The lost art of democratic debate - Michael Sandel

[Music] [Applause] one thing the world needs one thing this country desperately needs is a better way of conducting our political debates we need to ReDiscover the Lost Art of democratic argument if you think if you think about the arguments we have most of the time It's Shouting matches on cable television ideological food fights on the floor of Congress I have a suggestion look at all of the arguments we have these days over healthare over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street over the gap between rich and poor over affirmative action and same-sex marriage lying just beneath

the surface of those arguments with passions raging on all sides are big questions of moral philosophy big questions of justice but we too rarely articulate and defend and argue about those big moral questions in our politics so what I would like to do today is have something of a discussion first let me take a famous philosopher who wrote about those questions of justice and morality give you a very short lecture on Aristotle of ancient Athens Aristotle's theory of justice and then have a discussion here to see whether Aristotle's ideas actually inform the way we think

and argue about questions today today so you ready for the lecture According to Aristotle Justice Means giving people what they deserve that's that's it that's the lecture now you may say well that's obvious enough the real questions begin when it comes to arguing about who deserves what and why take the example of flutes suppose we're Distributing flutes who should get the best ones let's see what people what what would you say who should get the best flute you can just call it out random at random you would do it by lottery or by the first

person to rush into the Hall to get them who else best flute players the best flute players the worst flute players the worst flute players how many uh say the best flute players why why should the best flute actually that was Aristotle's answer too but here's a harder question why do you think those of you who voted this way that the best flute should go to the best flute players who's greatest to all the greatest benefit to all we'll hear better music if the best flute should go to the best flute place that's Peter Peter

all right well it's a good reason we'll all be better off if good music is played rather than terrible music but Peter Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason that's all right Aristotle had a different reason for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players he said that's what flutes are for to be played well he says that to reason about just distribution of a thing we have to reason about and sometimes argue about the purpose of the thing or the social activity in this case musical performance and the point

the essential nature of musical performance is to produce excellent music it'll be a happy byproduct that will all benefit but when we think about Justice Aristotle says what we really need to think about is the essential nature of the activity in question and the qualities that are worth honoring and admiring and recognizing one of the reasons that the best flute players should get the best flutes is that musical performance is not only to make the rest of us happy but to honor and recognize the Excellence of the best musicians now flutes may seem the distribution

of flutes may seem a trivial case let's take a contemporary example of a dispute about Justice had to do with Gulf Casey Martin a few years ago Casey Martin did any of of you hear about him he was a very good golfer but he had a disability he had a bad leg a circulatory problem that made it very painful for him to walk the course in fact it carried risk of injury he asked the PGA the professional golfers association for permission to use a golf cart in the PGA tournaments they said no no that would

give you an unfair Advantage he sued and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court believe it or not the case over the golf cart because the law says the dis the the disabled must be accommodated provided the accommodation does not change the essential nature of the activity he says I'm a great golfer I want to compete but I need a golf cart to get from one hole to the next suppose you were on the Supreme Court suppose you were deciding the justice of this case how many here would say that Casey Martin

does have a right to use a golf cart and how many say no he doesn't all right let's take a poll show of hands how many would rule in favor of Casey Martin and how many would not how many would say he doesn't have all right we have a good division of opinion here um someone who would not Grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart what would be your reason raise your hand and we'll try to get you a microphone what would be your reason be an unfair Advantage if he gets to ride

in a golf cart all right those of you I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart worry about an unfair Advantage what about those of you who say he should be given a golf cart how would you answer the objection yes all right what's your name Charlie Charlie says we'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply all right tell us Charlie why why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart the cart's not part of the game but what about walking from hole to

Hole it doesn't matter it's not part of the game walking the course is not part of the game of golf not in my opinion all right stay there Charlie who has an answer who has an answer for Char by the way all right who who has an answer for Charlie what would you say the endurance element is a very important part of the game walking all those holes walking all those holes that's part of part of the game of golf absolutely what's your name Warren Warren Charlie what do you say to Warren I'll stick to

my original thesis well Warren are you a golfer I not a golfer and I am okay you know it's interesting in the case in the lower court they brought in golfing grates to testify on this very issue is walking the course essential to the game and they brought in Jack Nicholas and Arnold Palmer and what do you suppose they all said yes they agreed with Warren they said yes walking the course is strenuous physical exercise the fatigue factor is an important part of golf and so it would change the fundamental nature of the game to

