MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Michael Sandel 談失落的民主論辯藝術

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Michael Sandel

2010年2月演講,2010年6月在TED上線

 

翻譯:TED

編輯:朱學恆、洪曉慧

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

成功的民主來自於公民辯論,Michael Sandel說-但我們對這門技藝已荒廢許久。他與TEDsters一起,帶領我們進入一堂有趣的演講,以近來美國最高法院判例(美國職業高爾夫球協會與Martin的訴訟),揭示了正義的關鍵本質。

 

關於Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel在哈佛大學教導政治哲學,他的近作《正義:一場思辨之旅》探索了當今一些最具爭議性的道德與政治議題。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

截至2009年秋季,約有14,000哈佛學生上過Michael Sandel的傳奇課程「正義」。他的講座吸引了一千多名學生熱烈討論現代政治生活的大議題:生命倫理學、刑求、權利與責任。Sandel的課程啟發我們思考身為公民所面臨的艱難抉擇。本課程已延伸為一個公共電視節目系列及其附屬網站,以及去年秋天的一本暢銷書:《正義:一場思辨之旅》。

 

「Michael Sandel是世界上最有趣的政治哲學家之一,」《衛報》報導。「政治家和評論家往往會問兩個政策方面的問題:它是否對選民有益,以及是否會影響他們的自由權?Sandel正確地指出這個辯論的淺薄之處,並加上了第三個標準:這將會對公共利益造成什麼影響?」

 

《倫敦觀察家報》將Sandel譽為「世界上最受歡迎的老師之一」,並解釋是什麼讓他的觀點獨樹一幟:「他反對現代公眾生活盛行的假設之一-即公共政治辯論應排除道德與宗教觀念等私人議題。」

 

「政治哲學的責任是嘗試藉由實踐讓觀點清晰,或至少可以理解。」

-Michael Sandel

 

Michael Sandel的英語網上資料

Website: Justice with Michael Sandel

Website: Michael Sandel's homepage at Harvard

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Michael Sandel 談失落的民主論辯藝術

這個世界必要的一件東西,這國家急需的,是一個更好的政治論辯方式,我們需要重新發現這失傳的民主論辯技藝。(掌聲)想想我們現今的主要辯論,大多數時間,它們都是有線電視頻道上的叫囂比賽,國會上演的意識形態砸食物大戰;我有個建議,看看近來我們所有這些關於健保的辯論,看看關於華爾街的分紅和財務紓困,關於貧富差距,看看關於積極平權措施和同性婚姻,在這些爭論之下潛藏著一股湧向四方的狂熱激情,這些是道德哲學上的大問題,涉及正義的大問題,但我們卻太少表述、辯護與爭論這些藏於我們政治中的道德問題。

 

所以,我今天要做的是對此提出一些討論。首先,讓我引述一位著名哲學家的話,他曾寫過這些關於正義與道德的問題,我要談一小段古雅典時代的亞理斯多德,亞理斯多德的正義論,接著進行討論,看看亞理斯多德的想法,是否在實際上告訴了我們思考與辯論今日問題的方法。所以,你們準備好上這堂課了嗎?根據亞理斯多德的說法,正義指的是給予人們他們應得的,意思就是,這場演講。

 

(笑聲)

 

現在,你們也許會說,嗯,那再明白不過了,真正的問題始於當人們爭論誰應該得到什麼以及為什麼。以笛子為例,假設我們分配笛子,誰應得到最好的呢?讓我們看看有誰...你認為呢?誰應該得到最好的?你可以直接說。

 

(聽眾:隨機分配)

 

Michael Sandel:隨機分配,你們可以透過抽籤或者先到先拿,還有誰?

 

(聽眾:最優秀的吹笛手)

 

MS:最優秀的吹笛手

 

(聽眾:最糟的吹笛手)

 

MS:最糟的吹笛手,有多少人贊同最優秀的吹笛手,為什麼?為什麼最好的笛子-事實上,那也是亞理斯多德的答案,(笑聲)但這裡有個更難的問題,贊成此法的人,你們為什麼認為最好的笛子應該給最優秀的吹笛手?

 

Peter:這賦予所有人最大的利益

 

MS:賦予所有人最大利益,如果把最好的笛子給最優秀的吹笛手,我們得以聆聽更好的音樂,你的名字是Peter嗎?

