TED2010
Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
Filmed:
Readability: 4.2
1,412,912 views
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.
Michael Sandel - Political philosopher
Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time. Full bio
Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:17
One thing the world needs,
0
2000
2000
00:19
one thing this country desperately needs
1
4000
2000
00:21
is a better way
2
6000
2000
00:23
of conducting our political debates.
3
8000
2000
00:25
We need to rediscover
4
10000
2000
00:27
the lost art of democratic argument.
5
12000
3000
00:30
(Applause)
6
15000
6000
00:36
If you think about the arguments we have,
7
21000
3000
00:39
most of the time it's shouting matches
8
24000
2000
00:41
on cable television,
9
26000
2000
00:43
ideological food fights on the floor of Congress.
10
28000
3000
00:48
I have a suggestion.
11
33000
2000
00:50
Look at all the arguments we have these days
12
35000
3000
00:53
over health care,
13
38000
2000
00:55
over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street,
14
40000
3000
00:58
over the gap between rich and poor,
15
43000
3000
01:01
over affirmative action and same-sex marriage.
16
46000
3000
01:04
Lying just beneath the surface
17
49000
2000
01:06
of those arguments,
18
51000
3000
01:09
with passions raging on all sides,
19
54000
3000
01:12
are big questions
20
57000
3000
01:15
of moral philosophy,
21
60000
2000
01:17
big questions of justice.
22
62000
2000
01:19
But we too rarely
23
64000
2000
01:21
articulate and defend
24
66000
3000
01:24
and argue about
25
69000
2000
01:26
those big moral questions in our politics.
26
71000
3000
01:29
So what I would like to do today
27
74000
3000
01:32
is have something of a discussion.
28
77000
2000
01:34
First, let me take
29
79000
2000
01:36
a famous philosopher
30
81000
2000
01:38
who wrote about those questions
31
83000
2000
01:40
of justice and morality,
32
85000
2000
01:42
give you a very short lecture
33
87000
2000
01:44
on Aristotle of ancient Athens,
34
89000
3000
01:47
Aristotle's theory of justice,
35
92000
2000
01:49
and then have a discussion here
36
94000
3000
01:52
to see whether Aristotle's ideas
37
97000
2000
01:54
actually inform
38
99000
2000
01:56
the way we think and argue
39
101000
2000
01:58
about questions today.
40
103000
3000
02:01
So, are you ready for the lecture?
41
106000
3000
02:05
According to Aristotle,
42
110000
2000
02:07
justice means giving people what they deserve.
43
112000
3000
02:13
That's it; that's the lecture.
44
118000
2000
02:15
(Laughter)
45
120000
3000
02:18
Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough.
46
123000
2000
02:20
The real questions begin
47
125000
2000
02:22
when it comes to arguing about
48
127000
2000
02:24
who deserves what and why.
49
129000
3000
02:28
Take the example of flutes.
50
133000
2000
02:30
Suppose we're distributing flutes.
51
135000
3000
02:33
Who should get the best ones?
52
138000
2000
02:35
Let's see what people --
53
140000
2000
02:37
What would you say?
54
142000
2000
02:39
Who should get the best flute?
55
144000
2000
02:41
You can just call it out.
56
146000
2000
02:43
(Audience: Random.)
57
148000
2000
02:45
Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery.
58
150000
2000
02:47
Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them.
59
152000
3000
02:51
Who else?
60
156000
2000
02:53
(Audience: The best flute players.)
61
158000
2000
02:55
MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)
62
160000
2000
02:57
MS: The worst flute players.
63
162000
3000
03:00
How many say the best flute players?
64
165000
2000
03:04
Why?
65
169000
2000
03:07
Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.
66
172000
3000
03:10
(Laughter)
67
175000
2000
03:12
But here's a harder question.
68
177000
2000
03:14
Why do you think,
69
179000
2000
03:16
those of you who voted this way,
70
181000
2000
03:18
that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?
71
183000
3000
03:21
Peter: The greatest benefit to all.
72
186000
2000
03:23
MS: The greatest benefit to all.
73
188000
2000
03:25
We'll hear better music
74
190000
2000
03:27
if the best flutes should go to the best flute players.
75
192000
3000
03:30
That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)
76
195000
2000
03:32
MS: All right.
77
197000
2000
03:35
Well, it's a good reason.
