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.
Un lucru de care lumea are nevoie, un lucru de care aceasta țară are mare nevoie, e un mod mai bun de desfașurare a dezbaterilor politice. Trebuie să redescoperim arta uitată a dezbaterii democratice. (Aplauze) Dacă ne gândim la dezbaterile pe care le susținem, majoritatea sunt certuri, în care cineva încearcă să țipe mai tare la emisiunile de la televizor, îmbrânceli ideologice în sala Congresului. Eu am o sugestie. Haideți să ne uitam la dezbaterile care au loc în ziua de azi pe tema sistemului de sănătate, pe tema primelor și ajutorului financiar acordat celor de pe Wall Street, pe tema discrepantei dintre săraci și bogați, pe temele acțiunii afirmative și căsătoriilor homosexuale. Imediat în spatele acestor controverse, care stârnesc pasiuni de ambele părți, sunt întrebări esențiale de filosofie morală, intrebari esentiale despre dreptate. Dar noi prea rar explicitam, aparam si dezbatem aceste importante chestiuni morale în politica noastră.
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.
Astfel ca ceea ce mi-aș dori astăzi este să purtam un fel de discuție. În primul rând, mă voi referi la un filosof renumit care a scris despre problematica dreptății și a moralității, și voi ține o scurtă prelegere despre Aristotel din Atena antică, despre teoria lui Aristotel despre dreptate, urmând să purtăm o dișcuție pentru a vedea dacă ideile lui Aristotel sunt relevante pentru modul în care gândim și dezbatem probleme în ziua de azi. Sunteți gata pentru prelegere? Conform lui Aristotel, dreptatea constă în a da oamenilor ceea ce merită. Atât. Asta a fost prelegerea.
(Laughter)
(Râsete)
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.
Ați putea spune că e destul de evident. Adevăratele întrebări apar când începe discuția despre ce merită fiecare și de ce. Să vedem exemplul flautelor. Presupunem că distribuim flaute. Cine ar trebui să le primească pe cele mai bune? Să vedem... Ce ați spune dumneavoastră? Cine ar trebui să primească cel mai bun flaut? Puteți să spuneți tare.
(Audience: Random.)
(Public: La întâmplare.)
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: La întâmplare. Ați face ca la loterie. Sau în funcție de prima persoană care se înghesuie ca să îl primească. Altcineva?
(Audience: The best flute players.)
(Public: Cei mai buni flautiști.)
MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)
MS: Cei mai buni flautiști.
MS: The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.
(Public: Cei mai slabi flautiști.) MS: Cei mai slabi flautiști. Câți spun cei mai buni flautiști? De ce? De fapt, acesta a fost și răspunsul lui Aristotel.
(Laughter)
(Râsete)
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?
Dar iată o întrebare mai grea. De ce credeți, cei care ați votat așa, ca cele mai bune flaute ar trebui date celor mai buni flautiști?
Peter: The greatest benefit to all.
Peter: Cel mai mare beneficiu pentru toți.
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: Cel mai mare beneficiu pentru toti. Vom asculta muzica mai buna daca cele mai bune flaute revin celor mai buni flautisti. A fost... Peter? (Public: 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: Bine. E un motiv bun. Cu totii am fi mai castigati daca s-ar canta muzica buna si nu muzica proasta. Dar Peter, Aristotel nu e de acord cu tine ca acesta este motivul. E in regula. Aristotel a avut un alt motiv sa spuna ca cele mai bune flaute ar trebui date celor mai buni flautisti. El a spus ca pentru asta e facut flautul -- sa se cante frumos la el. El spune ca pentru a discuta doar despre distribuirea a unui bun, trebuie sa ne gandim, si uneori chiar sa dezbatem, scopului acelui lucru, sau al activitatii sociale, care in acest caz este cantatul. Iar scopul, natura esentiala, a cantatului este de a produce muzica excelenta. Va fi un plus fericit de care vom beneficia cu totii. Dar cand ne gandim la dreptate, spune Aristotel, ceea ce trebuie de fapt sa ne preocupe este natura esentiala a activitatii respective si calitatile care sunt demne de respectat, de admirat si de recunoscut. Unul din motivele pentru care cei mai buni flautisti ar trebui sa primeasca cele mai bune flaute este acela ca ceea ce canta nu are doar scopul de a ne face fericiti pe noi ceilalti, ci sa respecte si sa afirme excelenta celor mai buni muzicieni.
