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.
Jedna stvar koju svijet treba, jedna stvar koju ova zemlja očajnički treba je bolji način vođenja političkih debata. Trebali bismo ponovo otkriti izgubljenu umjetnost demokratske rasprave. (Pljesak) Ako razmislite o raspravama koje vodimo, uglavnom su to natjecanja u nadvikavanju na kabelskoj televiziji, ideološke bitke hranom u Kongresu. Ja imam prijedlog. Pogledajte sve diskusije koje imamo ovih dana o zdravstvenoj skrbi, o bonusima i sanacijama na Wall Streetu, o jazu između bogatih i siromašnih, o afirmativnoj akciji i istospolnim brakovima. Tik ispod površine ovih diskusija, s uzburkanim strastima na svim stranama, leže velika pitanja filozofije morala, velika pitanja pravde. No, mi isuviše rijetko artikuliramo i branimo i diskutiramo o tim velikim moralnim pitanjima u našoj politici.
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.
Pa ono što bih danas želio jest imati neku vrstu diskusije. Prvo, dopustite mi da uzmem čuvenog filozofa koji je pisao o ovim pitanjima pravde i morala, da vam održim vrlo kratku lekciju o Aristotelu iz drevne Atene, Aristotelovoj teoriji pravde, i zatim da ovdje provedemo diskusiju kako bismo ustanovili da li Aristotelove ideje uistinu utječu na način našeg razmišljanja i diskutiranja o pitanjima današnjice. Dakle, jeste li spremni za lekciju? Prema Aristotelu, pravda znači ljudima dati ono što zaslužuju. To je to; to je lekcija.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Vi biste sada mogli reći, pa to je dovoljno jasno. Prava pitanja počinju kada dođe do rasprave o tome tko zaslužuje što i zašto. Uzmite primjer flauta. Pretpostavimo da dijelimo flaute. Tko bi trebao dobiti najbolje? Da vidimo što ljudi -- Što biste vi rekli? Tko bi trebao dobiti najbolje flaute? Možete samo doviknuti.
(Audience: Random.)
(Publika: Nasumice.)
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?
Michael Sandel: Nasumice. Vi bi to proveli lutrijom. Ili prva osoba koja požuri u dvoranu da ih uzme. Još netko?
(Audience: The best flute players.)
(Publika: Najbolji svirači flauta.)
MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)
MS: Najbolji svirači flauta. (Publika: Najgori svirači flauta.)
MS: The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.
MS: Najgori svirači flauta. Koliko vas kaže najbolji svirači flauta? Zašto? Zapravo, to je bio i Aristotelov odgovor.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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?
No, evo težeg pitanja. Zašto mislite, oni od vas koji su tako glasali, da najbolje flaute trebaju dobiti najbolji svirači flauta?
Peter: The greatest benefit to all.
Peter: Najveća korist za sve.
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: Najveća korist za sve. Slušat ćemo bolju muziku, ako najbolje flaute odu najboljim sviračima flauta. To je Peter? (Publika: 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.
MS: Dobro. To je dobar razlog. Svima će nam biti bolje ako se svira dobra muzika nego grozna muzika. Ali Peter, Aristotel se ne slaže s vama da je to razlog. To je u redu. Aristotel je imao drugi razlog da kaže da najbolje flaute trebaju ići najboljim sviračima. On je rekao, flaute tome služe -- da se na njima dobro svira. On kaže da kada prosuđujemo o pravednoj raspodjeli neke stvari, moramo prosuđivati, i ponekad se prepirati, o svrsi te stvari ili društvene aktivnosti -- u ovom slučaju, muzičke izvedbe. A poanta, suštinska priroda, muzičke izvedbe je da proizvede odličnu muziku. To će biti sretan nusproizvod od kojeg ćemo svi imati koristi. No, kada razmišljamo o pravdi, kaže Aristotel, ono o čemu zapravo moramo razmišljati jest suštinska priroda dane aktivnosti i kvalitete vrijedne poštovanja i divljenja i priznavanja. Jedan od razloga zašto najbolje flaute trebaju ići najboljim sviračima flauta je taj što muzička izvedba ne služi samo da nas ostale usreći već da oda počast i priznanje izvrsnosti najboljih muzičara.