78
200000
2000
03:37
We'll all be better off if good music is played
79
202000
2000
03:39
rather than terrible music.
80
204000
3000
03:43
But Peter,
81
208000
2000
03:45
Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason.
82
210000
3000
03:48
That's all right.
83
213000
2000
03:50
Aristotle had a different reason
84
215000
2000
03:52
for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players.
85
217000
3000
03:55
He said,
86
220000
2000
03:57
that's what flutes are for --
87
222000
2000
03:59
to be played well.
88
224000
3000
04:02
He says that to reason about
89
227000
2000
04:04
just distribution of a thing,
90
229000
3000
04:07
we have to reason about,
91
232000
3000
04:10
and sometimes argue about,
92
235000
2000
04:12
the purpose of the thing,
93
237000
2000
04:14
or the social activity --
94
239000
2000
04:16
in this case, musical performance.
95
241000
2000
04:18
And the point, the essential nature,
96
243000
2000
04:20
of musical performance
97
245000
2000
04:22
is to produce excellent music.
98
247000
2000
04:24
It'll be a happy byproduct
99
249000
2000
04:26
that we'll all benefit.
100
251000
3000
04:30
But when we think about justice,
101
255000
3000
04:33
Aristotle says,
102
258000
2000
04:35
what we really need to think about
103
260000
2000
04:37
is the essential nature of the activity in question
104
262000
3000
04:41
and the qualities that are worth
105
266000
3000
04:44
honoring and admiring and recognizing.
106
269000
3000
04:47
One of the reasons
107
272000
2000
04:49
that the best flute players should get the best flutes
108
274000
2000
04:51
is that musical performance
109
276000
2000
04:53
is not only to make the rest of us happy,
110
278000
2000
04:55
but to honor
111
280000
2000
04:57
and recognize
112
282000
2000
04:59
the excellence
113
284000
2000
05:01
of the best musicians.
114
286000
2000
05:03
Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutes
115
288000
3000
05:06
may seem a trivial case.
116
291000
3000
05:09
Let's take a contemporary example
117
294000
2000
05:11
of the dispute about justice.
118
296000
3000
05:14
It had to do with golf.
119
299000
2000
05:16
Casey Martin -- a few years ago,
120
301000
2000
05:18
Casey Martin --
121
303000
2000
05:20
did any of you hear about him?
122
305000
2000
05:22
He was a very good golfer,
123
307000
2000
05:24
but he had a disability.
124
309000
2000
05:26
He had a bad leg, a circulatory problem,
125
311000
3000
05:29
that made it very painful
126
314000
2000
05:31
for him to walk the course.
127
316000
3000
05:34
In fact, it carried risk of injury.
128
319000
3000
05:38
He asked the PGA,
129
323000
2000
05:40
the Professional Golfers' Association,
130
325000
2000
05:42
for permission to use a golf cart
131
327000
3000
05:45
in the PGA tournaments.
132
330000
2000
05:47
They said, "No.
133
332000
2000
05:49
Now that would give you an unfair advantage."
134
334000
2000
05:51
He sued,
135
336000
2000
05:53
and his case went all the way
136
338000
2000
05:55
to the Supreme Court, believe it or not,
137
340000
2000
05:57
the case over the golf cart,
138
342000
3000
06:00
because the law says
139
345000
2000
06:02
that the disabled
140
347000
2000
06:04
must be accommodated,
141
349000
3000
06:07
provided the accommodation does not
142
352000
3000
06:10
change the essential nature
143
355000
3000
06:13
of the activity.
144
358000
2000
06:15
He says, "I'm a great golfer.
145
360000
2000
06:17
I want to compete.
146
362000
2000
06:19
But I need a golf cart
147
364000
2000
06:21
to get from one hole to the next."
148
366000
2000
06:23
Suppose you were
149
368000
2000
06:25
on the Supreme Court.
150
370000
2000
06:27
Suppose you were deciding
151
372000
2000
06:29
the justice of this case.
152
374000
3000
06:32
How many here would say
153
377000
2000
06:34
that Casey Martin does have a right to use a golf cart?
154
379000
3000
06:37
And how many say, no, he doesn't?
155
382000
3000
06:41
All right, let's take a poll, show of hands.
156
386000
2000
06:43
How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin?
157
388000
2000
06:47
And how many would not? How many would say he doesn't?
158
392000
3000
06:50
All right, we have a good division of opinion here.
