Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate

Traducător: andrei botesteanu Corector: Laszlo Kereszturi

One thing the world needs,

Un lucru de care lumea are nevoie,

one thing this country desperately needs

un lucru de care aceasta țară are mare nevoie,

is a better way

e un mod mai bun

of conducting our political debates.

de desfașurare a dezbaterilor politice.

We need to rediscover

Trebuie să redescoperim

the lost art of democratic argument.

arta uitată a dezbaterii democratice.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)

If you think about the arguments we have,

Dacă ne gândim la dezbaterile pe care le susținem,

most of the time it's shouting matches

majoritatea sunt certuri, în care cineva încearcă să țipe mai tare

on cable television,

la emisiunile de la televizor,

ideological food fights on the floor of Congress.

îmbrânceli ideologice în sala Congresului.

I have a suggestion.

Eu am o sugestie.

Look at all the arguments we have these days

Haideți să ne uitam la dezbaterile care au loc în ziua de azi

over health care,

pe tema sistemului de sănătate,

over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street,

pe tema primelor și ajutorului financiar acordat celor de pe Wall Street,

over the gap between rich and poor,

pe tema discrepantei dintre săraci și bogați,

over affirmative action and same-sex marriage.

pe temele acțiunii afirmative și căsătoriilor homosexuale.

Lying just beneath the surface

Imediat în spatele

of those arguments,

acestor controverse,

with passions raging on all sides,

care stârnesc pasiuni de ambele părți,

are big questions

sunt întrebări esențiale

of moral philosophy,

de filosofie morală,

big questions of justice.

intrebari esentiale despre dreptate.

But we too rarely

Dar noi prea rar

articulate and defend

explicitam, aparam

and argue about

si dezbatem

those big moral questions in our politics.

aceste importante chestiuni morale în politica noastră.

So what I would like to do today

Astfel ca ceea ce mi-aș dori astăzi

is have something of a discussion.

este să purtam un fel de discuție.

First, let me take

În primul rând, mă voi referi

a famous philosopher

la un filosof renumit

who wrote about those questions

care a scris despre problematica

of justice and morality,

dreptății și a moralității,

give you a very short lecture

și voi ține o scurtă prelegere

on Aristotle of ancient Athens,

despre Aristotel din Atena antică,

Aristotle's theory of justice,

despre teoria lui Aristotel despre dreptate,

and then have a discussion here

urmând să purtăm o dișcuție

to see whether Aristotle's ideas

pentru a vedea dacă ideile lui Aristotel

actually inform

sunt relevante

the way we think and argue

pentru modul în care gândim și dezbatem

about questions today.

probleme în ziua de azi.

So, are you ready for the lecture?

Sunteți gata pentru prelegere?

According to Aristotle,

Conform lui Aristotel,

justice means giving people what they deserve.

dreptatea constă în a da oamenilor ceea ce merită.

That's it; that's the lecture.

Atât. Asta a fost prelegerea.

(Laughter)

(Râsete)

Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough.

Ați putea spune că e destul de evident.

The real questions begin

Adevăratele întrebări apar

when it comes to arguing about

când începe discuția

who deserves what and why.

despre ce merită fiecare și de ce.

Take the example of flutes.

Să vedem exemplul flautelor.

Suppose we're distributing flutes.

Presupunem că distribuim flaute.

Who should get the best ones?

Cine ar trebui să le primească pe cele mai bune?

Let's see what people --

Să vedem...

What would you say?

Ce ați spune dumneavoastră?

Who should get the best flute?

Cine ar trebui să primească cel mai bun flaut?

You can just call it out.

Puteți să spuneți tare.

(Audience: Random.)

(Public: La întâmplare.)

Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery.

Michael Sandel: La întâmplare. Ați face ca la loterie.

Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them.

Sau în funcție de prima persoană care se înghesuie ca să îl primească.

Who else?

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.

(Public: Cei mai slabi flautiști.)

MS: The worst flute players.

MS: Cei mai slabi flautiști.

How many say the best flute players?

Câți spun cei mai buni flautiști?

Why?

De ce?

Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.

De fapt, acesta a fost și răspunsul lui Aristotel.

(Laughter)

(Râsete)

But here's a harder question.

Dar iată o întrebare mai grea.

Why do you think,

De ce credeți,

those of you who voted this way,

cei care ați votat așa,

that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?

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.

MS: Cel mai mare beneficiu pentru toti.

We'll hear better music

Vom asculta muzica mai buna

if the best flutes should go to the best flute players.

daca cele mai bune flaute revin celor mai buni flautisti.

That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)

A fost... Peter? (Public: Peter.)

MS: All right.