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."
Acum, flautele pot parea ... distributia flautelor poate parea un caz banal. Sa luam un exemplu actual de disputa pe tema dreptatii. A avut legatura cu golful. Casey Martin -- acum cativa ani, Casey Martin -- a auzit cineva de el? Era un jucator foarte bun de golf, dar avea o dizabilitate fizica, avea un picior afectat de o problema de circulatie, care ii provoca multa durere cand se plimba pe teren. De fapt, exista chiar riscul sa se raneasca. El a cerut PGA, Asociatiei jucatorilor de Golf Profesionisti, permisiunea sa foloseasca o masina de golf in turneele PGA. Ei au spus "Nu. Asta ti-ar acorda un avantaj nedrept." El i-a dat in judecata, iar cazul lui a ajuns pana la Curtea Suprema, daca va vine sa credeti, cazul pentru masina de golf. Pentru ca legea spune ca persoanele cu dizabilitati trebuie ajutate, cu conditia ca ajutorul sa nu schimbe natura esentiala a activitatii. El a spus "Sunt un jucator de golf bun. Vreau sa concurez. Dar am nevoie de o masina sa ajung de la o gaura la alta."
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?
Presupunem ca erati la Curtea Suprema. Presupunem ca trebuia sa decideti asupra dreptatii in acest caz. Cati i-ar acorda lui Casey Martin dreptul de a folosi masina de golf? Si cati ar spune ca nu are acest drept? Bine, sa facem un sondaj, un vot deschis. Cati ar vota in favoarea lui Casey Martin? Si cati nu? Cati ar spune ca nu are dreptul? Bine, avem o divergenta clara de opinii aici. Pentru cineva care nu i-ar da lui Casey Martin dreptul la o masina de golf, care ar fi motivul? Ridicati mana si vom incerca sa va aducem un microfon. Care ar fi motivul dumneavoastra?
(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)
(Public: Ar fi un avantaj nedrept.)
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: Ar fi un avantaj nedrept daca ar putea sa se plimbe cu masina. Asadar, aceia dintre dumneavoastra, majoritatea, imi imaginez, a celor care nu i-ar acorda masina de golf se tem de acordarea unui avantaj nedrept. Dar cei care spun ca ar trebui sa i se acorde o masina de golf? Cum ati raspunde obiectiei? Da, bine.
Audience: The cart's not part of the game.
Public: Masina nu face parte din joc.
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)
MS: Cum te numesti? (Public: 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 spune -- Ii aducem lui Charlie un microfon in cazul in care vrea sa-i raspunda cineva. Spune-ne, Charlie, de ce ai spune ca ar trebui sa poata folosi masina de golf?
Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.
Charlie: Masina nu face parte din joc.
MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?
MS: Dar cum ramane cu mersul de la o gaura la alta?
Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.
Charlie: Nu conteaza, nu face parte din joc.
MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?
MS: Mersul pe teren nu face parte din jocul de golf?
Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.
Charlie: In opinia mea, nu.
MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.
MS: Bine, stai acolo, Charlie.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Who has an answer for Charlie? All right, who has an answer for Charlie? What would you say?
Cine are un raspuns pentru Charlie? Bine, cine are un raspuns pentru Charlie? Ce ati spune dumneavoastra?
Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game, walking all those holes.
Public: Elementul rezistentei este o parte foarte importanta a jocului, mersul pana la toate acele gauri.
MS: Walking all those holes? That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)
MS: Parcurgerea distantei dintre gauri? Asta face parte din jocul de golf? (Public: Absolut.)
MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)
MS: Cum te numesti? (Public: Warren.)
MS: Warren. Charlie, what do you say to Warren?
MS: Warren. Charlie, ce ii raspunzi lui Warren?
Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.
Charlie: Raman la argumentul initial.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
MS: Warren, are you a golfer?
MS: Warren, joci golf?
Warren: I am not a golfer.
Warren: Nu joc golf.
Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.) (Laughter)
Charley: Eu da. (MS: Bine.) (Rasete)
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
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.
Stiti, e interesant. In acest caz, tribunalul de judecata, au adus mari nume din golf care sa depuna marturie tocmai in aceasta privinta. Este mersul pe traseu esential pentru joc? Si l-au adus pe Jack Nicklaus si pe Arnold Palmer Si ce credeti ca au spus toti? Da. Au fost de acord cu Warren. Au spus ca da, mersul pe traseu este un exercitiu fizic solicitant. Factorul de oboseala este o parte importanta din golf. Si astfel ar schimba fundamental esenta jocului. daca i s-ar da dreptul la o masina de golf. Acum, vedeti, ceva interesant -- Ar trebui sa va spun intai despre Curtea Suprema.