159
395000
3000
06:54
Someone who would not
160
399000
2000
06:56
grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart,
161
401000
2000
06:58
what would be your reason?
162
403000
2000
07:00
Raise your hand, and we'll try to get you a microphone.
163
405000
2000
07:02
What would be your reason?
164
407000
2000
07:05
(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)
165
410000
2000
07:07
MS: It would be an unfair advantage
166
412000
3000
07:10
if he gets to ride in a golf cart.
167
415000
2000
07:12
All right, those of you,
168
417000
2000
07:14
I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart
169
419000
3000
07:17
worry about an unfair advantage.
170
422000
2000
07:19
What about those of you who say
171
424000
2000
07:21
he should be given a golf cart?
172
426000
2000
07:23
How would you answer the objection?
173
428000
2000
07:25
Yes, all right.
174
430000
2000
07:27
Audience: The cart's not part of the game.
175
432000
3000
07:30
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)
176
435000
3000
07:33
MS: Charlie says --
177
438000
3000
07:36
We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply.
178
441000
2000
07:38
Tell us, Charlie,
179
443000
2000
07:40
why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart?
180
445000
3000
07:43
Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.
181
448000
3000
07:47
MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?
182
452000
3000
07:50
Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.
183
455000
3000
07:53
MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?
184
458000
3000
07:57
Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.
185
462000
2000
07:59
MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.
186
464000
2000
08:01
(Laughter)
187
466000
2000
08:03
Who has an answer for Charlie?
188
468000
3000
08:06
All right, who has an answer for Charlie?
189
471000
2000
08:08
What would you say?
190
473000
2000
08:10
Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game,
191
475000
3000
08:13
walking all those holes.
192
478000
2000
08:15
MS: Walking all those holes?
193
480000
2000
08:17
That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)
194
482000
3000
08:20
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)
195
485000
2000
08:22
MS: Warren.
196
487000
2000
08:25
Charlie, what do you say to Warren?
197
490000
2000
08:29
Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.
198
494000
2000
08:31
(Laughter)
199
496000
6000
08:37
MS: Warren, are you a golfer?
200
502000
2000
08:39
Warren: I am not a golfer.
201
504000
2000
08:41
Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.)
202
506000
2000
08:43
(Laughter)
203
508000
2000
08:45
(Applause)
204
510000
4000
08:49
You know,
205
514000
2000
08:51
it's interesting.
206
516000
2000
08:55
In the case, in the lower court,
207
520000
2000
08:57
they brought in golfing greats
208
522000
3000
09:00
to testify on this very issue.
209
525000
3000
09:04
Is walking the course essential to the game?
210
529000
3000
09:07
And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.
211
532000
3000
09:10
And what do you suppose they all said?
212
535000
2000
09:12
Yes. They agreed with Warren.
213
537000
3000
09:15
They said, yes, walking the course
214
540000
2000
09:17
is strenuous physical exercise.
215
542000
2000
09:19
The fatigue factor is an important part of golf.
216
544000
3000
09:22
And so it would change
217
547000
2000
09:24
the fundamental nature of the game
218
549000
3000
09:27
to give him the golf cart.
219
552000
2000
09:29
Now, notice,
220
554000
2000
09:31
something interesting --
221
556000
2000
09:33
Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.
222
558000
2000
09:35
The Supreme Court
223
560000
2000
09:37
decided.
224
562000
2000
09:39
What do you suppose they said?
225
564000
3000
09:42
They said yes,
226
567000
2000
09:44
that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart.
227
569000
3000
09:47
Seven to two, they ruled.
228
572000
2000
09:50
What was interesting about their ruling
229
575000
3000
09:54
and about the discussion we've just had
230
579000
3000
09:58
is that the discussion about
231
583000
2000
10:00
the right, the justice, of the matter
232
585000
2000
10:02
depended on
233
587000
2000
10:04
figuring out what is
234
589000
3000
10:07
the essential nature of golf.
235
592000
3000
10:10
And the Supreme Court justices
236
595000
2000
10:12
wrestled with that question.
237
597000
2000
10:14
And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority,
238
599000
2000
10:16
said he had read all about the history of golf,
239
601000
3000
10:21
and the essential point of the game
240
606000
3000
10:24
is to get very small ball from one place
241
609000
2000
10:26
into a hole
242
611000
2000
10:28
in as few strokes as possible,
243
613000
3000
10:31
and that walking was not essential, but incidental.