MS: Bine.

Well, it's a good reason.

E un motiv bun.

We'll all be better off if good music is played

Cu totii am fi mai castigati daca s-ar canta muzica buna

rather than terrible music.

si nu muzica proasta.

But Peter,

Dar Peter,

Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason.

Aristotel nu e de acord cu tine ca acesta este motivul.

That's all right.

E in regula.

Aristotle had a different reason

Aristotel a avut un alt motiv

for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players.

sa spuna ca cele mai bune flaute ar trebui date celor mai buni flautisti.

He said,

El a spus

that's what flutes are for --

ca pentru asta e facut flautul --

to be played well.

sa se cante frumos la el.

He says that to reason about

El spune ca pentru a discuta

just distribution of a thing,

doar despre distribuirea a unui bun,

we have to reason about,

trebuie sa ne gandim,

and sometimes argue about,

si uneori chiar sa dezbatem,

the purpose of the thing,

scopului acelui lucru,

or the social activity --

sau al activitatii sociale,

in this case, musical performance.

care in acest caz este cantatul.

And the point, the essential nature,

Iar scopul, natura esentiala,

of musical performance

a cantatului

is to produce excellent music.

este de a produce muzica excelenta.

It'll be a happy byproduct

Va fi un plus fericit

that we'll all benefit.

de care vom beneficia cu totii.

But when we think about justice,

Dar cand ne gandim la dreptate,

Aristotle says,

spune Aristotel,

what we really need to think about

ceea ce trebuie de fapt sa ne preocupe

is the essential nature of the activity in question

este natura esentiala a activitatii respective

and the qualities that are worth

si calitatile care sunt demne

honoring and admiring and recognizing.

de respectat, de admirat si de recunoscut.

One of the reasons

Unul din motivele pentru care

that the best flute players should get the best flutes

cei mai buni flautisti ar trebui sa primeasca cele mai bune flaute

is that musical performance

este acela ca ceea ce canta

is not only to make the rest of us happy,

nu are doar scopul de a ne face fericiti pe noi ceilalti,

but to honor

ci sa respecte

and recognize

si sa afirme

the excellence

excelenta

of the best musicians.

celor mai buni muzicieni.

Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutes

Acum, flautele pot parea ... distributia flautelor

may seem a trivial case.

poate parea un caz banal.

Let's take a contemporary example

Sa luam un exemplu actual

of the dispute about justice.

de disputa pe tema dreptatii.

It had to do with golf.

A avut legatura cu golful.

Casey Martin -- a few years ago,

Casey Martin -- acum cativa ani,

Casey Martin --

Casey Martin --

did any of you hear about him?

a auzit cineva de el?

He was a very good golfer,

Era un jucator foarte bun de golf,

but he had a disability.

dar avea o dizabilitate fizica,

He had a bad leg, a circulatory problem,

avea un picior afectat de o problema de circulatie,

that made it very painful

care ii provoca multa durere

for him to walk the course.

cand se plimba pe teren.

In fact, it carried risk of injury.

De fapt, exista chiar riscul sa se raneasca.

He asked the PGA,

El a cerut PGA,

the Professional Golfers' Association,

Asociatiei jucatorilor de Golf Profesionisti,

for permission to use a golf cart

permisiunea sa foloseasca o masina de golf

in the PGA tournaments.

in turneele PGA.

They said, "No.

Ei au spus "Nu.

Now that would give you an unfair advantage."

Asta ti-ar acorda un avantaj nedrept."

He sued,

El i-a dat in judecata,

and his case went all the way

iar cazul lui a ajuns

to the Supreme Court, believe it or not,

pana la Curtea Suprema, daca va vine sa credeti,

the case over the golf cart,

cazul pentru masina de golf.

because the law says

Pentru ca legea spune

that the disabled

ca persoanele cu dizabilitati

must be accommodated,

trebuie ajutate,

provided the accommodation does not

cu conditia ca ajutorul

change the essential nature

sa nu schimbe natura esentiala

of the activity.

a activitatii.

He says, "I'm a great golfer.

El a spus "Sunt un jucator de golf bun.

I want to compete.

Vreau sa concurez.

But I need a golf cart

Dar am nevoie de o masina

to get from one hole to the next."

sa ajung de la o gaura la alta."

Suppose you were

Presupunem ca erati

on the Supreme Court.

la Curtea Suprema.

Suppose you were deciding

Presupunem ca trebuia sa decideti

the justice of this case.

asupra dreptatii in acest caz.

How many here would say

Cati i-ar acorda

that Casey Martin does have a right to use a golf cart?

lui Casey Martin dreptul de a folosi masina de golf?

