Download "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]"

Please wait. We're preparing links for easy ad-free video watching and downloading.

Previous video: Ветромобиль: инженеры VS законы физики? [Veritasium]Next video: Запланированное устаревание — заговор, который был [Veritasium]

Запланированное устаревание — заговор, который был [Veritasium]

Запланированное устаревание — заговор, который был [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

Ветромобиль: инженеры VS законы физики? [Veritasium]

Ветромобиль: инженеры VS законы физики? [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

Захватим ли мы Вселенную? [Rational Animations]

Захватим ли мы Вселенную? [Rational Animations]

Channel: Vert Dider

Как скачать научные статьи бесплатно

Как скачать научные статьи бесплатно

Channel: Илдар Биктагиров

Зачем нужна сфера из 12 тонн расплавленного натрия? [Veritasium]

Зачем нужна сфера из 12 тонн расплавленного натрия? [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

Биология поведения человека: Лекция #9. Этология [Роберт Сапольски, 2010. Стэнфорд]

Биология поведения человека: Лекция #9. Этология [Роберт Сапольски, 2010. Стэнфорд]

Channel: Vert Dider

Аудиенция у царя планет [Triaxial Space]

Аудиенция у царя планет [Triaxial Space]

Channel: Vert Dider

Неожиданное объяснение электромагнетизма [Veritasium]

Неожиданное объяснение электромагнетизма [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

Уравнение на триллион: модель Блэка-Шоулза [Veritasium]

Уравнение на триллион: модель Блэка-Шоулза [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

Квантовая запутанность или «жуткое взаимодействие» [Veritasium]

Квантовая запутанность или «жуткое взаимодействие» [Veritasium]

Channel: Vert Dider

vertdider

vert_dider

vert

dider

исследования

научно-популярное

наука

научпоп

образовательный

образовательное

полезный

полезное

справедливость

гарвард

Кант

философия

Аристотель

Майкл Сэндел

право

конституция

политическая философия

коммунитаризм

либерализм

Роуз

патриотизм

Гарвардские лекции

Лекции Гарварда по философии

мораль

моральный долг

00:00:00

here is the site with shawarma works

00:00:04

[music]

00:00:08

welcome to Harvard for the course

00:00:11

justice with Michael Sandal

00:00:14

how best to love one's homeland today we will discuss

00:00:22

how to evaluate Aristotle can't count

00:00:27

read that the ancient philosopher was

00:00:31

simply mistaken one thing thought Kant to

00:00:37

organize legal life so that

00:00:42

everyone could freely to pursue your

00:00:44

ideal of a good life and something completely different,

00:00:50

something close to compulsion to build the

00:00:53

entire legal system on some

00:00:56

single concept of how it should be, if

00:01:00

you remember, Aristotle argued that

00:01:02

before creating an ideal constitution you need to

00:01:05

find out what it should be; I do

00:01:08

n’t agree with this in his opinion

00:01:10

the constitution, the law and the right

00:01:12

should not imply not to impose

00:01:15

a certain only correct way of

00:01:17

life, this is contrary to freedom according to

00:01:21

Aristotle,

00:01:22

the meaning of the law, the purpose of the polis comes down to

00:01:29

cultivating character, forming a

00:01:32

citizen and bringing to perfection

00:01:35

civic virtue, giving the opportunity

00:01:37

to live a good life, which he wrote about in

00:01:41

politics for Kant, the meaning of the law, the meaning of

00:01:46

the constitution is not to define it to inculcate

00:01:50

virtue, but to set the framework for the operation of

00:01:54

the law in which citizens can

00:01:57

freely live according to their own

00:01:59

established concept of

00:02:01

good, and so the difference

00:02:04

between these approaches to justice is obvious to us;

