a podcast that should be on everybody's playlist. You do not need to have a special love for philosophy, nor special knack for it. Anybody can handle fifteen minutes of a carefully tailored philosophy interview and everybody is expected to be stimulated by it. Witness to this may also be the download figures the podcast published: it has been downloaded 5 million times!

This sizable audience was reached while the (currently) penultimate issue came on-line: a discussion with Tony Coady about dirty hands in politics. This issue takes on the common sense idea that policy makers, out of necessity have to make dirty hands. The short answer by Tony Coady is, that indeed they occasionally have to, but that policy is always an ongoing process and therefore this is justified only when there is indeed strong necessity and whatever dirty measures are taken, they should be abandoned as soon as possible.

I have a feeling the whole issue should actually be cut into two separate questions. The first is a factual one: do policy makers have to take harmful measures at times. Coady's answer implies that indeed, there can be a situation there is actually no other option, but to take a decision like for example going to war. The second part of the question is, whether such measure is justified and obviously, if there is indeed no other choice, then it is justified. And when, as Coady insists, the dirty hands measure is abandoned as soon as other alternatives become feasible, it surely stays justified. But can you speak then of dirty hands? Isn't Coady actually demanding politicians NOT make dirty hands? Surely you cannot call a generally dirty measure like going to war bad in a situation there is no good alternative.

The point Coady is trying to make though, is that it shouldn't be 'anything goes' for political leaders, nor can a superbly clean politics be required from the all the time.

More Philosophy Bites:
Understanding decisions,
Nietzsche repossessed,
What can you do with philosophy?,
Morality without God,
Pascal's Pensées.

Understanding decisions - Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites invited Richard Bradley to speak of decision making. Understanding the way decisions are made is part of decision theory which was founded by the philosopher Frank Ramsey.

As usual Philosophy Bites manages in summarizing a large subject in under fifteen minutes. Decisions are displayed as being a function of people's desires and beliefs. The decision is then a gamble which contains an attempt to weigh the belief about risks involved counter the desired goals of the decision. The interviewer undertakes an couple of attempts to rule out desires and risks from certain decisions by certain people. Bradley parries by framing differences of culture or of rationality into the elements of desires and beliefs.

I wonder what is the role of decision theory in philosophy. I can see what it means in psychology and it is explained how it can be applied for public policy making. I can even imagine how this plays some role in public decision making, by politicians, administrators and even judges. All of this seems (applied) social science, so where is it philosophical? Or are the boundaries vague enough to have it fit both ways?

More Philosophy Bites:
Nietzsche repossessed,
What can you do with philosophy?,
Morality without God,
Pascal's Pensées,
Fourth Revolution.

Michael Sandel - LSE / UChannel

Have you also enjoyed Michael Sandel on the BBC Reith Lectures 2009? It made me crave being in class when Sandel teaches and it turns out that that is now possible for a brief moment. Albeit after the fact, but still.

Sandel was invited to speak at the London School of Economics on his subject that also was central in the Reith Lectures: The Moral Limits of Markets. This can be heard on the LSE Podcast and has been republished also at the UChannel Podcast. Usually these podcasts are one way lectures, at best with a question and answer session at the end, but Sandel's appearance takes on the character of a class. From the beginning he interacts with the audience and on the spot pushes them to explore moral issues with markets. This is exactly what I had imagined how it would be to study with him.

Just as in the Reith Lectures, Sandel shows how the current market thinking allows for turning anything into a commodity and if we feel something is wrong there, it is hard to get a grip on that intuition. Is it wrong to turn to commodity health services? Prisons? Warfare? Carbon Dioxide emissions? Refugee quota? Could you take options on certain occurrences, such as a celebrity's death or terrorist attacks? Sandel's contribution to the discussion is the analysis of the intuition. He shows that aside from market freedom, also principles of justice and morality play a role.

More Michael Sandel:
A new politics of the common good,
The bioethics concern,
Morality in Politics,
Morality and the Market,
Michael Sandel - Philosophy Bites.

