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