244
616000
2000
10:33
Now, there were two dissenters,
245
618000
2000
10:35
one of whom was Justice Scalia.
246
620000
3000
10:40
He wouldn't have granted the cart,
247
625000
3000
10:43
and he had a very interesting dissent.
248
628000
2000
10:45
It's interesting because
249
630000
2000
10:47
he rejected the Aristotelian premise
250
632000
3000
10:50
underlying the majority's opinion.
251
635000
2000
10:52
He said it's not possible
252
637000
3000
10:55
to determine the essential nature
253
640000
3000
10:58
of a game like golf.
254
643000
2000
11:00
Here's how he put it.
255
645000
2000
11:02
"To say that something is essential
256
647000
2000
11:04
is ordinarily to say that it is necessary
257
649000
2000
11:06
to the achievement of a certain object.
258
651000
3000
11:09
But since it is the very nature of a game
259
654000
2000
11:11
to have no object except amusement,
260
656000
3000
11:15
(Laughter)
261
660000
4000
11:19
that is, what distinguishes games
262
664000
2000
11:21
from productive activity,
263
666000
2000
11:23
(Laughter)
264
668000
3000
11:26
it is quite impossible to say
265
671000
2000
11:28
that any of a game's arbitrary rules
266
673000
3000
11:31
is essential."
267
676000
2000
11:33
So there you have Justice Scalia
268
678000
2000
11:35
taking on the Aristotelian premise
269
680000
3000
11:38
of the majority's opinion.
270
683000
3000
11:41
Justice Scalia's opinion
271
686000
3000
11:44
is questionable
272
689000
2000
11:46
for two reasons.
273
691000
2000
11:48
First, no real sports fan would talk that way.
274
693000
3000
11:51
(Laughter)
275
696000
2000
11:53
If we had thought that the rules
276
698000
2000
11:55
of the sports we care about
277
700000
2000
11:57
are merely arbitrary,
278
702000
2000
11:59
rather than designed to call forth
279
704000
3000
12:02
the virtues and the excellences
280
707000
3000
12:05
that we think are worthy of admiring,
281
710000
2000
12:07
we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game.
282
712000
3000
12:10
It's also objectionable
283
715000
3000
12:13
on a second ground.
284
718000
2000
12:15
On the face of it,
285
720000
2000
12:17
it seemed to be -- this debate about the golf cart --
286
722000
3000
12:20
an argument about fairness,
287
725000
3000
12:23
what's an unfair advantage.
288
728000
3000
12:27
But if fairness were the only thing at stake,
289
732000
3000
12:30
there would have been an easy and obvious solution.
290
735000
3000
12:33
What would it be? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.)
291
738000
2000
12:35
Let everyone ride in a golf cart
292
740000
3000
12:38
if they want to.
293
743000
2000
12:40
Then the fairness objection goes away.
294
745000
3000
12:43
But letting everyone ride in a cart
295
748000
3000
12:46
would have been, I suspect,
296
751000
2000
12:48
more anathema
297
753000
2000
12:50
to the golfing greats
298
755000
2000
12:52
and to the PGA,
299
757000
2000
12:54
even than making an exception for Casey Martin.
300
759000
2000
12:56
Why?
301
761000
2000
12:58
Because what was at stake
302
763000
2000
13:00
in the dispute over the golf cart
303
765000
3000
13:03
was not only the essential nature of golf,
304
768000
3000
13:06
but, relatedly, the question:
305
771000
3000
13:09
What abilities
306
774000
3000
13:12
are worthy
307
777000
2000
13:14
of honor and recognition
308
779000
2000
13:16
as athletic talents?
309
781000
3000
13:19
Let me put the point
310
784000
2000
13:21
as delicately as possible:
311
786000
3000
13:24
Golfers are a little sensitive
312
789000
2000
13:26
about the athletic status of their game.
313
791000
3000
13:29
(Laughter)
314
794000
5000
13:35
After all, there's no running or jumping,
315
800000
3000
13:38
and the ball stands still.
316
803000
3000
13:41
(Laughter)
317
806000
3000
13:44
So if golfing is the kind of game
318
809000
3000
13:47
that can be played while riding around in a golf cart,
319
812000
3000
13:50
it would be hard to confer
320
815000
3000
13:53
on the golfing greats
321
818000
2000
13:55
the status that we confer,
322
820000
2000
13:57
the honor and recognition
323
822000
2000
13:59
that goes to truly great athletes.