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."
Međutim, flaute mogu izgledati ... raspodjela flauta može izgledati kao trivijalan slučaj. Uzmimo moderan primjer prepirke o pravdi. Radi se o golfu. Casey Martin -- prije nekoliko godina, Casey Martin -- je li itko od vas čuo za njega? On je bio jako dobar golfer, ali invalid. Imao je problem sa jednom nogom i cirkulacijom što je mu uzrokovalo jaku bol pri hodanju po igralištu. U stvari, postojao je i rizik od povrede. Tražio je od PGA, Udruženja profesionalnih igrača golfa, dozvolu za korištenje vozila za golf na PGA turnirima. Oni su rekli, "Ne. To bi vam dalo nepoštenu prednost." On ih je tužio i njegov je slučaj dospio skroz do Vrhovnog suda, vjerovali ili ne, slučaj u vezi vozila za golf, zato jer zakon kaže da osobe s invaliditetom moraju biti zbrinute, uz uvijet da ta skrb ne mijenja suštinsku prirodu aktivnosti. On kaže, "Ja sam odličan golfer. Želim se natjecati. Ali mi je potrebno vozilo za golf da bih došao od jedne rupe do druge."
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?
Pretpostavimo da ste vi član Vrhovnog suda. Pretpostavimo da odlučujete o pravdi u ovom slučaju. Koliko vas ovdje bi reklo da Casey Martin ima pravo koristiti vozilo za golf? A koliko vas kaže, ne, nema pravo? U redu, hajde da prebrojimo glasove, podignute ruke. Koliko bi vas presudilo u korist Casey Martina? A koliko ne bi? Koliko bi vas reklo da nema pravo? U redu, ovdje imamo dobru podjelu mišljenja. Netko tko Casey Martinu ne bi odobrio pravo na vozilo za golf, koji bi bio vaš razlog? Dignite ruku i pokušat ćemo vam dodati mikrofon. Koji bi bio vaš razlog?
(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)
(Publika: To bi bila nepoštena prednost.)
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.
MS: To bi bila nepoštena prednost, ako dobije vozilo za golf. U redu, oni od vas, pretpostavljam da većinu vas koji mu ne bi dali vozilo za golf brine nepoštena prednost. Što je s vama koji kažete da bi mu trebalo dati vozilo za golf? Kako biste vi odgovorili na prigovor? Da, u redu.
Audience: The cart's not part of the game.
Publika: Vozilo nije dio igre.
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)
MS: Kako se vi zovete? (Publika: 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?
MS: Charlie kaže -- Dodajte Charlie mikrofon za slučaj da netko želi odgovoriti. Recite nam, Charlie, zašto bi vi rekli da bi mu moralo biti omogućeno da vozi vozilo za golf?
Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.
Charlie: Vozilo nije dio igre.
MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?
MS: A što je s hodanjem od rupe do rupe?
Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.
Charlie: To nije važno; to nije dio igre.
MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?
MS: Hodanje po terenu nije dio igre golfa?
Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.
Charlie: Ne, po mom mišljenju.
MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.
MS: U redu. Ostanite tu, Charlie.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Who has an answer for Charlie? All right, who has an answer for Charlie? What would you say?
Tko bi odgovorio Charlie? U redu, tko bi odgovorio Charlie? Što biste vi rekli?
Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game, walking all those holes.
Publika: Element izdržljivosti je vrlo važan dio igre, hodanje do svih rupa.
MS: Walking all those holes? That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)
MS: Hodanje do svih rupa? To je dio igre golfa? (Publika: Apsolutno.)
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)
MS: Kako se vi zovete? (Publika: Warren)
MS: Warren. Charlie, what do you say to Warren?
MS: Warren. Charlie, što vi kažete Warrenu?
Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.
Charley: Ostala bih kod svoje prvobitne teze.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
MS: Warren, are you a golfer?
MS: Warren, jeste li vi golfer?
Warren: I am not a golfer.
Warren: Nisam golfer.
Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.) (Laughter)
Charley: A ja jesam. (MS: U redu.) (Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
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.