And how many say, no, he doesn't?

Si cati ar spune ca nu are acest drept?

All right, let's take a poll, show of hands.

Bine, sa facem un sondaj, un vot deschis.

How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin?

Cati ar vota in favoarea lui Casey Martin?

And how many would not? How many would say he doesn't?

Si cati nu? Cati ar spune ca nu are dreptul?

All right, we have a good division of opinion here.

Bine, avem o divergenta clara de opinii aici.

Someone who would not

Pentru cineva care

grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart,

nu i-ar da lui Casey Martin dreptul la o masina de golf,

what would be your reason?

care ar fi motivul?

Raise your hand, and we'll try to get you a microphone.

Ridicati mana si vom incerca sa va aducem un microfon.

What would be your reason?

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

MS: Ar fi un avantaj nedrept

if he gets to ride in a golf cart.

daca ar putea sa se plimbe cu masina.

All right, those of you,

Asadar, aceia dintre dumneavoastra,

I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart

majoritatea, imi imaginez, a celor care nu i-ar acorda masina de golf

worry about an unfair advantage.

se tem de acordarea unui avantaj nedrept.

What about those of you who say

Dar cei care spun

he should be given a golf cart?

ca ar trebui sa i se acorde o masina de golf?

How would you answer the objection?

Cum ati raspunde obiectiei?

Yes, all right.

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 --

MS: Charlie spune --

We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply.

Ii aducem lui Charlie un microfon in cazul in care vrea sa-i raspunda cineva.

Tell us, Charlie,

Spune-ne, Charlie,

why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart?

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?

Cine are un raspuns pentru Charlie?

All right, who has an answer for Charlie?

Bine, cine are un raspuns pentru Charlie?

What would you say?

Ce ati spune dumneavoastra?

Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game,

Public: Elementul rezistentei este o parte foarte importanta a jocului,

walking all those holes.

mersul pana la toate acele gauri.

MS: Walking all those holes?

MS: Parcurgerea distantei dintre gauri?

That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)

Asta face parte din jocul de golf? (Public: Absolut.)

MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)

MS: Cum te numesti? (Public: Warren.)

MS: Warren.

MS: Warren.

Charlie, what do you say to 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.)

Charley: Eu da. (MS: Bine.)

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

(Applause)

(Aplauze)

You know,

Stiti,

it's interesting.

e interesant.

In the case, in the lower court,

In acest caz, tribunalul de judecata,

they brought in golfing greats

au adus mari nume din golf

to testify on this very issue.

care sa depuna marturie tocmai in aceasta privinta.

Is walking the course essential to the game?

Este mersul pe traseu esential pentru joc?

And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.

Si l-au adus pe Jack Nicklaus si pe Arnold Palmer

And what do you suppose they all said?

Si ce credeti ca au spus toti?

Yes. They agreed with Warren.

Da. Au fost de acord cu Warren.

They said, yes, walking the course

Au spus ca da, mersul pe traseu

is strenuous physical exercise.

este un exercitiu fizic solicitant.

The fatigue factor is an important part of golf.

Factorul de oboseala este o parte importanta din golf.

And so it would change

Si astfel ar schimba

the fundamental nature of the game

fundamental esenta jocului.

to give him the golf cart.

daca i s-ar da dreptul la o masina de golf.

Now, notice,

Acum, vedeti,

something interesting --

ceva interesant --

Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.

Ar trebui sa va spun intai despre Curtea Suprema.

The Supreme Court

Curtea suprema

decided.

a decis

What do you suppose they said?

Ce credeti ca au spus?

They said yes,

Au spus ca da,

that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart.

Casey Martin trebuie sa aiba dreptul la o masina de golf.

Seven to two, they ruled.

Au decis printr-un vot de sapte la doi.

What was interesting about their ruling

Ceea ce a fost interesant cu privire la decizia lor

and about the discussion we've just had

si la discutia pe care tocmai am avut-o

is that the discussion about

a fost faptul ca problema

the right, the justice, of the matter

a ceea ce e bine, asupra dreptatii

depended on

depindea de

figuring out what is

identificarea

the essential nature of golf.

esentei jocului de golf.

And the Supreme Court justices

Iar judecatorii Curtii Supreme

wrestled with that question.

s-au luptat cu aceasta problema

And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority,

Iar judecatorul Stevens, semnand in numele majoritatii,

said he had read all about the history of golf,

a declarat ca a citit totul despre istoria golfului,

and the essential point of the game

iar esenta jocului

is to get very small ball from one place

este de a trimite o minge foarte mica dintr-un loc

into a hole

intr-o gaura

in as few strokes as possible,

in cat mai putine lovituri posibil,

and that walking was not essential, but incidental.

iar mersul nu era esential, ci o chestiune de conjunctura.