Nietzsche repossessed - Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites is not the first philosophy podcast Brian Leiter appears in to speak on Friedrich Nietzsche. Just a month ago we noticed him on Elucidations where he reconstructed Nietzsche's views on morality. Already there I noted my reservations. I am in no way knowledgeable, but the in the way of presentation Leiter leaves on me the impression he is bent on presenting his interpretation of Nietzsche, rather than delivering what is broadly held to be the interpretation of Nietzsche.

When Leiter speaks at Philosophy Bites on myths around Nietzsche it should therefore come as no surprise that his recurring point is that widely held ideas on what Nietzsche's ideas should entail are in fact mistaken. Then he presents an adjusted view and thus, in a way, repossesses Nietzsche. Not only does he pull him away from accusations of Nazi sympathy or antisemitism, but also from fields where he is popular and thought to be influential.

Again, I find it impossible to verify whether Leiter is being particular about Nietzsche or especially insightful. By all means, the appearance on Philosophy Bites was very interesting and informative and even if faulty, I feel, is very helpful in getting a grip on this elusive philosopher, Nietzsche.

More Philosophy Bites:
What can you do with philosophy?,
Morality without God,
Pascal's Pensées,
Fourth Revolution,
Michael Sandel on what cannot be sold.

What can you do with philosophy?

On Philosophy Bites Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds spoke with writer John Armstrong about the question 'What can you do with philosophy?'. For a philosophy podcast that reaches a wide public this is almost an obligatory question. One would almost expect the defining podcast for Philosophy Bites.

As the dialog set out, I was reminded of a radio program I heard many years ago with a mathematician who was addressing the similar question, what practical use does mathematics have. And surely this mathematician set out to tackle the problem of choosing the right partner in life with chance theory, stochastics and deliver the exact answer. Fine, but yet I feel that somehow the mathematician, or the philosopher for that matter, is in a way degrading himself by forcefully applying to the profane and should have some arrogance in not wishing to be practical.

Yet, in the end, John Armstrong seemed to have established more than the reported mathematician as I found myself discussing this episode with others who had heard it and noticed we all began applying the trains of thought and refining questions Armstrong had suggested. And so, especially in hindsight, this was indeed a very good issue of the podcast.

More Philosophy Bites:
Morality without God,
Pascal's Pensées,
Fourth Revolution,
Michael Sandel on what cannot be sold,
Aristotle's Ethics.

Morality without God - Philosophy Bites

Tarrou in Camus' 'La Peste' declares he attempts to be a saint without God and this line exalted and inspired me when I was about 22 years old and read the novel for the second or third time. It made me susceptible and appreciative of a morality that was independent of the religious traditions and revelations or a supernatural a priori prescription. It makes the quest for ethics more demanding and a profoundly humanist effort.

So when Philosophy Bites spoke with Walter Sinott-Armstrong under the title Morality without God, I knew I was going to like the podcast and find myself on familiar ground. That turned out as a bit of a deception after all. No matter how appreciative I am of his views, not even I felt convinced by what he was saying. It seems to me he took Morality without God on from the wrong angle.

I'd like to point back to Tarrou and emphasize the 'attempt' bit - morality is first and foremost a quest. And here I'd like to make a side-note to say that over the years I have come to see it is no less a quest for the believers as it is for the non-believers, but the gain in the argument from extracting morality from any given set of rules is to take it away from useless points about consequentialism versus a priori good and the lousy attempt by Sinott-Armstrong to stick morality in the realm of common sense. (Does this mean religious tradition is not common sense?) Common sense, as it comes to us through the ages is historically and socially so obviously influenced by the religious traditions, that this tells us nothing. And whether religions were shaped by common sense, or common sense by religions, lies inextricably hidden in the mists of our history.

If you want to make a secular point, I'd say it should have been that what Tarrou meant to say: trying to be ethical is hard as it is, but trying it without god, that is without any revelation and without any social network and set of custom values such as religion, makes it a more sincere, existential quest. Tougher and truer.

