20 - JUSTICE - MICHAEL SANDEL - Liberdade de escolha X Aceitação social

Summary

The video explores a philosophical debate around Aristotle's theory of justice, focusing on the case of Casey Martin's request to use a golf cart in a PGA tournament. The discussion questions whether walking is an essential part of golf and examines the role of honor and fairness in sports. Through the debate, key concepts of Aristotle’s justice theory, including the allocation of rights and roles based on fit, are explored. The conversation ultimately challenges the compatibility of Aristotle's framework with individual freedom and modern views on justice.

Takeaways

• 😀 Aristotle's theory of justice is based on the idea of fitting people to their appropriate roles based on their virtues and excellences.
• 😀 The debate over Casey Martin's request to use a golf cart in the PGA tournament revolves around whether walking is essential to the game of golf.
• 😀 Jenny suggests allowing all golfers the option to use a cart to make the competition fairer, but this raises concerns about preserving the spirit of golf.
• 😀 Michael argues that walking is a key part of golf and that allowing Casey Martin to use a cart would undermine the integrity of the PGA tour.
• 😀 From an Aristotelian perspective, the question of fairness in the Casey Martin case isn't just about physical ability, but also about the honor and athletic excellence in golf.
• 😀 Scalia's view contrasts with Aristotle's by treating games like golf as mere amusement, whereas Aristotle sees them as practices that honor virtues and excellences.
• 😀 The PGA's insistence on walking as a requirement reflects the notion that golf is not just a game of skill but an athletic competition that honors physical exertion and skill.
• 😀 An Aristotelian view of justice emphasizes the importance of fitting people to roles, but raises questions about freedom, particularly in terms of individuals' right to choose their own roles.
• 😀 Mary Kate objects to Aristotle's theory, arguing that people should have the freedom to choose their roles, even if they are naturally suited to a certain one, such as being a janitor.
• 😀 The debate also touches on the tension between freedom and the idea of fitting people to specific roles, with modern political theory suggesting that justice should not be tied to any particular conception of the good life.

Q & A

What is the central philosophical debate in the transcript?

The central debate is whether Casey Martin, who has a disability, should be allowed to use a golf cart in a PGA tournament, and whether this raises questions about fairness, justice, and the essential features of the game of golf.

How does Aristotle's theory of justice relate to the debate about Casey Martin's request?

Aristotle’s theory of justice focuses on the concept of 'fit,' where justice involves matching a person’s virtues and abilities to the appropriate roles. In the case of Casey Martin, the debate centers on whether using a golf cart is an essential part of golf, and if not, whether denying him the accommodation is unjust.

What is the 'spirit of golf' argument in relation to Casey Martin's request?

The 'spirit of golf' argument suggests that if all golfers are allowed to use a cart, it would diminish the athletic nature of the game, turning it from a sport into a mere game of skill, and potentially compromising its essence.

Why do some argue that fairness would be served by allowing everyone to use a golf cart?

Allowing everyone to use a golf cart would level the playing field, ensuring that no golfer has an unfair advantage. Those who prefer to walk could still choose to do so, while others who need or prefer a cart could also use one.

What is the role of 'honor' in the debate about the PGA and Casey Martin?

In the Aristotelian view, honor is central to the purpose of sport. Professional golfers may feel that allowing carts would undermine the honor associated with competing in a physically demanding sport like golf, which values exertion, fatigue, and skill.

How does Scalia’s view of golf differ from Aristotle's?

Scalia sees games like golf as primarily for amusement and entertainment, and thus believes that no part of the game is inherently essential. In contrast, Aristotle believes that certain aspects of a sport, like walking in golf, are essential to its nature and its role in recognizing athletic excellence.

What objection does modern political theory raise against Aristotle’s concept of justice?

Modern political theory, particularly that of Kant and other liberal thinkers, objects to Aristotle’s concept of justice because it ties justice to a particular conception of the good. They argue that this approach undermines individual freedom and the ability of people to choose their own life purposes and roles.

What is the issue with Aristotle’s defense of slavery in his theory of justice?

Aristotle defends slavery by claiming that some individuals are naturally suited to be slaves, but this creates a moral problem, as it is based on the assumption that certain people are fit for subjugation. The historical practice of slavery also shows that many slaves were not born to be slaves, challenging Aristotle’s justification.

How do critics view the concept of 'fit' in Aristotle’s theory of justice?

Critics argue that the idea of 'fit' ignores individual freedom and rights. They believe that people should not be confined to roles that are supposedly suited to their nature, as this limits their ability to choose their life paths and pursue other goals.

What is the key concern regarding freedom and Aristotle’s theory of justice?

The key concern is that Aristotle’s theory of justice, which emphasizes fitting individuals to predetermined roles, does not leave room for personal freedom. Critics, particularly modern liberals, argue that individuals should have the freedom to choose their roles and life purposes rather than being constrained by notions of natural 'fit.'