Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
Summary
TLDREl guion de video presenta una discusión sobre la necesidad de una mejor forma de llevar a cabo los debates políticos, resaltando la importancia de rediseñar el arte del argumento democrático. El orador, Michael Sandel, propone explorar la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles, enfocándose en la distribución justa basada en el mérito. A través de ejemplos como la distribución de flautas, el caso de Casey Martin y el matrimonio igualitario, Sandel argumenta que para entender la justicia, debemos primero debatir sobre el propósito de las instituciones sociales y cuáles cualidades merecen reconocimiento. Propone una educación cívica global y un enriquecimiento del debate democrático.
Takeaways
- 🗣️ La sociedad necesita una mejor manera de llevar a cabo los debates políticos, rediseñando el arte del argumento democrático.
- 📺 Los debates políticos actuales suelen ser confrontaciones ideológicas en televisión por cable y peleas en el Congreso, en lugar de discusiones constructivas.
- 🤔 Bajo las discusiones políticas de temas como la atención médica, los bonos y rescates en Wall Street, la brecha entre ricos y pobres, la acción afirmativa y el matrimonio igualitario, se esconde la filosofía moral y preguntas de justicia.
- 🎓 Michael Sandel sugiere explorar la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles, quien consideraba que la justicia implica dar a las personas lo que se merecen.
- 🎼 En el ejemplo de las flautas, Aristóteles argumentaría que las mejores flautas deben ir a los mejores flautistas, no solo por el beneficio colectivo sino también por honrar la excelencia musical.
- 🏌️ El caso de Casey Martin y el uso de un carrito de golf muestra cómo las decisiones de justicia dependen de la comprensión del propósito fundamental de una actividad.
- 🏆 La discusión sobre el carrito de golf no solo aborda la cuestión de la ventaja desleal, sino también qué habilidades merecen reconocimiento y honor como talentos atléticos.
- 💏 El debate sobre el matrimonio igualitario revela la importancia de considerar el propósito del matrimonio y cuáles son las cualidades que merecen honor y reconocimiento.
- 🌐 Sandel propone una visión para el futuro de la educación abierta, donde se pueden llevar a cabo debates democráticos en vivo y en tiempo real con la participación de personas de todo el mundo.
- 📚 La serie de televisión basada en el curso de Sandel, disponible en línea y gratuita, podría ser utilizada para promover la educación cívica y el debate democrático en diversas culturas y países.
- 🤝 En lugar de evitar las convicciones morales y religiosas en la política, Sandel argumenta que una mejor manera de respeto mutuo es enfrentar directamente estas convicciones en la vida pública.
Q & A
¿Qué es lo que el mundo necesita según el discurso?
-Según el discurso, el mundo necesita una mejor manera de llevar a cabo los debates políticos y redescubrir el arte perdido del argumento democrático.
¿Cuál es la sugerencia del orador para mejorar los debates políticos?
-La sugerencia es mirar más allá de los debates superficiales y enfrentar las grandes preguntas de moral y filosofía que subyacen a los temas políticos actuales, como la justicia y la distribución equitativa.
¿Quién es el filósofo famoso mencionado en el discurso que escribió sobre la justicia y la moralidad?
-El filósofo famoso mencionado es Aristóteles, de la antigua Atenas, quien planteó una teoría de la justicia.
¿Cuál es la definición de justicia según Aristóteles?
-Según Aristóteles, la justicia significa dar a las personas lo que se merecen.
¿Qué ejemplo se utiliza para ilustrar la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles sobre la distribución de flautas?
-Se utiliza el ejemplo de distribuir flautas y se pregunta quién debería recibir las mejores, con la respuesta de Aristóteles siendo que las mejores flautas deberían ir a los mejores flautistas.
¿Por qué Aristóteles creía que las mejores flautas deberían ir a los mejores flautistas?
-Aristóteles argumenta que las flautas están destinadas a ser jugadas bien y que al razonar sobre la distribución justa de algo, debemos considerar la función o el propósito del objeto o actividad social en cuestión.
¿Qué caso contemporáneo se menciona en el discurso relacionado con la justicia y por qué?
-Se menciona el caso de Casey Martin, un golfista con una discapacidad que le dificultaba caminar el campo, solicitó permiso para usar un carrito de golf en torneos de la PGA, lo cual generó un debate sobre la justicia y la esencia del deporte.
¿Cuál fue la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de EE. UU. en el caso de Casey Martin y cómo se relaciona con la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles?
-El Tribunal Supremo decidió que Casey Martin debía ser proporcionado un carrito de golf, basándose en que la esencia del juego no se veía cambiada por la inclusión de un carrito, lo que se relaciona con la idea aristotélica de considerar la naturaleza esencial de la actividad antes de hablar de justicia.
¿Qué argumento presentó el juez Scalia en su disidencia en el caso de Casey Martin y cómo se relaciona con la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles?
-El juez Scalia argumentó que no es posible determinar la naturaleza esencial de un juego como el golf, ya que los juegos no tienen un objeto más allá del entretenimiento, lo que rechaza la premisa aristotélica de que se debe considerar la función o propósito de una actividad para hablar de justicia.
¿Cómo se relaciona el debate sobre el matrimonio igualitario con la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles?
-El debate sobre el matrimonio igualitario se relaciona con la teoría de la justicia de Aristóteles en el sentido de que se debe considerar la función o propósito del matrimonio y qué cualidades o bondades están relacionadas con esa actividad y merecen honor y reconocimiento.
¿Cuál es la visión del orador para el futuro de la educación abierta y cómo se relaciona con el debate político?