More Philosophy Bites:
Pascal's Pensées,
Fourth Revolution,
Michael Sandel on what cannot be sold,
Aristotle's Ethics,
Sartre.

Pensees by Pacal on Philosophy Bites

Always recommended is Philosophy Bites, but do not skip the edition I just heard: an interview with Ben Rogers about Pascal and his work the Pensées.

Ronald Dworkin - NYRB podcast

I just discovered The New York Review of Books Podcast (feed) and I have already forgotten where. It must be on Twitter, I suppose. I have been clicking a lot of podcast links on Twitter recently. Especially the Twitter feed of Philosophy Bites contains frequent recommendations that are worthwhile following up upon.

From the NYRB feed I immediately took two issues tat were extremely compelling to me. The first was an interview with Ronald Dworkin about the US Supreme Court (mp3). Dworkin reacts to a number of phrases by judge Sonia Sotomayor and the situation in the US Supreme Court where there are more and more 4 to 5 and 3 to 6 decisions with a perceivably consistent split among the Justices. For my American audience it is probably more clear what this is all about, but for me and others from the outside it is also very interesting to listen in, because Dworkin makes a couple of important general points about Law.

He reacts to an apparent tendency among certain judges that they are merely applying the Law (whether statute or also precedent). The judge is in that respect merely the mouthpiece of law - bouche de la loi as the French call that. Dworkin is all against that, and this does not surprise me, since I read his 1986 book 'Law's Empire'. Since then, it appears, his line of thinking has not changed. It is his view that the integrity of law lies herein that the judge must optimally weigh the principles involved in law, which implies interpreting the law, precedent and identifying the underlying values, which can lead to decision reversing law and precedent. All this with good reason and explicit justification.

Necessarily this introduces a political aspect into the application of law, but in Dworkin's mind this is inevitable. Digging through to the basics of law and explicitly basing legal decisions on that is substantially intertwined with the law. In his view this must be made explicit. The discussion about the foundations in law need to be clear, political if it must be. And by shying away from this kind of discourse and suggesting the judge is merely voicing the law, the political aspect of legal decision is merely covered, not taken away. Consequently, if the Supreme Court is politically split into 4 liberals and 4 conservatives, the fifth justice (Justice Kennedy) acquires an extended legal power that is unbefitting the principles of democracy.

Philosophy Bites on this blog:
Fourth Revolution,
Michael Sandel on what cannot be sold,
Aristotle's Ethics,
Sartre,
Idealism.

New Humanist podcast review

The New Humanist magazine, has a promotional podcast that gives a flavor of what is to be expected in the coming issue. (feed) New Humanist editor Casper Melville speaks with a couple of contributors to the issue about their articles. Judging from the feed, the podcast faded about half a year ago and has been revived just now.

So the latest issue is a first in what is hopefully coming to be a regular series. It was recommended, if I recall correctly, by the makers of Philosophy Bites through Twitter. In any case I picked it up on Twitter. The subjects are: Genetically Manipulated food, the New Economy hype and internet porn from the perspective of classical theory. The last subject seems to be the most sexy, but in effect it is the first. About porn you will learn just what you already knew; it is plain, superficial, predictable and lacking any form of story.

The question about genetically manipulated food is, what is it? What is good about it and what might be bad? Agricultural products are, already, the outcome of ages of breeding and amelioration. We have always striven to get out of our crops more yield, whether it is more harvest, bigger size, more nutrition or more resistance to disease or other failure. With new genetic technology the same aims are pursued on the molecular level. New Humanist sees no problem with it. The negative ideas about it are contributed to an intuitive revulsion. I hope to find a podcast some time that will shed more light from that angle.

Elucidations - philosophy podcast review

Two graduate students of the University of Chicago have a philosophy podcast named Elucidations (feed). They interview their professors about assorted subjects in philosophy. For listeners familiar with podcasts in the genre, their approach will seem extremely familiar to Philosophy Bites.