324
824000
3000
14:03
That illustrates
325
828000
3000
14:06
that with golf,
326
831000
3000
14:09
as with flutes,
327
834000
2000
14:11
it's hard to decide the question
328
836000
3000
14:14
of what justice requires,
329
839000
3000
14:17
without grappling with the question,
330
842000
2000
14:19
"What is the essential nature
331
844000
2000
14:21
of the activity in question,
332
846000
2000
14:23
and what qualities,
333
848000
3000
14:26
what excellences
334
851000
2000
14:28
connected with that activity,
335
853000
2000
14:30
are worthy of honor and recognition?"
336
855000
3000
14:34
Let's take a final example
337
859000
2000
14:36
that's prominent in contemporary political debate:
338
861000
3000
14:39
same-sex marriage.
339
864000
2000
14:43
There are those who favor state recognition
340
868000
3000
14:46
only of traditional marriage
341
871000
2000
14:48
between one man and one woman,
342
873000
3000
14:51
and there are those who favor state recognition
343
876000
2000
14:53
of same-sex marriage.
344
878000
2000
14:55
How many here
345
880000
2000
14:57
favor the first policy:
346
882000
2000
14:59
the state should recognize traditional marriage only?
347
884000
3000
15:04
And how many favor the second, same-sex marriage?
348
889000
3000
15:08
Now, put it this way:
349
893000
3000
15:11
What ways of thinking
350
896000
2000
15:13
about justice and morality
351
898000
2000
15:15
underlie the arguments we have
352
900000
2000
15:17
over marriage?
353
902000
2000
15:19
The opponents of same-sex marriage say
354
904000
3000
15:22
that the purpose of marriage,
355
907000
2000
15:24
fundamentally, is procreation,
356
909000
2000
15:26
and that's what's worthy of honoring
357
911000
2000
15:28
and recognizing and encouraging.
358
913000
3000
15:31
And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no,
359
916000
3000
15:34
procreation is not the only purpose of marriage;
360
919000
3000
15:38
what about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment?
361
923000
3000
15:41
That's really what marriage is about.
362
926000
3000
15:45
So with flutes, with golf carts,
363
930000
3000
15:48
and even with a fiercely contested question
364
933000
3000
15:51
like same-sex marriage,
365
936000
3000
15:54
Aristotle has a point.
366
939000
3000
15:57
Very hard to argue about justice
367
942000
2000
15:59
without first arguing
368
944000
3000
16:02
about the purpose of social institutions
369
947000
3000
16:05
and about what qualities are worthy
370
950000
2000
16:07
of honor and recognition.
371
952000
3000
16:10
So let's step back from these cases
372
955000
3000
16:13
and see how they shed light
373
958000
3000
16:16
on the way we might improve, elevate,
374
961000
3000
16:19
the terms of political discourse
375
964000
3000
16:22
in the United States,
376
967000
2000
16:24
and for that matter, around the world.
377
969000
3000
16:27
There is a tendency to think
378
972000
2000
16:29
that if we engage too directly
379
974000
3000
16:32
with moral questions in politics,
380
977000
2000
16:34
that's a recipe for disagreement,
381
979000
2000
16:36
and for that matter, a recipe for
382
981000
2000
16:38
intolerance and coercion.
383
983000
2000
16:40
So better to shy away from,
384
985000
2000
16:42
to ignore,
385
987000
2000
16:44
the moral and the religious convictions
386
989000
2000
16:46
that people bring to civic life.
387
991000
2000
16:48
It seems to me that our discussion
388
993000
3000
16:51
reflects the opposite,
389
996000
2000
16:53
that a better way
390
998000
3000
16:56
to mutual respect
391
1001000
2000
16:58
is to engage directly
392
1003000
2000
17:00
with the moral convictions
393
1005000
2000
17:02
citizens bring to public life,
394
1007000
3000
17:05
rather than to require
395
1010000
2000
17:07
that people leave their deepest moral convictions
396
1012000
3000
17:10
outside politics
397
1015000
2000
17:12
before they enter.
398
1017000
2000
17:14
That, it seems to me, is a way
399
1019000
2000
17:16
to begin to restore
400
1021000
2000
17:18
the art of democratic argument.