00:02:07

we see how differently philosophers

00:02:10

defined the role the law of the constitution and

00:02:13

politics was based on a completely

00:02:16

polar understanding of personal freedom of

00:02:20

human freedom for Aristotle, to be

00:02:26

free means to be able to

00:02:29

realize one’s potential, which raises the

00:02:34

question of which of the people is more

00:02:38

suitable for such a role,

00:02:40

because you need to understand why I was born, that’s

00:02:44

what it means to be free to realize

00:02:47

his abilities, Kant rejects this idea

00:02:52

and introduces his own strict definition of

00:02:56

freedom as the ability to act

00:02:59

autonomously freedom is a decision actions

00:03:03

according to the law that we give

00:03:05

ourselves freedom as autonomy partly

00:03:09

this is the moral

00:03:11

attractiveness of Kant’s views and the

00:03:16

horror in their eyes

00:03:19

human freedom lies in

00:03:23

independence and opportunity to

00:03:27

independently determine goals such an

00:03:34

idea to oneself, if you think about it, to

00:03:38

some extent frees people and

00:03:40

internally it turns out that if we are

00:03:42

beings of free morality, we are not

00:03:45

bound by shackles, be it

00:03:50

the history of the tradition of the inherited status

00:03:56

which we ourselves did not choose,

00:04:01

it turns out that the burden of

00:04:03

the choice made before does not apply to us us and this means and

00:04:10

this means we are free and independent we

00:04:17

belong only to ourselves we

00:04:19

ascribe to ourselves obligations and frameworks

00:04:26

such a unitarian and who criticized the ideas of

00:04:31

Roll for and Kant

00:04:33

admit that there is something

00:04:35

inspiring in the understanding of freedom as

00:04:39

independence, however they believe that this

00:04:41

approach is something we are missing, namely, it

00:04:48

cuts off an entire

00:04:49

dimension of morality and even political

00:04:51

life; it does not explain in any way and does not

00:04:54

take into account our experience of the application of morality; it

00:04:57

cannot firmly outline our moral and

00:04:59

political duty, and we

00:05:01

generally recognize and value its presence, for example,

00:05:04

obligations and loyalty to the community,

00:05:06

connections and relationships which still

00:05:10

apply to us without

00:05:13

conscious consent Alastair MacIntyre

00:05:21

describes something similar

00:05:25

under the name of normative identity,

00:05:28

this is a different description of personality and a person is

00:05:37

essentially an animal

00:05:38

telling stories MacIntyre believes

00:05:42

that a person can answer the question what should

00:05:45

I do only if he knows

00:05:49

what story or stories he is part of This is what

00:05:54

is meant by the concept of

00:05:56

normative identity and here

00:06:00

the community to which we belong

00:06:04

MacIntyre writes the following: once we

00:06:08

realize the normative aspect of moral judgment,

00:06:12

we notice that we never seek the good

00:06:16

and do not demonstrate virtue

00:06:18

only on the basis of our own

00:06:19

individual reflections, we

00:06:22

perceive the situation only as bearers of a

00:06:25

certain social identity,

00:06:28

each of us is someone’s son or daughter, a

00:06:31

citizen or citizen of a state,

00:06:34

I am part of a system that has been built in

00:06:36

society,

00:06:37

based on this, MacIntyre concludes that

00:06:40

what is good for me should be good for the

00:06:43

one who plays these roles

00:06:45

in the roles that I got according to

00:06:48

inheritance from the family of the city of the tribe of the nation

00:06:51

for the one who bears the burden of all the expectations

00:06:53

of all obligations,

00:06:55

because all this forms my initial

00:06:59

ideas about morality,

00:07:01

gives them certain frameworks and outlines, this is the

00:07:07

essence of normative identity,

00:07:12

each of us from this point of view

00:07:16

inherits his personality and the responsibilities

00:07:19

of what -at least from the history of traditions

00:07:26

from the communities to which we belong, we

00:07:31

will not be able to comprehend life not only

00:07:33

psychologically but also morally understand what it

00:07:35

means to do the right thing if we

00:07:39

ignore this part of ourselves, of course

00:07:43

MacIntyre himself noticed that such an

00:07:46

idea of personality contradicts the

00:07:51

modern idea of a

00:07:55

liberal and individualistic

00:07:56

kind

00:07:59

after all, from this point of view, we have long been

00:08:01

accustomed to believing that we are who we decided to

00:08:05

be; they are biologically the son of my father,

00:08:08

but this does not mean that I am

00:08:10

responsible for his actions,

00:08:12

unless I myself decided to take it upon myself;

00:08:17

I am not responsible for the actions of the state in

00:08:20

which grew up unless I decide and

00:08:23

started, but McIntyre believes that this

00:08:27

approach shows a certain superficiality from a

00:08:29

moral point of view, and even the moral

00:08:32

blindness of

00:08:33

Anapa McIntyre conflicts

00:08:36

with a sense of responsibility, which

00:08:37

partly includes oneself and collective

00:08:40

responsibility,

00:08:41

partly determined by historical

00:08:44

memory, he gives examples from

00:08:48

considerations of individualism Some

00:08:50

Americans

00:08:52

refuse to admit that they are

00:08:53

responsible for the echoes of slavery because

00:08:56

they personally never

00:08:58

had a single slave. Among young people in

00:09:02

Germany you can find the belief that

00:09:05

those who were born after 45 have

00:09:08

nothing to do with the beliefs of the Nazis

00:09:10

and they do not in any way affect their relations with the

00:09:12

Jews of our time MacIntyre believes

00:09:18

that such cases of

00:09:20

historical amnesia ultimately

00:09:24

lead to a kind of moral detachment and

00:09:27

abdication of responsibility, which

00:09:31

becomes clearly visible once you

00:09:34

understand that we ourselves are inseparable from history

00:09:38

from the lives of people in whose place we come.

00:09:43

The contrast with the normative view is

00:09:45

obvious, says MacIntyre, because

00:09:48

the history of my life is always embodied in

00:09:50

the history of those societies from which I

00:09:52

borrow my identity. I was born with a

00:09:55

past and attempts to cut off this past from myself

00:09:57

lead to the deformation of my current

00:10:00

relationships. Well, the bottom line is that MacIntyre

00:10:06

boldly declares that personality cannot and

00:10:10

should not be separated from special connections from

00:10:16

community from his history of such a

00:10:20

nor active approach, I would like to

00:10:23

hear what you think of someone from

00:10:27

Riga’s criticism of the individualist his

00:10:32

tape of Riga’s

00:10:33

unencumbered I let’s add

00:10:36

specifics so that you answer

00:10:38

not only on a theoretical plane, I

00:10:41

propose to look at two different

00:10:44

approaches to moral and political

00:10:46

obligations that grow from one

00:10:49

or another perception of the individual, let's

00:10:52

see, let's take the liberal concept,

00:10:58

moral and political obligations

00:11:00

grow on one of two grounds,

00:11:03

simply because we are people, we have

00:11:06

responsibilities

00:11:08

to each other, simply out of respect for

00:11:10

one person in relation to another,

00:11:12

they are the same for everyone further Rose noted

00:11:17

that a person can voluntarily

00:11:22

undertake an obligation to specific

00:11:24

people to which they have agreed

00:11:29

by virtue of the promise of a deal or contract,

00:11:35

the conflict between the liberal no-one

00:11:38

Aryan attitude towards the individual

00:11:42

flares up due to the question of whether a

00:11:45

third category of

00:11:47

obligations, in the opinion of the latter,

00:11:51

exists before a 3rd category which can be

00:11:54

called obligations of solidarity,

00:11:56

loyalty to the community, involvement in the

00:11:58

monetarists believe that the division of

00:12:01

human responsibilities only into natural

00:12:04

and taken

00:12:06

voluntarily misses everything connected with

00:12:10

solidarity and involvement, meanwhile,

00:12:14

they have moral strength, because

00:12:17

involvement in the community is inseparable from the

00:12:21

understanding of what kind of people we are, let's

00:12:25

think about possible examples and then

00:12:28

I would not like to hear your obligations towards them

00:12:29

arising from a

00:12:35

certain affiliation that

00:12:37

appeared

00:12:38

not on the basis of conscious consent

00:12:41

but because of the very fact of affiliation

00:12:44

due to narrative community and so on,

00:12:50

often in such situations they remember

00:12:53

family ties

00:12:55

about the relationship between fathers and children, so to speak,

00:13:01

imagine two children drowning, you

00:13:07

will be able to save only one of them,

00:13:09

while your child and

00:13:11

someone else’s are drowning,

00:13:13

should you throw a coin to save someone

00:13:17

or is this some kind of moral idiocy

00:13:21

to doubt that you need to run to your

00:13:23

child?