As opposed to Philosophy Bites this podcast apparently does not keep old episodes in the feed. The website suggests there were several previous episodes, but the feed delivers only one chapter, a talk with Agnes Callard about human desire and satisfaction. If somebody desires to catch the train to New York and finds he is late. He then runs to catch the train he sees leaving from the platform. He manages to jump on and while catching his breath he finds he has boarded the train to Chicago. Has his desire to catch the train been satisfied?

This case used to analyze the various ways to view desire and satisfaction. He wanted to catch the train and that he has managed, so his desire was satisfied. Or not, because he wanted to get to New York and now he will reach Chicago in stead. Callard proposes a different way of defining desire and satisfaction than either completely reducing or amassing the elements.

Philosophy Bites on this blog:
Michael Sandel,
Aristotle's Ethics,
Sartre,
Idealism,
Alternative Hedonism.

Fourth Revolution - Philosophy Bites

This post is in some ways a follow up of the previous one, Helprin on Copyright. In my review I already expressed my idea: even if Helprin is right that copyright needs extension and that the modern information age is taking a huge toll on writing, I have a feeling it can't be helped. Our world has changed and our solutions to problems such as the protection of writings need to change accordingly.

This radically changing world of hours is called the Fourth Revolution by Luciano Floridi on Philosophy Bites. He sees the fundamentally different way in which we handle information these days as a major revolution in humanity, one that decidedly changes the way we experience ourselves and our environment. By these terms Helprin seems to voice not only a concern but also a mind set of a gone age.

Our access to information is nearly instantaneous. We communicate with people all over the world, we have a significant electronic identity and cross traditional borders with an ease that was previously unimaginable. This goes for the digitally versatile. Next to them a new subclass emerges of those are not taking part in this rapid exchange, either by choice or for lack of ability. Listen to Floridi how this, in his mind, changes our selves, our sense of community and our sense of environment.

More Philosophy Bites:
Michael Sandel on what cannot be sold,
Aristotle's Ethics,
Sartre,
Idealism,
Alternative Hedonism.

A new politics of the common good - Reith Lectures 2009

BBC's Reith Lectures 2009 have come to an end with the last lecture and it has been a wonderful ride. Except for the second lecture, that had wee too many examples to support the point, it was pretty persistently an outstanding series. The returning point, to be rounded off in the last lecture (transcript), was that we have been giving too much freedom to the market, resulting in a situation where real policies and real debates are no longer part of the public discourse, but rather left to be decided by market forces. Sandel's plea to let fundamental issues to be decided politically and publicly is therefore a plea for firm democracy and involved citizenship.

He even calls it a new citizenship, though I think it has always been there and needs, as he rightfully points out, be reinforced. To this point, in the last lecture, he looks at policy making itself and shows how the reduction of decision making to cost-benefit analyses, leads to absurd consequences. Some issues have value beyond the monetary and therefore, making a real decision demands of policy makers and the public debate to go beyond cost benefit considerations. He gives a couple of examples, that triggered my own example: noone has suggested we should kill off all citizens beyond the age of 75, even though it almost surely means a huge benefit in cut costs of health and welfare spendings. It is just immoral as everybody knows.

The real problem is to accept that this means we must be ready and be able to hold political and public debate over real issues, over values, over morality. We have developed a sense that values and morality are totally subjective, or part of beliefs and therefore are not open for debate. But in reality we have simple been evading real issues by allowing market forces to decide or rely on cost benefit analyses. To reverse that culture and bring values back into the realm of debatable issues, require a new citizenship and Sandel goes into describing this citizenship. I feel that he does a very good job, but am nagged by the thought we have maybe lost the language and logic to talk about these. As I see it, Sandel makes a point against the consequentialism, the utilitarialism, that have come to dominate our thinking and have monopolized public debate. We need to steer away from that logic and I hope we can.

More Reith:
The bioethics concern,
Morality in Politics,
Morality and the Market,
Michael Sandel - Philosophy Bites.