401
1023000
2000
17:20
Thank you very much.
402
1025000
2000
17:22
(Applause)
403
1027000
3000
17:25
Thank you.
404
1030000
2000
17:27
(Applause)
405
1032000
3000
17:30
Thank you.
406
1035000
2000
17:32
(Applause)
407
1037000
2000
17:34
Thank you very much.
408
1039000
2000
17:36
Thanks. Thank you.
409
1041000
2000
17:39
Chris.
410
1044000
2000
17:41
Thanks, Chris.
411
1046000
2000
17:44
Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses
412
1049000
2000
17:46
to same-sex marriage --
413
1051000
2000
17:48
that was a genius link.
414
1053000
2000
17:50
Now look, you're a pioneer of open education.
415
1055000
3000
17:53
Your lecture series was one of the first to do it big.
416
1058000
2000
17:55
What's your vision for the next phase of this?
417
1060000
3000
17:58
MS: Well, I think that it is possible.
418
1063000
3000
18:01
In the classroom, we have arguments
419
1066000
3000
18:04
on some of the most fiercely held
420
1069000
3000
18:07
moral convictions that students have
421
1072000
2000
18:09
about big public questions.
422
1074000
2000
18:11
And I think we can do that in public life more generally.
423
1076000
3000
18:14
And so my real dream would be
424
1079000
2000
18:16
to take the public television series
425
1081000
2000
18:18
that we've created of the course --
426
1083000
2000
18:20
it's available now, online,
427
1085000
2000
18:22
free for everyone anywhere in the world --
428
1087000
2000
18:24
and to see whether we can partner with institutions,
429
1089000
3000
18:27
at universities in China, in India,
430
1092000
2000
18:29
in Africa, around the world,
431
1094000
2000
18:31
to try to promote
432
1096000
3000
18:34
civic education
433
1099000
2000
18:36
and also a richer kind
434
1101000
2000
18:38
of democratic debate.
435
1103000
2000
18:41
CA: So you picture, at some point,
436
1106000
2000
18:43
live, in real time,
437
1108000
2000
18:45
you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions,
438
1110000
3000
18:48
but with people from China and India joining in?
439
1113000
3000
18:51
MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here
440
1116000
2000
18:53
with 1,500 people in Long Beach,
441
1118000
2000
18:55
and we do it in a classroom at Harvard
442
1120000
3000
18:58
with about 1,000 students.
443
1123000
2000
19:00
Wouldn't it be interesting
444
1125000
2000
19:02
to take this way
445
1127000
3000
19:05
of thinking and arguing,
446
1130000
2000
19:07
engaging seriously with big moral questions,
447
1132000
3000
19:10
exploring cultural differences
448
1135000
2000
19:12
and connect through a live video hookup,
449
1137000
3000
19:16
students in Beijing and Mumbai
450
1141000
2000
19:18
and in Cambridge, Massachusetts
451
1143000
2000
19:20
and create a global classroom.
452
1145000
2000
19:22
That's what I would love to do.
453
1147000
2000
19:24
(Applause)
454
1149000
4000
19:28
CA: So, I would imagine
455
1153000
2000
19:30
that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor.
456
1155000
3000
19:33
Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)
457
1158000
2000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Michael Sandel - Political philosopherMichael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time.
Why you should listen
Michael Sandel is one of the best known American public intellectuals. The London Observer calls him "one of the most popular teachers in the world" and indeed his lectures at Harvard draw thousands of students eager to discuss big questions of modern political life: bioethics, torture, rights versus responsibilities, the value we put on things. Sandel's class is a primer on thinking through the hard choices we face as citizens. The course has been turned into a public TV series with companion website and book: Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? In his newest book, What Money Can't Buy, he challenges the idea that markets are morally neutral.
"To understand the importance of his purpose," a Guardian reviewer wrote of the book, "you first have to grasp the full extent of the triumph achieved by market thinking in economics, and the extent to which that thinking has spread to other domains. This school sees economics as a discipline that has nothing to do with morality, and is instead the study of incentives, considered in an ethical vacuum. Sandel's book is, in its calm way, an all-out assault on that idea, and on the influential doctrine that the economic approach to "utility maximisation" explains all human behaviour."
Read more about his thinking on markets and morality: "Lunch with Michael Sandel" on FT.com >>
Michael Sandel | Speaker | TED.com