00:13:24

It’s fair to note that in general

00:13:26

people themselves decide to have children, then let’s

00:13:29

take another situation:

00:13:32

children’s obligations to their parents, we don’t choose

00:13:34

parents, we don’t decide that it’s time to have them,

00:13:38

there is this kind of asymmetry, but still

00:13:42

imagine two elderly people, one of

00:13:46

your parents and someone unfamiliar

00:13:51

Wouldn’t it be more correct from a moral point

00:13:52

of view to take care of your relatives and

00:13:55

not let coins decide for you and

00:13:58

whether this issue can be reduced to agreement

00:14:04

is unlikely, or let’s look at an example

00:14:08

from World War II politics:

00:14:14

resistance pilots rush to

00:14:17

bomb the occupied territories of

00:14:19

France one day one of the pilots

00:14:23

receives a mission understands that

00:14:26

he will have to bomb the village

00:14:29

where he was born and grew up, he did not argue that

00:14:34

this is a necessity the same as bombing a

00:14:38

village during yesterday’s flight

00:14:40

with his nose to carry out the mission, he refused, he

00:14:43

could not bring himself to

00:14:46

throw bombs at people in his village,

00:14:49

it was morally unacceptable even for the sake of the goal

00:14:52

that he supported the liberation of

00:14:54

France and so this admires us,

00:14:58

if so then according to who is not arist we

00:15:02

recognize the existence of an obligation

00:15:05

of participation

00:15:07

here is another example a few years ago in

00:15:11

Ethiopia there was a famine

00:15:13

hundreds of thousands of people were dying from lack of

00:15:16

food

00:15:17

Israel organized an evacuation

00:15:20

for Ethiopian Jews and help it

00:15:25

was not possible for everyone and the

00:15:28

country decided to save several hundred Jews who lived there,

00:15:31

and so would you call it an

00:15:37

immoral manifestation of partiality,

00:15:41

bias of some kind,

00:15:42

or would you agree with the Israeli government

00:15:47

that there are special obligations stemming

00:15:50

from the solidarity that

00:15:55

it fulfilled and this brings us to the

00:15:59

global question of patriotism

00:16:03

what can be said about this from a moral point of view

00:16:07

there are two cities called franklin

00:16:10

11 hacia the other on the other side of the rio grande

00:16:13

in mexico do geographical

00:16:17

boundaries have a moral meaning for what reason

00:16:19

and is it true that we americans have

00:16:24

more obligations in

00:16:26

health economics education

00:16:29

to the residents of Franklin, that in Texas,

00:16:32

if people in the Mexican Franklin

00:16:37

experience the same difficulties according to the

00:16:41

commune, then at the risk of the approach, involvement in the

00:16:43

group is certainly important and for this

00:16:46

reason, patriotism in its idea is a

00:16:50

good thing and so a direct expression of the

00:16:54

duties of a citizen, which of you

00:16:59

agree with this approach, who thinks

00:17:03

that it is worth considering this category of

00:17:04

obligations obligations to

00:17:07

the community obligations for reasons of

00:17:09

solidarity who thinks so and who does

00:17:16

not like this idea

00:17:18

who believes that obligations can be

00:17:22

covered in two categories let's first

00:17:27

listen to the critics of communitarianism

00:17:33

yes what worries me about the issue of

00:17:38

obligations based on

00:17:40

solidarity and belonging to a group is

00:17:43

that what they impose and the moral duty

00:17:48

there is a risk of overlapping obligations

00:17:52

when they contradict each other and I'm not

00:17:58

sure that with this approach we can

00:18:01

choose thank you what's your name patrick

00:18:04

so your concern is that if we

00:18:09

recognize the obligations that

00:18:11

membership in a group imposes on us

00:18:13

as we we belong to different groups, there is a

00:18:15

risk of a conflict of interests, and what should we do

00:18:19

if circumstances turn out this way? Well,

00:18:27

here’s one option: we can consider,

00:18:30

first of all, our belonging to

00:18:33

all of humanity,

00:18:34

and within this to smaller

00:18:38

communities, for example, I am an American

00:18:41

and a student at Harvard, but the main thing is the

00:18:47

community in relation to which the strongest

00:18:50

sense of duty is humanity as a

00:18:53

whole, based on this, you can evaluate

00:18:57

which obligations to fulfill are

00:19:00

most important, it means most what is your

00:19:03

name Nikola everything said that no one said that the

00:19:06

most global community humanity is

00:19:08

this group of obligations to which

00:19:11

priority patrick how do you like this

00:19:14

answer no way

00:19:17

why this is some kind of arbitrary

00:19:21

attitude to choose a global debt in spite of a more

00:19:25

local one,

00:19:26

but what if I say that, for example, first of

00:19:30

all I have obligations to my family

00:19:34

as the smallest group with them, I must

00:19:37

be devoted to them first of all

00:19:40

and then think about my city, country and

00:19:43

all humanity in in general, clear thank you,

00:19:46

let's listen to someone else who

00:19:49

disagrees with the Toris commune

00:19:51

here they asked me a question about how to resolve a

00:19:53

conflict of interests, who has different thoughts,

00:19:57

who believes that patriotism is a

00:19:59

prejudice that should not be

00:20:02

held at all before patriotism is a reflection of

00:20:10

belonging to a group that is its essence in

00:20:14

some cases, you are involved in

00:20:18

the community naturally, well,

00:20:23

citizenship is an artificial hole, typhus, and

00:20:28

I think that it’s false, because the river is just a

00:20:32

geographical object, I was born in the USA,

00:20:36

essentially by pure chance, and I don’t

00:20:40

have to belong to this society,

00:20:43

it’s clear what your name is, Lisa Elizabeth, who

00:20:46

wants to answer yes to me It seems that for a start

00:20:52

it’s worth asking where

00:20:54

moral duty comes from. In any case, it

00:20:58

seems to me that it can have two

00:21:00

sources:

00:21:01

family ties and reciprocity, the

00:21:05

closer you are to people, the more mutual

00:21:07

obligations you have, simply due to the fact that you

00:21:09

interact with each other more often,

00:21:13

say neighbors and fellow citizens.

00:21:17

including economically, but it’s not me,

00:21:20

you don’t know the residents of Franklin, both

00:21:23

Mexican and American,

00:21:26

so it’s assumed that we are

00:21:27

naturally more closely connected by the

00:21:29

residents of our country in terms of

00:21:31

financial relations and connections

00:21:33

than by residents of other countries, it’s clear who

00:21:35

else, let’s think patriotism in In many ways,

00:21:40

it’s similar to 2 schools or even

00:21:43

large student houses at Harvard.