give in the golf cart now notice something interesting well but I should tell you how the Supreme Court first how the Supreme Court decided what do you suppose they said they said yes that Casey Martin must be provided a Golf Cart 7 to2 they ruled what was interesting about their ruling and about the discussion we've just had is that the discussion about the right the Justice of the matter depended on figuring out what is the essential nature of golf and the Supreme Court Justices wrestled with that question and Justice Stevens writing for the majority said

he had read all about the history of golf and the essential point of the game is to get a very small ball from one place into a hole and as few Strokes as possible and that walking was not essential but incidental now there were two denters one of whom was Justice Scalia he wouldn't have granted the cart and he had a very interesting descent it's interesting because he rejected the Aristotelian premise underlying the majority's opinion he said it's not possible to determine the essential nature of a game like golf here's how he put it to

say that something is essential is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object but since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except Amusement that is what distinguishes games from productive activity it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is essential so there you have Justice Galia taking on the Aristotelian premise of the majority's opinion Justice galia's opinion is questionable for two reasons first no real sports fan would talk that way if we thought that the rules of the sports

we care about are merely arbitrary rather than designed to call forth the virtues and the excellences that we think are worthy of admiring we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game it's also objectionable on a second ground on the face of it it seemed to be this debate about the golf cart an argument about fairness un what's an unfair Advantage but if fairness were the only thing at stake there would have been an easy and obvious solution what would it be let everyone ride in a golf cart if they want to then the fairness

objection goes away but letting everyone ride in a cart would have been I suspect more anathema to the golfing grates and to the PGA even than making an exception for Casey Martin why because what what was at stake in the dispute over the golf cart was not only the essential nature of golf but relatedly the question what abilities are worthy of honor and recognition as athletic talents let me put the point as delicately as possible golfers are a little sensitive about the athletic status of their game [Applause] after all there's no running or jumping and

the ball stands still so if golfing is the kind of game that can be played while riding around in the golf cart it would be hard to confer on the golfing grates the status that we confer the honor and recognition that goes to truly great athletes that illustrates that with golf as with flutes it's hard to decide the question of what Justice requires without grappling with the question what is the essential nature of the activity in question and what qualities what excellences connected with activity are worthy of honor and recognition let's take a final example

that's prominent in contemporary political debate same-sex marriage there are those who favor State recognition only of traditional marriage between one man and one woman and there are those who favor State recognition of same-sex marriage how many here favor the first policy the state should recognize traditional marriage only and how many favor the second same-sex marriage now put it this way what ways of thinking about Justice and morality underly the arguments we have over marriage the opponents of same-sex marriage say that the purpose of marriage fundamentally is procreation and that's what's worthy of honoring and recog

recognizing and encouraging and the Defenders of same-sex marriage saying no procreation is not the only purpose of marriage what about a lifelong Mutual loving commitment that's really what marriage is about so with flutes with golf carts and even with a fiercely contested question like same-sex marriage Aristotle has a point very hard to argue about just ice without first arguing about the purpose of social institutions and about what qualities are worthy of honor and recognition so let's step back from these cases and see how they shed light on the way we might improve Elevate the terms

of political discourse in the United States and for that matter around the world there is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with moral questions in politics that's a recipe for disagreement and for that matter a recipe for intolerance and coercion so better to shy away from to ignore the moral and the religious convictions that people bring to Civic life it seems to me that our discussion reflects the opposite that a better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions citizens bring to public life rather than to require

that people leave their deepest moral convictions outside politics before they enter that it seems to me is a way to begin to restore the art of democratic argument thank you very much thank you thank you thank you very much thanks thank you thanks great so from flutes to golf courses to same-sex marriage that was genius link now look you're a pioneer of open education your lecture series was one of the first to do it big what's your vision for the next phase of this well I think that it is possible in the classroom we have

arguments on some of the most fiercely held moral convictions that students have about big public questions and I think we can do that in public life more generally and so my real dream would be to take the the public television series that we've created of the course it's available now online free for everyone anywhere in the world and to see whether we can partner with institutions at universities in China in India in Africa around the world to try to promote uh civic education and also a richer kind of democratic debate so you picture at some

point live in real time you could have this kind of conversation inviting questions but with people from China and India joining in right we did a little bit of it here with 1500 people in Long Beach and we do it in the classroom at Harvard with about a thousand students wouldn't it be interesting to take this way of thinking and arguing engaging seriously with big moral questions exploring cultural differences and connect through a live video hookup students in Beijing and in Mumbai and in Cambridge Massachusetts and create a global classroom that's what I would love

to do so I would imagine um I would imagine that there are a lot of people that love to join you on that endeavor Michael sandel thank you so much thanks so much