-La visión del orador es crear un espacio global de aprendizaje y debate democrático en vivo, conectando estudiantes de diferentes culturas y regiones del mundo, para fomentar la educación cívica y un diálogo más rico sobre cuestiones morales y políticas.
Outlines
🗣️ Debate político y el arte de la argumentación democrática
El orador aborda la necesidad de una mejor manera de llevar a cabo los debates políticos, criticando los actuales como simples peleas ideológicas en medios y el Congreso. Sugiere que debajo de temas como la atención médica, el abismo entre ricos y pobres, o el matrimonio igualitario, se encuentran grandes cuestiones de moral y justicia que rara vez se discuten abiertamente. Propone un diálogo inspirado en la filosofía de Aristóteles, enfocado en la justicia como dar a las personas lo que merecen, y cómo esto se aplica a ejemplos cotidianos, como la distribución de flautas entre músicos.
🏌️♂️ El caso de Casey Martin y la justicia en el golf
Se presenta el caso de Casey Martin, un golfista con una discapacidad que le dificultaba caminar el campo, y su demanda para usar un carrito en torneos del PGA. Se explora la discusión sobre si esto sería una ventaja injusta o una adaptación razonable. La Suprema Corte decidió en su favor, argumentando que caminar no es esencial para el golf, lo cual desencadena un debate sobre la naturaleza esencial del deporte y qué habilidades merecen reconocimiento como talentos atléticos.
💏 Matrimonio igualitario y la definición del propósito del matrimonio
El orador introduce el tema del matrimonio igualitario y cómo las opiniones sobre él se basan en conceptos de justicia y moralidad. Se contrastan las visiones de que el matrimonio es fundamentalmente para la procreación, con la idea de que es sobre el compromiso de amor mutuo a lo largo de la vida. Esto se relaciona con la teoría aristotélica de la justicia, destacando la importancia de entender el propósito de las instituciones sociales y qué cualidades merecen honor y reconocimiento.
🌐 La educación cívica y el debate democrático a nivel global
En la conclusión, el orador expresa su visión de involucrar la educación cívica y el debate democrático en un nivel global, utilizando su serie de televisión y la tecnología para conectar estudiantes de todo el mundo y fomentar un diálogo sobre cuestiones morales y culturales. Se plantea la idea de una sala de clases global que aborde seriamente las grandes preguntas morales y promueva un entendimiento mutuo y respeto democrático.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Debate político
💡Justicia
💡Moralidad
💡Aristóteles
💡Matiz
💡Discusión
💡Cultural differences
💡Mutual respect
💡Civic education
💡Global classroom
Highlights
The need for a better way of conducting political debates and rediscovering the art of democratic argument.
The prevalence of shouting matches and ideological food fights in current political discourse.
The suggestion to look at moral philosophy and justice as underlying current political debates.
Aristotle's theory of justice as giving people what they deserve and the ensuing discussion on its implications.
The example of distributing flutes to illustrate the concept of justice and the debate on who should get the best ones.
Aristotle's reasoning that the best flutes should go to the best flute players due to the purpose of flutes being to produce excellent music.
The dispute over Casey Martin's use of a golf cart in PGA tournaments and the Supreme Court's decision on the matter.
The debate on the essential nature of golf and whether walking the course is an integral part of the game.
The Supreme Court's ruling that walking is incidental to the game of golf, not essential.
Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion rejecting the Aristotelian premise and arguing against the essential nature of a game's rules.
The discussion on fairness in sports and the hypothetical solution of letting everyone use a golf cart.
The underlying debate on what abilities are worthy of honor and recognition as athletic talents in golf.
The application of Aristotle's theory to contemporary political debates, such as same-sex marriage.
The argument that the purpose of marriage is not solely procreation but also lifelong mutual commitment.
The idea that engaging with moral questions in politics can lead to mutual respect rather than disagreement.
The vision for a global classroom connecting students worldwide for civic education and democratic debate.
The potential for live, real-time discussions involving participants from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Transcripts
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.
(Applause)
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 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, 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 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.
(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 music
if 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 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 the social activity --
in this case, musical performance.
And the point, the essential nature,
of musical performance
is to produce excellent music.
It'll be a happy byproduct
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 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 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.
Now 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
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?
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 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?
(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)
MS: It would 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
worry 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.
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 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, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.
The Supreme Court
decided.
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 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 very small ball from one place
into a hole
in 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,
(Laughter)
that is, what distinguishes games
from productive activity,
(Laughter)
it is quite impossible to say
that any of a game's 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.
(Laughter)
If we had 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,
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 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
as delicately as possible:
Golfers are a little sensitive
about 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 game
that can be played while riding around in a 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 qualities,
what excellences
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 fiercely contested 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 to 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.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you very much.
Thanks. Thank you.
Chris.
Thanks, Chris.
Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses
to 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 arguments
on 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 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.
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 here
with 1,500 people in Long Beach,
and we do it in a classroom at Harvard
with about 1,000 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 Mumbai
and in Cambridge, Massachusetts
and create a global classroom.
That's what I would love to do.
(Applause)
CA: So, I would imagine
that 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.)
Browse More Related Video
V. Completa: ¿Vale más Neymar que un maestro? Y otras cuestiones filosóficas. M. Sandel, filósofo.
Vídeo animado. Interculturalidad crítica
Aprender a sentir, pensar, actuar con la naturaleza | Javier Collado | TEDxCuenca
4af8e42922db-Marta
Крах либерализма сильно преувеличен | РЕАЛЬНЫЙ РАЗГОВОР
La educación según John Dewey, Maite Larrauri
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)