00:21:45

Freshmen, already in the first days after

00:21:47

moving in, show some kind of

00:21:49

affection or even pride in the fact

00:21:51

that they live in their own house. It

00:21:54

seems to me that between moral duty and a

00:21:57

kind of, let’s say, emotional

00:21:59

attachment in general you can drawing

00:22:01

some kind of boundary

00:22:03

is interesting, don’t go away yet, what’s your name

00:22:05

rina,

00:22:06

let’s turn to another example in the

00:22:11

connection between children of parents, do you think there

00:22:12

are parallels here in this case, an

00:22:15

emotional connection or a certain

00:22:16

moral duty, I’m not sure that

00:22:20

chance

00:22:21

in itself cancels the possibility of the

00:22:24

emergence of a moral duty if we

00:22:31

accidentally placed in some house on

00:22:33

campus or we were accidentally born into

00:22:35

some family or country, this does not mean

00:22:38

that later, based on some benefit or

00:22:42

other considerations, we will not acquire

00:22:44

moral obligations, that is, you

00:22:46

think that you are in

00:22:50

greater debt to your parents than in front of the rest of the world

00:22:53

because you kind of pay them for

00:23:00

everything that they gave you while they grew up to well,

00:23:04

I would say if you look at cases of

00:23:07

adoption when somewhere there are

00:23:09

biological parents with whom

00:23:11

the child does not maintain any contact and

00:23:13

there is an adoptive one and if you offer to make a

00:23:16

choice most would say that the

00:23:19

parents who raised and

00:23:21

cared for the adopted child and

00:23:22

raised him probably have more serious obligations,

00:23:26

you can ask you one more question and

00:23:28

give birth, and of course, what do you think,

00:23:30

the obligations to bad parents are

00:23:32

becoming less, I can’t say I

00:23:36

didn’t have that, I think on this note

00:23:45

and it’s worth finishing, we’ll continue next

00:23:47

time thanks everyone, for example, I’m sitting doing my

00:23:55

homework and suddenly I see that my

00:23:57

roommate is cheating, maybe this

00:24:00

will be wrong, but I won’t pass it, you wouldn’t

00:24:04

pass it, no, I wouldn’t pass it, and it seems to me that I

00:24:07

’ll do the same it is necessary in a sense it is

00:24:09

my duty you are not obliged to tell the truth

00:24:12

to tell if someone is cheating

00:24:16

[music]

