POL/Presentations-TED Talks-Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



Transcript:


One thing the world needs,one thing this country desperately needsis a better wayof conducting our political debates.We need to rediscoverthe lost art of democratic argument.(Applause)If you think about the arguments we have,most of the time it's shouting matcheson cable television,ideological food fights on the floor of Congress.I have a suggestion.Look at all the arguments we have these daysover 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 surfaceof those arguments,with passions raging on all sides,are big questionsof moral philosophy,big questions of justice.But we too rarelyarticulate and defendand argue aboutthose big moral questions in our politics.

So what I would like to do todayis have something of a discussion.First, let me takea famous philosopherwho wrote about those questionsof justice and morality,give you a very short lectureon Aristotle of ancient Athens,Aristotle's theory of justice,and then have a discussion hereto see whether Aristotle's ideasactually informthe way we think and argueabout 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 beginwhen it comes to arguing aboutwho 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 musicif 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 playedrather than terrible music.But Peter,Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason.That's all right.Aristotle had a different reasonfor 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 aboutjust 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 performanceis to produce excellent music.It'll be a happy byproductthat we'll all benefit.But when we think about justice,Aristotle says,what we really need to think aboutis the essential nature of the activity in questionand the qualities that are worthhonoring and admiring and recognizing.One of the reasonsthat the best flute players should get the best flutesis that musical performanceis not only to make the rest of us happy,but to honorand recognizethe excellenceof the best musicians.

Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutesmay seem a trivial case.Let's take a contemporary exampleof 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 painfulfor 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 cartin the PGA tournaments.They said, "No.Now that would give you an unfair advantage."He sued,and his case went all the wayto the Supreme Court, believe it or not,the case over the golf cart,because the law saysthat the disabledmust be accommodated,provided the accommodation does notchange the essential natureof the activity.He says, "I'm a great golfer.I want to compete.But I need a golf cartto get from one hole to the next."

Suppose you wereon the Supreme Court.Suppose you were decidingthe justice of this case.How many here would saythat 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 notgrant 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 advantageif 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 cartworry about an unfair advantage.What about those of you who sayhe 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 greatsto 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 courseis strenuous physical exercise.The fatigue factor is an important part of golf.And so it would changethe fundamental nature of the gameto give him the golf cart.Now, notice,something interesting --Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.

The Supreme Courtdecided.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 rulingand about the discussion we've just hadis that the discussion aboutthe right, the justice, of the matterdepended onfiguring out what isthe essential nature of golf.And the Supreme Court justiceswrestled 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 gameis to get very small ball from one placeinto a holein 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 becausehe rejected the Aristotelian premiseunderlying the majority's opinion.He said it's not possibleto determine the essential natureof a game like golf.Here's how he put it."To say that something is essentialis ordinarily to say that it is necessaryto the achievement of a certain object.But since it is the very nature of a gameto have no object except amusement,(Laughter)that is, what distinguishes gamesfrom productive activity,(Laughter)it is quite impossible to saythat any of a game's arbitrary rulesis essential."

So there you have Justice Scaliataking on the Aristotelian premiseof the majority's opinion.Justice Scalia's opinionis questionablefor two reasons.First, no real sports fan would talk that way.(Laughter)If we had thought that the rulesof the sports we care aboutare merely arbitrary,rather than designed to call forththe virtues and the excellencesthat we think are worthy of admiring,we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game.It's also objectionableon 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 cartif they want to.Then the fairness objection goes away.

But letting everyone ride in a cartwould have been, I suspect,more anathemato the golfing greatsand to the PGA,even than making an exception for Casey Martin.Why?Because what was at stakein the dispute over the golf cartwas not only the essential nature of golf,but, relatedly, the question:What abilitiesare worthyof honor and recognitionas athletic talents?Let me put the pointas delicately as possible:Golfers are a little sensitiveabout 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 gamethat can be played while riding around in a golf cart,it would be hard to conferon the golfing greatsthe status that we confer,the honor and recognitionthat goes to truly great athletes.That illustratesthat with golf,as with flutes,it's hard to decide the questionof what justice requires,without grappling with the question,"What is the essential natureof the activity in question,and what qualities,what excellencesconnected with that activity,are worthy of honor and recognition?"

Let's take a final examplethat's prominent in contemporary political debate:same-sex marriage.There are those who favor state recognitiononly of traditional marriagebetween one man and one woman,and there are those who favor state recognitionof same-sex marriage.How many herefavor 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 thinkingabout justice and moralityunderlie the arguments we haveover marriage?The opponents of same-sex marriage saythat the purpose of marriage,fundamentally, is procreation,and that's what's worthy of honoringand 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 questionlike same-sex marriage,Aristotle has a point.Very hard to argue about justicewithout first arguingabout the purpose of social institutionsand about what qualities are worthyof honor and recognition.

So let's step back from these casesand see how they shed lighton the way we might improve, elevate,the terms of political discoursein the United States,and for that matter, around the world.There is a tendency to thinkthat if we engage too directlywith moral questions in politics,that's a recipe for disagreement,and for that matter, a recipe forintolerance and coercion.So better to shy away from,to ignore,the moral and the religious convictionsthat people bring to civic life.It seems to me that our discussionreflects the opposite,that a better wayto mutual respectis to engage directlywith the moral convictionscitizens bring to public life,rather than to requirethat people leave their deepest moral convictionsoutside politicsbefore they enter.That, it seems to me, is a wayto begin to restorethe 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 coursesto 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 argumentson some of the most fiercely heldmoral convictions that students haveabout big public questions.And I think we can do that in public life more generally.And so my real dream would beto take the public television seriesthat 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 promotecivic educationand also a richer kindof 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 herewith 1,500 people in Long Beach,and we do it in a classroom at Harvardwith about 1,000 students.Wouldn't it be interestingto take this wayof thinking and arguing,engaging seriously with big moral questions,exploring cultural differencesand connect through a live video hookup,students in Beijing and Mumbaiand in Cambridge, Massachusettsand create a global classroom.That's what I would love to do.

(Applause)

CA: So, I would imaginethat 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.)