 

(聽眾:Peter)

 

MS:好的,嗯,是個好理由,我們都會獲得更多利益,假使演奏出好音樂的話,而不是難聽的音樂,但是,Peter,亞理斯多德並不同意你的理由,沒關係,亞理斯多德有不同的理由,當他提到最好的笛子應該給最優秀的吹笛手,他說,那就是笛子存在的目的,就是要被拿來好好演奏,他說,推論一件事物是否公平地分配,我們必須推論,並且有時候要辯論,這東西或這個社會活動的目的何在,在這個案例中是音樂表演,在這一點上,音樂表演的主要本質是為了產生絕佳的音樂,它會營造歡樂這種副產品,使我們所有人皆獲得益處,但是,當我們思考正義時,亞理斯多德說,我們真正必須思考的問題是這個活動的主要本質,以及那值得榮耀、欣賞與認可的品質。最好的笛子應該給最優秀的吹笛手,其中一個理由是,音樂表演並不只是為了讓其他人感到愉快而已,它還得使最傑出的音樂家獲得殊榮,並使其傑出表現獲得認可。

 

現在,分配笛子似乎...看起來是個平凡的例子,讓我們舉一個關於分配正義的當代例子,這與高爾夫有關。幾年前,Casey Martin,Casey Martin,有人聽過他嗎?他是一個非常好的高爾夫球手,但他是殘障人士,他的腳有問題,循環系統出了問題,這使得他在走過賽程時奇痛無比。事實上,這使他有運動傷害的危險。他問PGA,美國職業高爾夫球協會,是否可以在PGA比賽中使用高爾夫球車。他們說:「不,那會讓你得到不公平的優勢。」他一狀告上法院,他的案子一路上到美國最高法院,你們相信嗎?這麼一件關於高爾夫球車的訴訟。因為法律上說,我們必須為殘障人士提供妥善的輔助設施,前提是提供妥善的殘障設施並不會改變比賽或活動的本質。他說:「我是一位優秀的高爾夫球選手,我要參加比賽,但我需要一輛高爾夫球車,讓我可以從這一洞到下一洞。」

 

假使你們是最高法院,假設你們要審議這個涉及正義的案子,有多少人認為Casey Martin有權使用高爾夫球車?另外,有多少人認為他沒有?好,讓我們做個調查,請舉手,有多少人站在 Casey Martin 這一方?那有多少人不支持他呢?很好,我們已有兩種不同的意見了。有人不願給予Casey Martin使用高爾夫球車的權利,你們的理由是什麼?請舉手,我們會試著把麥克風遞給你,你的理由是什麼?

 

(聽眾:那會形成不公平的優勢)

 

MS:那會形成不公平的優勢,假使他可以使用高爾夫球車,好的,在你們之中,我想不願給他高爾夫球車的人大多擔心那會形成不公平的優勢,那麼,認為應當給予他高爾夫球車的人怎麼說?你們會如何回應對方的辯駁?是,請說。

 

聽眾:車子並不是比賽的一部份。

 

MS:你的名字是?

 

(聽眾:Charlie)

 

MS: Charlie 說,我們會給Charlie一隻麥克風,方便有人想回答。告訴我們,Charlie,你為什麼說他應該能使用高爾夫球車?

 

Charlie:車子不是比賽的一部分

 

MS:那從一洞走到另一洞又怎麼說呢?

 

Charlie:這與比賽無關,它不算比賽的一部份。

 

MS:在高爾夫賽程中走路不算比賽的一部份?

 

Charlie:對我來說不是,它不是。

 

MS:好,請留在那,Charlie,(笑聲),誰要回應Charlie的說法?好,有誰要回應Charlie的說法?你會怎麼說?

 

聽眾:耐力是比賽中非常重要的部分,走完所有球洞。

 

MS:走完所有球洞?那是高爾夫比賽的一部份?

 

(聽眾:一點也不錯)

 

MS:你的名字是?

 

(聽眾:Warren)

 

MS: Warren,Charlie,你想怎麼回應Warren?

 

Charlie:我堅持原來的論點。

 

(笑聲)

 

MS: Warren,你打高爾夫嗎?

 

Warren:我不打

 

Charlie:但我打

 

MS:好的

 

(笑聲)

 

(掌聲)

 

MS:你們知道,這很有趣,在這個案例中,在下級法院,他們讓傑出的高爾夫選手為這個特殊案例作證,步行在比賽中是必不可少的過程嗎?他們找來Jack Nicklaus 和 Arnold Palmer,你們猜他們都怎麼說?是的,他們同意 Warren的說法,他們說,是的,走完全程是費力的運動,疲憊在高爾夫球賽中是重要的一環,所以讓他使用高爾夫球車會改變比賽的根本性質。現在,請注意,這裡有件有趣的事,嗯,我應該先告訴你們關於最高法院的說法。

 

最高法院作了裁決,你們認為他們怎麼說?他們說,是的, 必需提供給Casey Martin一輛高爾夫球車,七比二,這是他們的裁決。有趣的是,關於他們的判決,以及我們剛剛的討論那些有關權利與正義等問題,都是建立於我們對高爾夫球比賽必要本質的認識,而最高法院審慎思量了那問題,大法官Stevens是多數那一派,說他遍讀了高爾夫球的歷史,而這項比賽的關鍵之處在於把一個非常小的球,從一個地方推到一個洞裡,盡可能使用最少桿數,而走路並不是必要的,僅是次要的。