00:24:17

today I would like I would like to

00:24:22

talk about the most significant objection to the

00:24:24

obligations that

00:24:26

solidarity or belonging to a

00:24:29

group supposedly imposes on us and then I wanted I would like to hear how

00:24:31

you refute it or not last time

00:24:35

we found out, as Patrick said, we at

00:24:41

the same time have responsibilities to

00:24:44

different communities and associations, which

00:24:46

means a conflict of our intentions and obligations cannot be ruled out,

00:24:50

and Ren also noted this quite

00:24:55

reasonable remark

00:24:57

because I’m waiting for our

00:25:03

examples of the moral force of obligations of involvement

00:25:08

and solidarity our discussion about

00:25:13

parents and children the story of the French

00:25:16

pilot who refused to bomb his

00:25:18

native village the

00:25:23

Israeli decision to save Ethiopian Jews

00:25:26

these examples seem clear at first but

00:25:29

in Ren’s opinion and demonstrate only the power of

00:25:32

emotion sentimentality

00:25:34

they are a moral duty

00:25:38

there are also a number of objections probably not

00:25:43

to patriotism as such however

00:25:47

against being understood as an

00:25:50

obligation to fulfill a duty from oneself that does

00:25:54

not require consent, and this idea

00:26:03

allows that a person may have

00:26:05

obligations to the society where we

00:26:07

live, the same patriotic duty, but there is

00:26:12

one nuance, everything regarding obligations

00:26:16

to the homeland or community is

00:26:19

somehow based on liberal ideas and does

00:26:22

not in any way contradict them with

00:26:27

voluntary informed consent and

00:26:30

not reciprocity, Julia, one of our

00:26:35

students wrote in a discussion on the site

00:26:38

that the liberal approach fully accepts

00:26:42

patriotism as a voluntarily assumed

00:26:44

moral duty; patriotism and

00:26:48

family ties

00:26:49

are things of the same order, and as

00:26:52

Julia says, the approach Kanta does not prevent people from

00:26:54

freely standing for this kind of values

00:26:56

if they so desire, and therefore we do not

00:27:03

need the idea of forcibly imposing a

00:27:05

moral duty, without this we can

00:27:08

understand the moral strength of public

00:27:11

values

00:27:12

Julie, you are excellent here, I

00:27:17

conveyed your thought correctly, Julia will tell you that

00:27:20

exactly the same thought about this and rose

00:27:24

you didn’t know about it you yourself came to the

00:27:29

same conclusion that speaking very well

00:27:32

about political obligations

00:27:35

rolls stated that it is one thing if someone

00:27:39

aspires to occupy a certain post or

00:27:41

join the army,

00:27:42

this is their voluntary choice, but all

00:27:45

citizens are In general, in the opinion of roses, they are

00:27:47

not obliged to do the same because of no

00:27:49

political duty because it is unclear

00:27:53

what action or event obliges us

00:27:55

to do this,

00:27:56

so rolls recognizes that

00:28:01

political

00:28:02

obligations do not apply to ordinary citizens

00:28:07

except in cases where the citizen

00:28:10

consciously and voluntarily through active

00:28:13

consent decides to take them upon himself is

00:28:17

quite consistent with Julie's opinion and

00:28:21

this brings us to another objection

00:28:24

that you mentioned, the

00:28:26

point is that it is very easy to trace

00:28:29

obligations to family or country

00:28:32

if their fulfillment does not conflict with

00:28:37

any natural

00:28:39

obligations

00:28:41

or demands of respect for another

00:28:45

to a person, this is consistent with the opinion that

00:28:48

we have every right, if we wish, to

00:28:52

choose loyalty to the country, people or family,

00:28:55

if we do not have to do injustice in the name of this,

00:28:59

provided that we recognize the priority of

00:29:03

universal values, I have not yet

00:29:07

spoken about one more objection,

00:29:09

some believe that obligations

00:29:12

to the community to groups this is some kind of

00:29:15

collective egoism, why

00:29:18

adopt it, doesn’t it breed

00:29:19

prejudices now let’s

00:29:23

do this, those who agree, who proposed and

00:29:27

support these objections, stand in the

00:29:32

aisle all together, gather a team as we have

00:29:36

already done and see what you answer as a

00:29:40

supporter of patriotism as a common

00:29:45

duty for all and some spoke out in

00:29:51

favor of

00:29:54

patriotism in the form in which it is

00:29:58

understood within the framework of communitarianism,

00:30:00

let me now go and

00:30:02

join the enemy commune of the Tory

00:30:07

approach there

00:30:08

is a microphone there, we will need it now

00:30:11

thanks Kate and so the critics of patriotism

00:30:17

of indiscriminate patriotism your headquarters will be

00:30:20

here Patrick if If you want to join

00:30:25

Rena, everyone who has already spoken can also

00:30:28

come here for a discussion, but now I will give

00:30:31

the floor to those who spoke out for patriotism and

00:30:35

spoke in favor of a

00:30:38

moral duty that cannot be reduced to

00:30:43

ordinary consent

00:30:44

on the basis of certain conditions that cannot be

00:30:49

described in terms of liberalism so hey

00:30:53

j kumar & j looks like everyone here knows you,

00:31:00

let's listen to you, you spoke in the

00:31:04

same sense, in this way I owe more

00:31:06

to my family than to my neighbors I

00:31:08

owe more to my country than to humanity as a

00:31:10

whole because the country has given me a

00:31:12