Znate, to je zanimljivo. U ovom slučaju, na niži sud su doveli velikane golfa kako bi svjedočili upravo o ovom pitanju. Je li hodanje po terenu bitni dio igre? Doveli su Jacka Niklausa i Arnolda Palmera. I što mislite da su svi oni rekli? Da. Složili su se s Warrenom. Rekli su, da hodanje po terenu je naporna fizička vježba. Faktor umora važan je dio golfa. I zato bi to promijenilo fundamentalnu prirodu igre kada bi se dalo vozilo za golf. Sada, uočite nešto zanimljivo -- No, prije bih vam trebao reći o Višem sudu.
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.
Viši sud je odlučio. Što mislite da su rekli? Rekli su, da Casey Martinu treba osigurati vozilo za golf. Omjer je bio sedam prema dva. Ono što je zanimljivo u njihovom suđenju i u diskusiji koju smo upravo imali jest da je diskusija o pravu, pravdi u ovoj stvari ovisila o utvrđivanju što je suštinska priroda golfa. I suci Vrhovnog suda borili su se s tim pitanjem. A sudac Stevens, pišući u ime većine, rekao je da je pročitao sve o povijesti golfa i da je suština igre u tome da se vrlo mala lopta dovede od jednog mjesta do rupe sa što je moguće manje udaraca, a hodanje nije bilo bitno, već uzgredno.
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."
Dvoje ih se nije slagalo, jedan od njih bio je sudac Scalia. On ne bi dozvolio vozilo, a imao je vrlo zanimljiv prigovor. Zanimljiv je stoga što je odbacio Aristotelovsku premisu u podlozi mišljenja većine. On je rekao da nije moguće odrediti suštinsku prirodu igre poput golfa. Ovako je to sročio. "Reći da je nešto suštinsko je općenito isto kao reći da je nužno za postizanje određenog cilja. No budući da je sama priroda igre da nema cilja osim zabave, (Smijeh) to jest, ono što igre razlikuje od proizvodne djelatnosti, (Smijeh) potpuno je nemoguće reći da je bilo koje od proizvoljnih pravila igre suštinsko."
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.
Dakle ovdje imate suca Scaliu koji napada Aristotelovsku premisu mišljenja većine. Mišljenje suca Scalie upitno je iz dva razloga. Prvo, niti jedan pravi ljubitelj sporta ne bi tako govorio. (Smijeh) Da smo mislili da su pravila sporta koji nam je drag tek proizvoljna, a ne osmišljena da potaknu vrline i izvrsnosti koje smatramo vrijednim divljenja, mi ne bismo marili o ishodu igre. To je također upitno na drugoj osnovi. Na prvi pogled je izgledalo da je -- ova debata o vozilu za golf -- rasprava o pravičnosti, što je to nepoštena prednost. No, kada bi jedino pravičnost bila u pitanju, tada bi to bilo lako i očigledno rješenje. Koje bi to bilo? (Publika: Svima dozvoliti vozilo.) Svima dozvoliti vožnju vozilom za golf ako to žele. Tada prigovor pravičnosti nestaje.
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?"
No, dozvoliti svima vožnju u vozilu bilo bi, pretpostavljam, još veća anatema za velikane golfa i za PGA, čak od dozvoljavanja iznimke za Casey Martina. Zašto? Zato jer ono što je na kocki u prepirci o vozilu za golf nije samo suštinska priroda golfa, već, s tim u vezi, pitanje: Koje sposobnosti su vrijedne poštovanja i priznanja kao atletski talenti? Dozvolite da pojasnim što je moguće delikatnije: Golferi su malo osjetljivi na atletski status svoje igre. (Smijeh) Konačno, tu nema trčanja ni skakanja, a loptica stoji na miru. (Smijeh) Zato, da je golf vrsta igre koja se može igrati vozeći se naokolo vozilom za golf, bilo bi teško velikanima golfa pridjeljivati status koji im pridjeljujemo, poštovanje i priznanje koje pripada uistinu velikim atletičarima. Ovo ilustrira da je u vezi golfa, kao i flauta, teško odgovoriti na pitanje što zahtijeva pravda, bez hvatanja u koštac s pitanjem, "Koja je suštinska priroda dane aktivnosti i koje su kvalitete, koje izvrsnosti, povezane s tom aktivnosti, vrijedne poštovanja i priznanja?"
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.