 

現在,有兩位持反對意見者,一位是Scalia大法官,他不願賦予使用高爾夫球車的權利,他提出一個非常有趣的異議,有趣是因為他否決了大多數人所持的亞理斯多德前提,他說,要決定一項賽事的本質,比如高爾夫球賽,是不可能的,以下是他的見解:「當談到某些事物是必要時,通常我們會說,它是在為了要達到某種目標時是必要的,但畢竟一項比賽的最終本質,除了達到娛樂目的之外,並沒有任何其他目標。」(笑聲)「也就是說,比賽正因如此與有生產力的活動有所差別,」(笑聲)「我們不可能說,任何一種比賽的既定規則是必要的。」

 

所以,這是Scalia法官對採取亞理斯多德前提的多數決所做的駁斥。根據兩個原因,我們可以質疑Scalia 大法官的意見。第一,沒有一個真正的球迷會那麼說。(笑聲)如果我們認為我們所在意的比賽規則只不過是既定的,而非一種追求美德與卓越的設計,一種我們認為值得尊敬的事物,我們根本不會在乎這項比賽的結果。從另一方面來看,這也是有爭議的。表面上看來,這似乎是-這個關於高爾夫球車的辯論,似乎是一個關於公平的爭議,關於一項不平等的優勢,但是,倘若公平性是唯一的爭議關鍵,解決辦法應該顯而易見,那是什麼?(聽眾:讓每個人都有車)讓每個人都乘坐高爾夫球車,如果他們要的話,這麼一來就可以消除那些對公平性的異議。

 

然而,讓每個人乘坐高爾夫球車可能會,我懷疑,可能會讓那些球星與PGA非常苦惱,甚至比為 Casey Martin破例還嚴重,為什麼?因為在這個高爾夫球車的爭議中,所影響到的部分不只是高爾夫球賽的本質而已,它還涉及到一個問題,什麼樣的能力才值得運動員的才華獲得崇敬與認可?我盡可能地試著詳細鋪陳這個論點。高爾夫球選手們對於其運動員的地位有些敏感,(笑聲)畢竟,這項比賽沒有跑步或跳躍,而那顆球通常也靜止不動,(笑聲)所以,如果高爾夫球是那種可以安坐於車上的比賽的話,人們就很難賦予那些高爾夫球巨星偉大崇高的地位,以及對於偉大球星的榮耀與認可,這說明了高爾夫球,如同笛子一般,很難界定其所需的正義,如果不對以下問題做討論的話:「什麼是這項活動的內在本質,以及跟這項活動有關的何種性質及卓越之處,是值得尊敬與認可的?」

 

讓我們舉最後一個例子,當代著名的政治辯論,同性婚姻。有些人認為,國家僅能承認傳統婚姻,一名男性與一名女性之間的婚姻,也有些人希望國家能承認同性婚姻,這裡有多少人贊成第一項政策,國家只應承認傳統婚姻?有多少人贊成第二項,即同性婚姻?現在,這麼說好了,在我們既有的涉及到正義與道德的這些爭議下,關於婚姻我們有什麼樣的思考方式?反對同性婚姻的人說,婚姻的目的基本上說來是為了生育,而那是值得榮耀、認可與鼓勵的,然而,捍衛同性婚姻的人說:不,生育並不是婚姻的唯一目的,那一個終身的、相互的、愛的承諾又如何呢?那才是婚姻真正的精神。因此,笛子、高爾夫球車,甚至如此激烈爭辯的議題,像同性婚姻,亞理斯多德提及了一個觀點,倘若我們沒有首先探討社會制度的目的,與什麼樣的品質是值得榮耀與認可,要爭辯何謂正義極為困難。

 

因此,讓我們從這些例子回過頭來,看看它們如何啟發我們,使我們得以藉此進步、提升美國的政治論述語彙,以及世界各地關於這方面的政治語言。人們會傾向於認為,如果我們在政治中愈是直接地涉入道德議題,那將會導致分歧,就此而言,也是一個導致不寬容與強制脅迫的狀況,因此,我們不如迴避、略過那些人們帶進公民生活中的宗教與道德衝突。在我看來,我們的討論反映了相反的一面,一個達成相互尊重的更好方式,是直接地涉入公民帶入公共生活中的的道德衝突,而不是要求人們在進入政治以前,把他們最深的道德衝突留在政治之外。在我看來,那是一個開始重建民主辯論技藝的方法,謝謝大家。

 

(掌聲)

 

MS:謝謝

 

(掌聲)

 

MS:謝謝

 

(掌聲)

 

MS:非常感謝,謝謝,謝謝各位,Chris,謝謝,Chris。

 

Chris Anderson:從笛子、高爾夫球場到同性婚姻,實在是非常巧妙的連結。你的確是開放教育的先驅,你的課程系列是開創者之一,你下一個階段的計劃是什麼?