significant part of my identity there is

00:31:15

no warning in

00:31:16

loving your country,

00:31:18

unless you consider the love of family to be the

00:31:21

same prejudices and so and j what do you

00:31:25

say stand up

00:31:28

it seems to me that fundamentally in the

00:31:31

Toris dcom approach it is implied that I

00:31:33

bear certain responsibilities

00:31:35

towards the people and groups that

00:31:37

have determined my personality

00:31:39

I mean this example, now

00:31:41

our authorities are doing a lot of things that

00:31:43

I don’t approve of,

00:31:44

but I chose American values for myself;

00:31:46

we are a free society where you can

00:31:48

oppose individual decisions and decisions,

00:31:50

and for me,

00:31:51

patriotism is not about disagreement;

00:31:55

let’s go back to the family or even Harvard; it

00:31:57

seems

00:31:58

obvious to me that I have more in common with

00:32:01

roommates and we live together

00:32:02

than with the steel student community, the

00:32:05

same thing seems to me to be applicable to the

00:32:07

country, some things growing up here we

00:32:09

cannot choose ourselves, parents and so on, but

00:32:11

they still shape us in their own way,

00:32:13

well who will answer

00:32:15

you As for

00:32:18

obligations to someone, only

00:32:21

because of their influence on your personality,

00:32:26

I have German citizenship. If I had been born 80

00:32:30

years ago, I would have been a citizen in

00:32:32

Nazi Germany, and it seems to me

00:32:35

that it is unlikely that I would feel some kind of

00:32:39

responsibility to such a country

00:32:42

just because I am there I was born to this, I would

00:32:45

say that now hundreds of thousands of people

00:32:48

all over the United States are standing with

00:32:50

signs, peace is patriotism, and in this

00:32:53

room, I’m sure there are many who disagree,

00:32:55

personally, I agree,

00:32:56

and so there are those who fundamentally disagree

00:32:59

with any decision of the Bush administration,

00:33:01

but and these people say that they love their

00:33:04

country, they simply stand for those ideas for those

00:33:06

measures that, in their opinion, will serve and for the

00:33:08

good, in my opinion, it’s quite patriotic, yes, but

00:33:11

how is it that you

00:33:12

still support the state, is that

00:33:14

patriotic, does

00:33:16

n’t it all come down to

00:33:17

emotional connection where this

00:33:19

patriotic duty

00:33:23

may be John Locke is out of place here, but

00:33:25

let's remember Janaloka

00:33:28

and in his understanding, even if people are part

00:33:32

of some kind of community, they still have a

00:33:34

kind of freedom if they are not happy with

00:33:37

the situation in society and there is an opportunity

00:33:39

to leave it, yes we we still don’t decide

00:33:42

where we will be born, it won’t work out, but

00:33:45

we still have a choice; otherwise,

00:33:47

if we recognize obligations to

00:33:49

society as a moral duty, then

00:33:53

without even knowing what kind of society we will get and

00:33:55

what place we will occupy in it, we already have

00:33:58

obligations in front of something unknown,

00:34:00

even if it turns out that the country’s people’s attitudes are

00:34:03

absolutely not suitable for us, you are

00:34:05

even disgusted, that is, it seems to you that

00:34:08

this kind of obligation is actually

00:34:10

giving the green light and automatically

00:34:13

signing up for everything that is happening, it

00:34:16

seems to me that as we

00:34:18

grow up and develop in In some

00:34:20

community, we take on

00:34:22

certain obligations based on the principle of

00:34:24

proximity, but in order to speak specifically about a

00:34:26

moral duty, I need more compelling

00:34:29

justification. Someone else wants to speak out. It

00:34:34

seems to me that we can say here that we

00:34:36

have a duty to society precisely because of our

00:34:39

closeness with its representatives.

00:34:40

I think the whole point is that we participate

00:34:42

in the life of this society, we pay taxes

00:34:44

by voting,

00:34:45

so we can say that we

00:34:47

owe it something, and but it seems to me that the fact that we

00:34:50

belong to society in itself does not

00:34:52

mean that we owe it something

00:34:54

else. we are, I would say, we live in a society,

00:34:56

it gives us something, protection, safety,

00:34:59

and therefore we owe it something, and not

00:35:01

just by default, who will answer this

00:35:05

Raoul, I think I think it’s unlikely that we blindly

00:35:11

agree at all, what’s going on in

00:35:14

society, it seems to me rather, we

00:35:18

behave blindly if we refuse

00:35:20

civic duty,

00:35:21

for example when we say that there is no point in

00:35:23

debate; patriotism is bad, after all,

00:35:26

patriotism is important; it gives us a sense of

00:35:29

community; a

00:35:30

sense of civic virtue; it

00:35:32

consists in the fact that we participate in the

00:35:34

discussion of problems even if we do not agree with a

00:35:36

particular decision government, you can

00:35:38

love the country and hate the state, and

00:35:41

because of this love, you can enter into

00:35:46

disputes and discussions, respect other people’s opinions,

00:35:48

continue to discuss

00:35:50

if, if you just say patriotism is

00:35:54

evil, you no longer participate in

00:35:57

public discussion, you give

00:35:58

way to others, for example, people with

00:36:00

fundamentalist views who

00:36:02

end up will harm her country, it’s impossible, we

00:36:04

must, on the same moral

00:36:06

basis, enter into active discussions;

