第9讲：《雇枪？》
内战期间，男子被征召到前线作战-但新兵被允许可花钱雇人来顶替他们。Sandel教授问学生：这项政策是自由市场交易的例子么？或者这是某种形式的胁迫？因为较低的阶层去服役肯定出自更多的经济诱因？这引发了对战争和征兵等当代问题的课堂辩论。今天的志愿军真正是自愿的么？是否很多新兵都来自于不合比例的经济低下的背景？“爱国主义”起到了什么样的作用？什么是公民的义务？公民是否该有为自己国家服兵役的义务？
Recall Locke: What matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary, that’s what matters
Back to conscription
Ways to increase recruitment:
1. Increase pay and benefits
2. Shift to military conscription (draw a lottery)
3. Outsource – hire mercenaries
Outsource: it looks like free exchange but it’s actually coercion, people who don’t have money have to go die but rich people don’t have to. It falls so disproportionately upon one segment of the society.
Student: what makes it different from all-volunteer army if people are paid to join the army either way?
Student’s response: One is paid by individual different amount but in the other situation everyone is paid the same by the government.
Question: do you think it’s better for people to join the army out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money?
Question 2: If you agree with it, does that argue for or against the paid army we have now?
Two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service
1. Letting the market allocate military service may be unfair, and may not even be free if there’s severe inequality in the society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that’s their best choice. There is an element of coercion in there.
2. Military service shouldn’t be treated as just another job for pay because it’s bound up with patriotism and civic obligation. Maybe where civic obligations are concerned, we should’t allocate duties and rights by the market.
To assess the inequality arguments, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor. To assess the civic obligation, patriotism, argument, we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship? Is military service one of them or not? What is the source of political obligation?
第10讲：《出售母亲》
Sandel教授把自由市场交易运用到当代颇具争议的新领域：生殖权利。Sandel描述了现代的“精子和卵子捐赠”交易中那些奇怪的父母。紧接着Sandel把辩论引向深入，他讲到了“Baby M”事件，此著名案例曾引发“孩子是谁的？” 的问题和矛盾。事情是这样：80年代中期，Mary Beth Whitehead和一对新泽西的夫妇签订了一项合约，同意为他们做“代孕母亲”，条件是支付给她一大笔的费用。但分娩之后24小时，whitehead决定留下这个孩子，于是双方不得不对簿公堂。学生们讨论了出售生命的道德问题，争论点围绕承诺，契约和母亲的权利。
The question whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money.
Consider a case of surrogate mother代孕母亲, “Baby M”
Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind, decided she wanted to keep the baby
投票：是否支持履行原合同（Mary交出孩子）？
For: It was a voluntary contract, the mother knew what she was into. You should uphold the promise you made, a deal is a deal.
Against: There is no way a mother, before the child exists, could know how she’s going to feel about that child. So the mother didn’t have all the information when she made that contract.
Against: The child has an inalienable right to its actual mother. The bond that is created by nature is stronger than any bond that is created by a contract.
For: Disagree. Adoption and surrogacy are both legitimate tradeoffs. The emotional content of the mother’s feelings doesn’t play into this.
Against: Buying and selling the right to a child for money seems dehumanizing because you are buying someone’s biological right, to some extent it’s like baby selling.
Question: is adoption a kind of baby selling?
Objections to enforcing surrogacy contracts:
1. Tainted consent 不知情的同意: coercion, or lack of information
2. Dehumanizing
Objection 1: There are two ways that consent can be other than truly free:
1. If people are pressured or coerced to give their agreement
2. If their consent is not truly informed
Objection 2:
Elizabeth Andrewson: “By requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child, these norms convert women’s labor into a form of alienated labor…”
Certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit. Respect, appreciation, love, honor, etc.
It takes us back to the argument about utilitarianism. Is utility/use the only proper way of treating goods? If not, how can we determine what mode of evaluation is appropriate for those goods?