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.
Curtea suprema a decis Ce credeti ca au spus? Au spus ca da, Casey Martin trebuie sa aiba dreptul la o masina de golf. Au decis printr-un vot de sapte la doi. Ceea ce a fost interesant cu privire la decizia lor si la discutia pe care tocmai am avut-o a fost faptul ca problema a ceea ce e bine, asupra dreptatii depindea de identificarea esentei jocului de golf. Iar judecatorii Curtii Supreme s-au luptat cu aceasta problema Iar judecatorul Stevens, semnand in numele majoritatii, a declarat ca a citit totul despre istoria golfului, iar esenta jocului este de a trimite o minge foarte mica dintr-un loc intr-o gaura in cat mai putine lovituri posibil, iar mersul nu era esential, ci o chestiune de conjunctura.
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."
Erau totusi doi oponenti, printre care se afla Judecatorul Scalia. El nu ar fi acordat dreptul la masina, si a avut o justificare foarte interesanta. E interesanta pentru ca a respins premisa lui Aristotel pe care se baza opinia majoritatii. El a afirmat ca e imposibil sa stabilesti natura esentiala a unui joc precum golful. Iata cum a pus el problema. "A sustine ca un lucru este esential inseamna de regula ca acel lucru este necesar pentru implinirea unui anumit scop. Dar, din moment ce este tocmai ideea jocului sa nu aiba alt scop decat distractia, (Rasete) adica, tocmai ceea ce deosebeste jocurile de activitatea productiva, (Rasete) este imposibil sa sustii ca oricare dintre regulile arbitrare ale jocului este esentiala."
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.
Asadar iata-l pe judecatorul Scalia contestand premisa lui Aristotel a opiniei majoritatii. Opinia judecatorului Scalia este discutabila din doua motive. In primul rand, niciun iubitor de sport nu ar vorbi asa. (Rasete) Daca am crede ca regulile sporturilor la care tinem sunt pur si simplu arbitrare, in loc sa fie concepute pentru a evidentia virtutile si excelenta pe care le credem demne de admirat, nu ne-ar mai pasa de rezultatul jocului. Este de asemenea contestabila dintr-un al doilea motiv. La suprafata, parea -- aceasta dezbatere despre masina de golf -- o dezbatere pe tema corectitudinii, despre ce anume constituie un avantaj nedrept. Dar daca corectitudinea ar fi fost singura miza, ar fi existat o solutie simpla si evidenta. Care ar fi fost aceasta? (Public: Sa foloseasca toti masina.) Sa mearga toti intr-o masina de golf daca doresc. Atunci problema corectitudinii dispare.
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?"
Dar a lasa pe toata lumea sa mearga cu masina, ar fi fost, cred, un blestem mai mare pentru mai-marii golfului si pentru PGA, decat o concesie exceptionala pentru Casey Martin. De ce? Pentru ca miza in dezbaterea despre masina de golf nu a fost doar natura esentiala a golfului, ci problema implicita referitoare la abilitatile care merita respect si recunoastere ca talent atletic? Sa exprim ideea pe cat de delicat posibil: jucatorii de golf sunt putin sensibili in legatura cu statutul atletic al jocului lor. (Rasete) La urma urmei, nu exista alergari si sarituri, iar mingea sta pe loc. (Rasete) Astfel ca, daca golful este genul de joc care poate fi practicat in timp ce te plimbi cu masina de golf ar fi greu sa acordam personalitatilor din golf statutul pe care il acordam, acelasi respect si aceeasi recunoastere care revin sportivilor cu adevarat mari. Aceasta ilustreaza ca in golf, ca si pentru flaute, e dificil sa decizi asupra a ceea ce este necesar pentru infaptuirea dreptatii fara sa te lupti cu problema "Care este natura esentiala a activitatii in cauza, si ce calitati, ce virtuti legate de acea activitate sunt demne de respect si recunoastere?"
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.