Uzmimo posljednji primjer istaknut u suvremenoj političkoj debati: istospolni brak. Postoje oni koji zagovaraju priznavanje od strane države samo tradicionalnog braka između jednog muškarca i jedne žene, a postoje oni koji zagovaraju priznavanje istospolnog braka. Koliko vas ovdje zagovara prvo načelo: država bi trebala priznavati samo tradicionalni brak? A koliko vas zagovara drugo, istospolni brak? Recimo to ovako: Koji načini razmišljanja o pravdi i moralnosti leže u podlozi naših rasprava o braku? Protivnici istospolnog braka kažu da je svrha braka u osnovi, rađanje, i to je ono što je vrijedno poštovanja i priznavanja i poticanja. A branitelji istospolnog braka kažu ne, rađanje nije jedina svrha braka; što je s cijeloživotnim, međusobnim, ljubavnim zavjetom? To je ustvari bit braka. Dakle sa flautama, sa vozilima za golf, a čak i sa žestoko osporavanim pitanjem poput istospolnog braka, Aristotel je u pravu. Vrlo je teško raspravljati o pravdi bez prethodnog raspravljanja o svrsi društvenih institucija i o kvalitetama vrijednim poštovanja i priznanja.
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.
Odmaknimo se sada od tih slučajeva i pogledajmo kako oni pojašnjavaju način na koji bismo mogli poboljšati, unaprijediti uvjete političke debate u Sjedinjenim državama i s tim u vezi, diljem svijeta. Postoji tendencija da se smatra da ako se isuviše direktno bavimo moralnim pitanjima u politici, to je recept za nesuglasice i s tim u vezi, recept za netoleranciju i prisilu. Zato je bolje izbjegavati, ignorirati moralna i religijska uvjerenja koje ljudi donose u politički život. Meni se čini da naša diskusija pokazuje suprotno, da je bolji način za međusobno poštovanje da se direktno bavimo moralnim uvjerenjima koje građani donose u javni život, radije nego da zahtijevamo da ljudi ostave svoja najdublja moralna uvjerenja izvan politike prije no što u nju ulaze. Meni se čini da je to način da se započne obnavljanje umjetnosti demokratske rasprave.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. Thanks, Chris.
Puno vam hvala. Hvala. Hvala vam. Chris. Hvala, 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?
Chris Anderson: Od flauta do golf terena do istospolnog braka -- to je bila genijalna veza. Vidite, vi ste pionir otvorenog obrazovanja. Serija vaših predavanja bila je prva koja je to radila kako treba. Koja je vaša vizija za sljedeću fazu ovoga?
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.
MS: Pa, mislim da je to moguće. U predavaonici mi diskutiramo o nekim od najdubljih moralnih uvjerenja koja studenti imaju o značajnim javnim pitanjima. I ja mislim da to u javnom životu općenito možemo činiti češće. I zato bi moj pravi san bio da uzmemo javnu televizijsku seriju koju samo napravili od predavanja -- ona je sada dostupna online besplatno za svakog bilo gdje na svijetu -- i da se pokušamo povezati sa institucijama na sveučilištima u Kini, Indiji, u Africi, diljem svijeta, da bismo pokušali promovirati građansko obrazovanje i također bogatiju vrstu demokratske 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?
CA: Dakle vi zamišljate da biste u nekom času uživo, u realnom vremenu mogli imati ovu vrstu konverzacije, potičući pitanja, ali da vam se pridruže i ljudi iz Kine i Indije?
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.
MS: Točno. Mi smo to malo radili ovdje s 1.500 ljudi u Long Beachu, a radili smo u predavaonici na Harvardu s oko 1.000 studenata. Ne bi li bilo zanimljivo uzeti taj način razmišljanja i raspravljanja, ozbiljno se baveći velikim moralnim pitanjima, istražujući kulturalne razlike i povezati uživo preko video priključka studente u Beijingu i Mumbaiu i u Cambridgeu u Massachusettsu i stvoriti globalnu predavaonicu. To je ono što bih volio raditi.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
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.)
CA: Pa, pretpostavljam da ima mnogo ljudi koji bi vam se rado pridružili u tom pothvatu. Michael Sandel. Puno vam hvala. (MS: Puno hvala.)