Now, there were two dissenters,

Erau totusi doi oponenti,

one of whom was Justice Scalia.

printre care se afla Judecatorul Scalia.

He wouldn't have granted the cart,

El nu ar fi acordat dreptul la masina,

and he had a very interesting dissent.

si a avut o justificare foarte interesanta.

It's interesting because

E interesanta pentru ca

he rejected the Aristotelian premise

a respins premisa lui Aristotel

underlying the majority's opinion.

pe care se baza opinia majoritatii.

He said it's not possible

El a afirmat ca e imposibil

to determine the essential nature

sa stabilesti natura esentiala

of a game like golf.

a unui joc precum golful.

Here's how he put it.

Iata cum a pus el problema.

"To say that something is essential

"A sustine ca un lucru este esential

is ordinarily to say that it is necessary

inseamna de regula ca acel lucru este necesar

to the achievement of a certain object.

pentru implinirea unui anumit scop.

But since it is the very nature of a game

Dar, din moment ce este tocmai ideea jocului

to have no object except amusement,

sa nu aiba alt scop decat distractia,

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

that is, what distinguishes games

adica, tocmai ceea ce deosebeste jocurile

from productive activity,

de activitatea productiva,

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

it is quite impossible to say

este imposibil sa sustii

that any of a game's arbitrary rules

ca oricare dintre regulile arbitrare ale jocului

is essential."

este esentiala."

So there you have Justice Scalia

Asadar iata-l pe judecatorul Scalia

taking on the Aristotelian premise

contestand premisa lui Aristotel

of the majority's opinion.

a opiniei majoritatii.

Justice Scalia's opinion

Opinia judecatorului Scalia

is questionable

este discutabila

for two reasons.

din doua motive.

First, no real sports fan would talk that way.

In primul rand, niciun iubitor de sport nu ar vorbi asa.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

If we had thought that the rules

Daca am crede ca regulile

of the sports we care about

sporturilor la care tinem

are merely arbitrary,

sunt pur si simplu arbitrare,

rather than designed to call forth

in loc sa fie concepute pentru a evidentia

the virtues and the excellences

virtutile si excelenta

that we think are worthy of admiring,

pe care le credem demne de admirat,

we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game.

nu ne-ar mai pasa de rezultatul jocului.

It's also objectionable

Este de asemenea contestabila

on a second ground.

dintr-un al doilea motiv.

On the face of it,

La suprafata,

it seemed to be -- this debate about the golf cart --

parea -- aceasta dezbatere despre masina de golf --

an argument about fairness,

o dezbatere pe tema corectitudinii,

what's an unfair advantage.

despre ce anume constituie un avantaj nedrept.

But if fairness were the only thing at stake,

Dar daca corectitudinea ar fi fost singura miza,

there would have been an easy and obvious solution.

ar fi existat o solutie simpla si evidenta.

What would it be? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.)

Care ar fi fost aceasta? (Public: Sa foloseasca toti masina.)

Let everyone ride in a golf cart

Sa mearga toti intr-o masina de golf

if they want to.

daca doresc.

Then the fairness objection goes away.

Atunci problema corectitudinii dispare.

But letting everyone ride in a cart

Dar a lasa pe toata lumea sa mearga cu masina,

would have been, I suspect,

ar fi fost, cred,

more anathema

un blestem mai mare

to the golfing greats

pentru mai-marii golfului

and to the PGA,

si pentru PGA,

even than making an exception for Casey Martin.

decat o concesie exceptionala pentru Casey Martin.

Why?

De ce?

Because what was at stake

Pentru ca miza

in the dispute over the golf cart

in dezbaterea despre masina de golf

was not only the essential nature of golf,

nu a fost doar natura esentiala a golfului,

but, relatedly, the question:

ci problema implicita

What abilities

referitoare la abilitatile

are worthy

care merita

of honor and recognition

respect si recunoastere

as athletic talents?

ca talent atletic?

Let me put the point

Sa exprim ideea

as delicately as possible:

pe cat de delicat posibil:

Golfers are a little sensitive

jucatorii de golf sunt putin sensibili

about the athletic status of their game.

in legatura cu statutul atletic al jocului lor.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

After all, there's no running or jumping,

La urma urmei, nu exista alergari si sarituri,

and the ball stands still.

iar mingea sta pe loc.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

So if golfing is the kind of game

Astfel ca, daca golful este genul de joc

that can be played while riding around in a golf cart,

care poate fi practicat in timp ce te plimbi cu masina de golf

it would be hard to confer

ar fi greu sa acordam

on the golfing greats

personalitatilor din golf

the status that we confer,

statutul pe care il acordam,

the honor and recognition

acelasi respect si aceeasi recunoastere

that goes to truly great athletes.

care revin sportivilor cu adevarat mari.