Sa luam un exemplu final care se remarca in dezbaterea politica actuala: casatoria persoanelor de acelasi sex. Exista aceia care sunt in favoarea recunoasterii de catre stat numai a casatoriei traditionale dintre un barbat si o femeie, si exista aceia care sunt in favoarea recunoasterii de catre stat a casatoriei persoanelor de acelasi sex. Cati de aici favorizeaza prima politica: statul ar trebui sa recunoasca doar casatoria traditionala? Si cati o favorizeaza pe a doua, casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex? Acum, ganditi-va asa, ce moduri de a gandi despre dreptate si moralitate fundamenteaza dezbaterile pe care le avem referitoare la casatorie? Opozantii casatoriei intre persoanele de acelasi sex sustin ca scopul casatoriei este, in esenta, procrearea, iar aceasta merita respectata si recunoscuta si incurajata. Iar sustinatorii casatoriei intre persoanele de acelasi sex spun ca nu, procrearea nu este singurul scop al casatoriei. Cum ramane cu angajamentul de a iubi si a fi iubit, luat pe viata? La asta se refera de fapt casatoria. Asadar in privinta flautelor, a masinilor de golf, si chiar in cazul unei probleme intens contestate precum casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex, Aristotel are dreptate. Este foarte greu sa dezbatem dreptatea fara sa dezbatem mai intai scopul institutiilor sociale si calitatile care sunt demne de respect si recunoastere.
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.
Acum sa facem un pas inapoi de la aceste cazuri si sa vedem cum ne pun ele in lumina felul in care putem sa imbunatatim, sa ridicam nivelul conditiilor discursului politic din Statele Unite, si din toata lumea, de fapt. Exista o tendinta de a crede ca daca ne implicam prea direct in probleme de ordin moral atunci cand dezbatem politica, ajungem sigur sa ne contrazicem, si, implicit, sa fim intoleranti si sa constrangem. Deci e mai bine sa nu ne bagam, sa ignoram convingerile morale si religioase pe care oamenii le aduc in viata publica. Mie mi se pare ca discutia noastra reflecta contrariul, si anume ca o cale mai buna catre respect reciproc este sa vorbim direct despre convingerile morale pe care cetatenii le aduc in viata publica, in loc sa ne asteptam ca oamenii sa isi lase cele mai profunde convingeri morale in afara politicii inainte sa intre in dezbatere. Acesta, dupa parerea mea, este o cale de a incepe sa reinstituim arta dezbaterii democratice.
Thank you very much.
Va multumesc foarte mult.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
Thank you.
Va multumesc.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
Thank you.
Multumesc.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. Thanks, Chris.
Multumesc foarte mult. Multumesc. Va multumesc. Chris. Multumesc, 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: De la flaute la terenuri de golf si la casatorii intre persoane de acelasi sex. Asta a fost o conexiune geniala. Acum, tu esti un pionier al educatiei deschise. Seria ta de prelegeri a fost printre primele care au avut succes. Cum vezi tu urmatoarea faza a acestui proiect?
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: Pai, cred ca e posibil. In sala de clasa, avem dezbateri despre unele dintre cele mai categorice convingeri morale ale studentilor in legatura cu mari chestiuni publice. Si cred ca putem face asta in viata publica la o scara mai larga. Asadar adevaratul meu vis ar fi sa luam serialul de televiziune publica pe care l-am creat pentru curs -- este acum disponibil online pentru oricine, oriunde in lume -- si sa vedem daca putem colabora cu institutii, la universitatile din China, din India, din Africa, din jurul lumii, pentru a incerca sa promovam educatia civica si de asemenea o forma mai utila de dezbatere democratica.
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: Deci iti imaginezi, la un moment dat, in direct, ca ai putea avea acest gen de dialog, intrebari incitante, dar cu oameni din China si India care sa se alature discutiei?
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: Exact. Am facut o parte mica aici cu 1500 de oameni, in Long Beach, si o putem face intr-o clasa la Harvard cu aproximativ 1000 de studenti. N-ar fi interesant sa mergem pe aceasta cale de a gandi si a dezbate, de a confrunta in mod serios mari probleme de ordin moral, de a explora diferentele culturale si de pune in legatura printr-o conexiune video in direct, studenti din Beijing si Mumbai si din Cambridge, Massachusetts si sa cream o sala de clasa globala? Asta mi-as dori sa realizez.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)
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: Ma gandesc ca sunt multi oameni care ar fi incantati sa se alature eforturilor tale. Michael Sandel. Multumesc foarte mult. (MS: Va multumesc mult.)