00:36:10

what, Raoul expressed a point of view

00:36:13

based on a commitment to pluralism,

00:36:17

critical patriotism, but it seems to me that

00:36:20

those who oppose patriotism are

00:36:25

worried that someone else’s Riga

00:36:29

approach to patriotism for how long

00:36:32

requires devotion, which has no place for

00:36:36

personal moral assessments of the actions of the norms and

00:36:39

foundations of your country, why the hell are

00:36:45

we devoted if we talk like Ej

00:36:51

Yarovaya about following the principles of

00:36:54

justice that just so happen to be

00:36:57

shared by our society, and if suddenly not,

00:37:00

then we have the right to be indignant and try

00:37:02

edit in general, it’s as if I already

00:37:06

answered myself, sorry, I got carried away a little, but who

00:37:08

can say yes, Julie, it

00:37:11

seems to me that this approach is too

00:37:14

blurred, the emphasis on the idea of patriotism

00:37:17

is nothing special for our group,

00:37:19

but from your reasoning it all

00:37:21

comes down to a certain degree of

00:37:23

involvement in public discussion, it

00:37:25

seems to me that such an understanding in

00:37:27

some sense undermines the moral force of

00:37:29

patriotism as a virtue and

00:37:31

voluntary consent to be a patriot in

00:37:33

this case imposes more

00:37:35

moral

00:37:36

obligations than what you are talking about

00:37:38

at this stage,

00:37:41

to clarify the issue we need

00:37:43

some example from supporters of

00:37:46

communitarianism, please give an example where

00:37:50

loyalty to a group can potentially

00:37:52

come into conflict and even outweigh the

00:37:55

basic universal principles of

00:37:58

justice isn’t it wonderful and there will be a

00:38:01

test of what you think okay so let’s

00:38:06

come up with an example that one of you is ready

00:38:08

to demonstrate that sometimes

00:38:11

responsibilities to the group loyalty to

00:38:13

some people work contrary to or are

00:38:15

not connected in any way with the principles of

00:38:18

justice, who has an example of

00:38:22

any situation in which loyalty

00:38:26

can and should go against all the general

00:38:31

principles of morality and justice,

00:38:33

let’s listen to you until the end, for example, I’m sitting doing my

00:38:37

homework and suddenly I see that my

00:38:40

roommate is cheating, maybe this

00:38:43

will be wrong, but I him I wouldn’t pass you would

00:38:47

n’t pass it no I wouldn’t pass it and it

00:38:50

seems to me that I will do the right thing in a

00:38:51

sense it’s my duty whether it’s right

00:38:54

or not but I won’t say anything and I think the

00:38:56

others would also send a very good

00:38:59

example and look he’s not trying

00:39:02

get out write everything down to some

00:39:04

universal principles of commitment

00:39:05

to the community

00:39:06

what is your name don’t leave your name d m d

00:39:11

d n and so what do you think about

00:39:15

Dan’s example from an ethical point of view is not such a

00:39:17

simple question yes for example successful who

00:39:22

agrees with Don that’s the

00:39:28

moral Dean many people support you

00:39:33

and who doesn’t agree with Dean tags

00:39:43

well, it’s not that I don’t agree, I also

00:39:47

think that you have to make a choice, but not

00:39:49

between right and wrong,

00:39:51

yes, it’s probably wrong, I’ll also

00:39:54

cover for my neighbor, while understanding that

00:39:56

this is moral and wrong, but still you you

00:40:01

realize this, you are making the same choice that

00:40:03

Dan says that this is a matter of choice, and

00:40:06

yet what to do in this situation, the

00:40:09

majority raised their hands in agreement

00:40:11

with Dan, they decided that we need to take the

00:40:14

side of the unscrupulous neighbor, let’s

00:40:22

listen to the end, it seems to me that we are talking about our

00:40:26

neighbors and know a lot of this what

00:40:29

should not be used against them because

00:40:31

it is dishonest and unethical

00:40:34

you spend a lot of time together and

00:40:36

naturally you learn something that others do not see

00:40:38

and it seems to me that it is dishonest to give it out to a

00:40:41

wider circle but still

00:40:45

a question of morality howl so do you agree stand

00:40:48

I think this is a question ethics, it is you who are not

00:40:52

obliged to tell the truth to tell

00:40:54

if someone is cheating precisely if

00:40:57

if the information was obtained in this way

00:41:01

before letting go of critics of

00:41:05

patriotism,

00:41:06

I will give an example of a more high-profile case than

00:41:10

Dana and the raising neighbor, but let's call

00:41:12

it

00:41:13

a dilemma d by dividing 1 by about loyalty and

00:41:17

then I I want to hear your opinion

00:41:20

a few years ago in Massachusetts and does

00:41:23

anyone know who it is

00:41:27

yes it is Billy Bulger exactly and so or

00:41:30

Bulger he served for many years as

00:41:32

chairman of the Senate in the state of Massachusetts

00:41:34

he was one of the most influential

00:41:36

politicians in the state then he became the

00:41:38

president of the University of Massachusetts

00:41:40

so just know, he got into a story

00:41:45

similar to Dan's dilemma, they

00:41:47

killed Bulger, he has a brother, James Bulger, aka

00:41:54

Whitey Bulger, it so happened that he

00:42:01

ended up in the center of attention of the FBI because he

00:42:05

was allegedly the leader of a

00:42:08

famous gang from Boston, responsible

00:42:11

for many murders, who was hiding

00:42:14

from justice, and here are the investigators

00:42:20

turned to Bella Bulger from the President of the

00:42:25

University of Massachusetts, he was

00:42:28

summoned to the jury and demanded

00:42:29

to reveal the whereabouts of the suspect,

00:42:32

his brother, well, he refused to cooperate and they

00:42:37

asked him a question, Mr. Bulger, let's make

00:42:42

it clear, you are more loyal to your brother

00:42:44

than to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that's

00:42:48

what Beat Bulger answered, I never talked about

00:42:50

it like that did not reason however I am loyal to

00:42:53

my brother I care about him and I

00:42:56

would not want to oppose him under any circumstances

00:42:58

I have no

00:43:00

obligation to help capture my

00:43:03

brother well do you agree who

00:43:09

would support the position of beating Bulger let's give

00:43:17

one more example and then we will listen to what they say

00:43:19

critics criticisms of loyalty let's call them an

00:43:23

even more prominent character in

00:43:27

US history Robert Edward Lee

00:43:31

and so on the eve of the Civil War

00:43:36

Robert Lee served in the Union army he was

00:43:39

against the secession of the southern

00:43:40

states he considered it a betrayal when

00:43:44

the war broke out Lincoln offered him to

00:43:48

become the commander of the Union troops 0 and

00:43:53

refused in a letter to his son, he explained his

00:43:58

decision like this, with all my devotion

00:44:01

to the union, he wrote, I could not decide to

00:44:04

raise my hand against the relatives of my children in my

00:44:08

home, by home, he understood Virginia as

00:44:12

soon as the union breaks up, I will immediately

00:44:15

return to my native places and share the troubles of

00:44:17

my people, I will save my people and I will

00:44:21

never take up a sword again, this is a real

00:44:25

test of Dan for your principle of

00:44:29

loyalty, because here we are not only talking about

00:44:34

saving several states, but also the question of

00:44:37

whether slavery was decided to fight for Virginia and

00:44:42

although he opposed the

00:44:46

southern states and their desire to share from the

00:44:49

point of view of communitarianism, this

00:44:53

whether this decision is admirable or not is

00:44:56

there any honor in it for

00:45:00

monetarists the only way to

00:45:01

comprehend the moral choice facing

00:45:07

Lisa to understand

00:45:09

it is to recognize that loyalty and devotion

00:45:13

arising from his normative

00:45:15

identity from his self-image

00:45:17

is a matter of morality. just emotions and

00:45:20

sentiments and so who wants to figure out whether

00:45:23

Bulger was brought down by our loyalty to our brother or with

00:45:27

Robert or his affection and

00:45:29

loyalty to the state of Virginia Julia you

00:45:31

want so what does it seem to me that we are looking at

00:45:34

typical examples of overlapping spheres of

00:45:36

influence and conflict between different communities of the

00:45:39

family and the country

00:45:40

precisely because of- For such a conflict, a sense of

00:45:42

duty seems to me to be such an important principle of

00:45:45

choice because otherwise, if we have

00:45:47

obligations, if we feel

00:45:50

welcome to both groups, then we have no

00:45:52

choice and will have to make a choice on a

00:45:54

moral plane, and it seems to me a very

00:45:56

important principle to characterize it on the

00:45:58

basis of which we can make a release

00:46:00

besides the chance of belonging to a group,

00:46:03

otherwise we are left to decide only on the

00:46:06

basis of this chance, yes, but Julia, the

00:46:10

question is not whether

00:46:12

the doctor makes the choice. Billy Bulger or Robert Lee

00:46:15

Naturally, they all have to choose, the

00:46:17

question is on what basis, on what

00:46:19

principles should their decisions be based;

