Post by tulae on Jun 11, 2010 15:59:44 GMT -5
What is justice?
What is the best way to democratically find it?
Political philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel tries to tackle those questions, but honestly i was left a little confused by his explanation, or at least confused as to how to apply it to debate.
To Aristotle, justice is when people get what they deserve.
In the way Prof. Sandel explains it, deciding on the justness of a case is based on three things:
1. the nature, and the purpose of the situation or activity in question
2. what qualities connected with that activity are worthy of honor and recognition
3. people's moral convictions about those two things are.
I guess my take on it is that, when we are taking a controversial topic into discussion, we ought to be asking for the answers to these three questions (in order), and then go into the reasoning behind those moral convictions in order to come to a democratic consensus.
To me this seems a little incomplete and inapplicable (at least in the specifics of how to go about it.. or in other areas as well that i can't really think of...), so that's why i'm bringing it here, and so that maybe when we come to a consensus, our decision about the best nature of discussion can be posted on the moon and followed.
the actual talk i'm referring to can be found below. (plus if you youtube search michael sandel, a bunch of interesting topics show up)
Thanks,
Tanner
What is the best way to democratically find it?
Political philosopher and Harvard professor Michael Sandel tries to tackle those questions, but honestly i was left a little confused by his explanation, or at least confused as to how to apply it to debate.
To Aristotle, justice is when people get what they deserve.
In the way Prof. Sandel explains it, deciding on the justness of a case is based on three things:
1. the nature, and the purpose of the situation or activity in question
2. what qualities connected with that activity are worthy of honor and recognition
3. people's moral convictions about those two things are.
I guess my take on it is that, when we are taking a controversial topic into discussion, we ought to be asking for the answers to these three questions (in order), and then go into the reasoning behind those moral convictions in order to come to a democratic consensus.
To me this seems a little incomplete and inapplicable (at least in the specifics of how to go about it.. or in other areas as well that i can't really think of...), so that's why i'm bringing it here, and so that maybe when we come to a consensus, our decision about the best nature of discussion can be posted on the moon and followed.
the actual talk i'm referring to can be found below. (plus if you youtube search michael sandel, a bunch of interesting topics show up)
Thanks,
Tanner