 

MS:嗯,我想這是可能的,在這個教室裡,我們曾讓學生們參與關於道德衝突的最激烈辯論,涉及了許多大型的公眾議題,我想我們可以更廣泛地把它置入於公眾生活,所以,我真正的夢想是,將我們曾有過的課堂辯論呈現在電視節目中。現在,在網路上這已經是可行的了,世上每個角落的任何人都可以參與,看看我們是否可以與一些機構合作,比如在中國、印度、非洲和世界各地的大學,試著提升公民教育與更豐富的民主辯論。

 

CA:所以你在某種程度上,想像了一個現場的、即時的真實對談,徵求問題,但請中國和印度的人們參與?

 

MS:是的,我們在這裡小試了一下,在Long Beach有1500人參與,另外,我們也在哈佛的講堂上與1000位學生進行討論,這不是很有趣嗎?以這種思考與辯論的方式,深刻地討論宏大的道德議題,探索文化差異,並且透過現場直播,使得在北京、孟買、劍橋、麻薩諸塞州的學生一起創造一間全球教室,那就是我想做的事。

 

(掌聲)

 

CA:所以,我猜想會有許多人願意加入你的努力的,Michael Sandel,非常謝謝你。(MS:謝謝各位)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk

Democracy thrives on civil debate, Michael Sandel says -- but we're shamefully out of practice. He leads a fun refresher, with TEDsters sparring over a recent Supreme Court case (PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin) whose outcome reveals the critical ingredient in justice.

About Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard. His new book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, explores some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time. Full bio and more links

Transcript

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. (Applause) 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 the arguments we have these days over health care, 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. So, are you ready for the lecture? According to Aristotle justice means giving people what they deserve. That's it; that's the lecture.

(Laughter)

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 would you say? Who should get the best flute? You can just call it out.

(Audience: Random.)

Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery. Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them. Who else?

(Audience: The best flute players.)

MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)

MS: The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.

(Laughter)

But here's a harder question. Why do you think, those of you who voted this way, that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?

Peter: The greatest benefit to all.

MS: The greatest benefit to all. We'll hear better music if the best flutes should go to the best flute players. That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)

MS: 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 we'll 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 the dispute about justice. It had to do with golf. Casey Martin -- a few years ago, Casey Martin -- did any 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. Now 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 that 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? All right, we have a good division of opinion here. 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?

(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)

MS: It would 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.

Audience: The cart's not part of the game.

MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)

MS: Charlie says -- We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply. Tell us, Charlie, why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart?

Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.

MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?

Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.

MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?

Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.

MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.

(Laughter)

Who has an answer for Charlie? All right, who has an answer for Charlie? What would you say?

Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game, walking all those holes.

MS: Walking all those holes? That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)

MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)

MS: Warren. Charlie, what do you say to Warren?

Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.

(Laughter)

MS: Warren, are you a golfer?

Warren: I am not a golfer.

Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.) (Laughter)

(Applause)

You know, it's interesting. In the case, in the lower court, they brought in golfing greats to testify on this very issue. Is walking the course essential to the game? And they brought in Jack Nicklaus 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 him the golf cart. Now, notice, something interesting -- Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.

The Supreme Court decided. What do you suppose they said? They said yes, that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart. Seven to two, 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 very small ball from one place into a hole in as few strokes as possible, and that walking was not essential, but incidental.

Now, there were two dissenters, one of whom was Justice Scalia. He wouldn't have granted the cart, and he had a very interesting dissent. 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, (Laughter) that is, what distinguishes games from productive activity, (Laughter) it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is essential."

So there you have Justice Scalia taking on the Aristotelian premise of the majority's opinion. Justice Scalia's opinion is questionable for two reasons. First, no real sports fan would talk that way. (Laughter) If we had 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, 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? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.) 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 greats and to the PGA, even than making an exception for Casey Martin. Why? Because 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. (Laughter) After all, there's no running or jumping, and the ball stands still. (Laughter) So if golfing is the kind of game that can be played while riding around in a golf cart, it would be hard to confer on the golfing greats 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 that 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 underlie 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 recognizing and encouraging. And the defenders of same-sex marriage say 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 justice 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.

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)

Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses to same-sex marriage. That was a 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?

MS: 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 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 civic education and also a richer kind of democratic debate.

CA: 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?

MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here with 1,500 people in Long Beach, and we do it in a classroom at Harvard with about 1,000 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 Mumbai and in Cambridge, Massachusetts and create a global classroom. That's what I would love to do.

(Applause)

CA: So, I would imagine that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor. Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)
 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入6 + 9 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

課程討論
原來電視上口水戰、立委罵人都不是民主

carlyuanliu, 2011-06-09 11:17:14

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: