The lost art of democratic debate Michael Sandel
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 which would 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 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 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 would you say who should get
the best flute you can just call it out
at random you would do it by lottery or
by the first person to rush into the
hall to get them well the best flute
players the worst flute players how many
say the best flute players why why
should the best flute actually that was
Aristotle’s answer to 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 who’s the greatest benefit to
all will hear better music if the best
flutes should go to the best flute
players that’s Peter
alright well it’s a good reason we’ll
all be better off if good music has
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 of the social activity in this
case musical performance and the point
the essential nature of musical
performance is to produce excellent
music it will be a happy by-product 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 a dispute
about justice had to do with golf Casey
Martin a few years ago Casey Martin did
any of you hear about him he is 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 distance
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
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 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 worried 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
Charley says well get Charlie a
microphone in case someone wants to
reply tell us Charley why why would you
say he should be able to use a golf cart
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 Charley
who has an answer who has an answer for
chart by the way all right 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 war
I’ll stick to my original thesis well
we’re on our you golf er I’m not a
golfer and I am okay
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 by I should tell you
how the Supreme Court refers the Supreme
Court decided what are 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 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 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
that is what distinguishes games from
productive activity it is quite
impossible to say that any of the games
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 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 on 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 write 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
that’s delicately as possible golfers
are a little sensitive about the
athletic status of their game
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 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 quality is what
excellence is 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 few sleek intested
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 the 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
okay
okay okay
so from flutes to golf courses to
same-sex marriage that was genius Lee
now look you’re a pioneer of open
education your lecture series is one of
the first to do a big what’s your vision
for the next phase of this well I think
that it is possible in the classroom we
have arguments and 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 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 1,500 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 I would imagine that
there are a lot of people would love to
join you on that endeavor Michael Sandel
thank you so much thanks