00:46:21

monetarism does not deny that a choice

00:46:23

will have to be made, but the question is how to

00:46:26

make this choice on what basis and

00:46:28

whether loyalty and devotion should be

00:46:31

taken into account? now, okay, listen, I

00:46:37

noticed that in all three examples,

00:46:39

people chose a closer community, those

00:46:42

closer to them, so to speak, more

00:46:45

local,

00:46:46

and it seems to me that this is no coincidence, this

00:46:50

feeling, as it were, it seems to me that

00:46:53

people do not have the question of which one is the

00:46:54

more important neighbor or all

00:46:58

Harvard students state or country family or

00:47:01

commonwealth of Massachusetts, it

00:47:03

seems to me that this is the answer to the question of what is

00:47:06

more important to you, closer ties from a

00:47:10

moral point of view are

00:47:11

stronger, well, it just seems to me that there is a noticeable

00:47:15

trend so I think yes, and hardly

00:47:18

any of us disagree with the fact that

00:47:20

the family is more important than the United States and

00:47:25

therefore you would do the same as Dan,

00:47:30

rightly you would not rat out your neighbor contrary to the

00:47:32

principles of universities and honesty

00:47:34

yes that’s exactly what I would do well yes,

00:47:38

just that is, in this case it’s not like

00:47:41

you always would be in a rally, but yes, okay, so

00:47:44

we understand, yes, in the same situation with a family

00:47:50

during the civil war, there were other

00:47:52

examples: brother went against brother, people

00:47:55

chose loyalty to the country despite

00:47:56

family ties, I think this

00:47:58

demonstrates well that 1

00:48:00

people have different attitudes to this

00:48:01

issue and there is no single system of

00:48:04

common values, a single approach to

00:48:06

morality that monetarists could rely on,

00:48:08

I think that the biggest

00:48:11

problem is that we do not have a single

00:48:13

standard of moral obligations

00:48:15

what is your name Samantha and so Samantha do you

00:48:20

agree with Patrick he has told us that

00:48:24

if we allow the community of belonging

00:48:27

to a community and narrative to determine the circle of

00:48:30

obligations, then a conflict may arise

00:48:32

nuke will face another duty

00:48:37

and there is no clear principle andre believes that

00:48:40

there is a family more important than Nikolai she was sitting over

00:48:44

there so Nikolai thinks the opposite and

00:48:48

you think Samantha

00:48:51

that the size of the community should not

00:48:54

determine moral choice, then it

00:48:58

turns out that we need another way to decide

00:49:03

what is good, let's thank our

00:49:07

critics of patriotism, thank them for their

00:49:10

opinion, for coming out here and

00:49:12

trying to defend their position and

00:49:16

discuss the problem, let's look at

00:49:20

what ideas about justice

00:49:22

follow from what we just discussed

00:49:26

that there is one important idea at the heart of

00:49:34

our disagreements about whether

00:49:38

loyalty to belonging to a group has

00:49:40

moral force, if so, then it turns out that there

00:49:46

cannot be a concept of justice that is not

00:49:51

associated with ideas about a good,

00:49:54

correct life

00:49:56

that exist in a particular

00:50:00

community, let’s say the monetarists are right,

00:50:05

let’s say it’s impossible to establish

00:50:07

superiority rights over the good, let’s assume

00:50:10

that justice and

00:50:12

rights are inextricably linked with the concept of

00:50:16

good and good,

00:50:20

does this mean that justice is

00:50:26

only a product of an

00:50:28

agreement on values that was established

00:50:31

in a certain individual community in a

00:50:34

certain period of time in the list of

00:50:37

our literature

00:50:39

among the critics of communitarianism there is Michael

00:50:43

Volsar, this is how he sees such

00:50:48

justice justice

00:50:51

correlates with the values established in society

00:50:54

society is fair if

00:50:57

life in it corresponds to the understanding

00:51:00

that is shared by the

00:51:02

majority of its members and so Walter

00:51:08

seems to take into account the fears that if we do not

00:51:13

find independent principles of

00:51:14

justice independent of the

00:51:17

ideas prevalent in

00:51:18

society at the moment we will be left with the fact

00:51:24

that justice It’s just a question of

00:51:27

loyalty to adherence to

00:51:29

general ideas and customs that

00:51:32

have developed in some association in

00:51:35

a certain period of time, but is it right

00:51:44

to talk about justice in this way,

00:51:51

well, let’s watch a short excerpt from a

00:51:57

documentary film, I see the goal, it

00:52:00

happened in the fifties in the south,

00:52:03

several proud southerners

00:52:11

who are confident in traditions and are true to the idea of

00:52:15

segregation, listen to their arguments

00:52:19

about devotion and fidelity to traditions,

00:52:23

think about whether this approach suits you,

00:52:27

tying the concept of justice to the

00:52:30

opinions and traditions that prevail in

00:52:34

society at a certain moment, let's

00:52:37

see this is the earth, the

00:52:41

unity of two cultures, white and colored, I

00:52:46

lived with them side by side

00:52:48

all the time life, but now they say that we

00:52:52

treat them badly, that everything needs to change,

00:52:55

but changes are coming faster than I

00:52:58

expected, I have to make a decision

00:53:03

on the basis of new thinking, it’s difficult,

00:53:10

it’s difficult for me and for all southerners,

00:53:16

well, here you go, here’s a normative one

00:53:19

that honors and respects traditions, what do you

00:53:25

think, does this passage put an end to the

00:53:28

idea that a common opinion, a

00:53:30

habitual traditional one, can be

00:53:32

the basis of justice or this approach

00:53:35

can be rehabilitated from such

00:53:39

examples think at your leisure, we’ll

00:53:41

discuss it next time

00:53:43

[applause]

00:53:48

translated and voiced by the studio art give

00:53:51

dar

Description:

Поддержать проект можно по ссылкам: Если вы в России: https://boosty.to/vertdider Если вы не в России: https://www.patreon.com/VertDider Добро пожаловать на курс «Справедливость» в озвучке Vert Dider! В одиннадцатой лекции рассматривается вопрос о том, несут ли люди моральные обязательства перед группой, к которой они принадлежат, будь то семья, университет или страна. Можем ли мы выбирать, кому будем верны, или сам факт принадлежности к какой-то группе накладывает на нас определенные моральные обязательства, не требующие согласия с нашей стороны? Должны ли мы хранить верность принципам, с которыми не согласны, и как себя вести, если требования общества вступают в конфликт с интересами семьи? Какую роль в системе моральных обязательств играет патриотизм и хорошее ли это подспорье для понимания справедливости? Эти и другие вопросы о природе морального долга и обязательств профессор Майкл Сэндел обсуждает со своими студентами на предпоследней лекции курса. «Справедливость» — самый популярный курс Гарвардского университета, первую лекцию посмотрели уже более 10 миллионов человек. Он посвящен вопросам морали, этики и политической философии. Профессор Майкл Сэндел на реальных примерах из судебной практики, истории и собственной жизни предлагает обсудить актуальные вопросы общества с точки зрения представлений о справедливости в прошлом и исходя из современных концепций. В часовых видео речь пойдет об аргументах за и против равенства, о распределении благ, роли рынка, правах человека и о многом другом. Перевод: Елена Смотрова Редактура: Алексей Малов Научная редактура: Александр Андрейченко Озвучка: Алексей Никитин, Вадим Казанцев, Екатерина Муравицкая, Сергей Васильев Монтаж звука: Андрей Фокин Монтаж видео: Джон Исмаилов Обложка: Андрей Гавриков Сайт студии: https://vertdider.tv/ Мы в социальных сетях: — http://vk.com/studio_vd — https://t.me/vertdider — https://twitter.com/Vert_Dider — http://coub.com/vertdider Источник: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOotE9_OGGs

Preparing download options

Popular

HD video

Only sound

All

* — If the video is playing in a new tab, go to it, then right-click on the video and select "Save video as..."

** — Link intended for online playback in specialized players

Questions about downloading video

How can I download "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]" video?

http://unidownloader.com/ website is the best way to download a video or a separate audio track if you want to do without installing programs and extensions.
The UDL Helper extension is a convenient button that is seamlessly integrated into YouTube, Instagram and OK.ru sites for fast content download.
UDL Client program (for Windows) is the most powerful solution that supports more than 900 websites, social networks and video hosting sites, as well as any video quality that is available in the source.
UDL Lite is a really convenient way to access a website from your mobile device. With its help, you can easily download videos directly to your smartphone.

Which format of "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]" video should I choose?

The best quality formats are FullHD (1080p), 2K (1440p), 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p). The higher the resolution of your screen, the higher the video quality should be. However, there are other factors to consider: download speed, amount of free space, and device performance during playback.

Why does my computer freeze when loading a "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]" video?

The browser/computer should not freeze completely! If this happens, please report it with a link to the video. Sometimes videos cannot be downloaded directly in a suitable format, so we have added the ability to convert the file to the desired format. In some cases, this process may actively use computer resources.

How can I download "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]" video to my phone?

You can download a video to your smartphone using the website or the PWA application UDL Lite. It is also possible to send a download link via QR code using the UDL Helper extension.

How can I download an audio track (music) to MP3 "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]"?

The most convenient way is to use the UDL Client program, which supports converting video to MP3 format. In some cases, MP3 can also be downloaded through the UDL Helper extension.

How can I save a frame from a video "Справедливость: Лекция #11. Как лучше родину любить? [Гарвард]"?

This feature is available in the UDL Helper extension. Make sure that "Show the video snapshot button" is checked in the settings. A camera icon should appear in the lower right corner of the player to the left of the "Settings" icon. When you click on it, the current frame from the video will be saved to your computer in JPEG format.

What's the price of all this stuff?

It costs nothing. Our services are absolutely free for all users. There are no PRO subscriptions, no restrictions on the number or maximum length of downloaded videos.