That illustrates

Aceasta ilustreaza

that with golf,

ca in golf,

as with flutes,

ca si pentru flaute,

it's hard to decide the question

e dificil sa decizi asupra

of what justice requires,

a ceea ce este necesar pentru infaptuirea dreptatii

without grappling with the question,

fara sa te lupti cu problema

"What is the essential nature

"Care este natura esentiala

of the activity in question,

a activitatii in cauza,

and what qualities,

si ce calitati,

what excellences

ce virtuti

connected with that activity,

legate de acea activitate

are worthy of honor and recognition?"

sunt demne de respect si recunoastere?"

Let's take a final example

Sa luam un exemplu final

that's prominent in contemporary political debate:

care se remarca in dezbaterea politica actuala:

same-sex marriage.

casatoria persoanelor de acelasi sex.

There are those who favor state recognition

Exista aceia care sunt in favoarea recunoasterii de catre stat

only of traditional marriage

numai a casatoriei traditionale

between one man and one woman,

dintre un barbat si o femeie,

and there are those who favor state recognition

si exista aceia care sunt in favoarea recunoasterii de catre stat

of same-sex marriage.

a casatoriei persoanelor de acelasi sex.

How many here

Cati de aici

favor the first policy:

favorizeaza prima politica:

the state should recognize traditional marriage only?

statul ar trebui sa recunoasca doar casatoria traditionala?

And how many favor the second, same-sex marriage?

Si cati o favorizeaza pe a doua, casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex?

Now, put it this way:

Acum, ganditi-va asa,

What ways of thinking

ce moduri de a gandi

about justice and morality

despre dreptate si moralitate

underlie the arguments we have

fundamenteaza dezbaterile pe care le avem

over marriage?

referitoare la casatorie?

The opponents of same-sex marriage say

Opozantii casatoriei intre persoanele de acelasi sex sustin

that the purpose of marriage,

ca scopul casatoriei

fundamentally, is procreation,

este, in esenta, procrearea,

and that's what's worthy of honoring

iar aceasta merita respectata

and recognizing and encouraging.

si recunoscuta si incurajata.

And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no,

Iar sustinatorii casatoriei intre persoanele de acelasi sex spun ca nu,

procreation is not the only purpose of marriage;

procrearea nu este singurul scop al casatoriei.

what about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment?

Cum ramane cu angajamentul de a iubi si a fi iubit, luat pe viata?

That's really what marriage is about.

La asta se refera de fapt casatoria.

So with flutes, with golf carts,

Asadar in privinta flautelor, a masinilor de golf,

and even with a fiercely contested question

si chiar in cazul unei probleme intens contestate

like same-sex marriage,

precum casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex,

Aristotle has a point.

Aristotel are dreptate.

Very hard to argue about justice

Este foarte greu sa dezbatem dreptatea

without first arguing

fara sa dezbatem mai intai

about the purpose of social institutions

scopul institutiilor sociale

and about what qualities are worthy

si calitatile care sunt demne

of honor and recognition.

de respect si recunoastere.

So let's step back from these cases

Acum sa facem un pas inapoi de la aceste cazuri

and see how they shed light

si sa vedem cum ne pun ele in lumina

on the way we might improve, elevate,

felul in care putem sa imbunatatim, sa ridicam nivelul

the terms of political discourse

conditiilor discursului politic

in the United States,

din Statele Unite,

and for that matter, around the world.

si din toata lumea, de fapt.

There is a tendency to think

Exista o tendinta de a crede

that if we engage too directly

ca daca ne implicam prea direct

with moral questions in politics,

in probleme de ordin moral atunci cand dezbatem politica,

that's a recipe for disagreement,

ajungem sigur sa ne contrazicem,

and for that matter, a recipe for

si, implicit,

intolerance and coercion.

sa fim intoleranti si sa constrangem.

So better to shy away from,

Deci e mai bine sa nu ne bagam,

to ignore,

sa ignoram

the moral and the religious convictions

convingerile morale si religioase

that people bring to civic life.

pe care oamenii le aduc in viata publica.

It seems to me that our discussion

Mie mi se pare ca discutia noastra

reflects the opposite,

reflecta contrariul,

that a better way

si anume ca o cale mai buna

to mutual respect

catre respect reciproc

is to engage directly

este sa vorbim direct

with the moral convictions

despre convingerile morale

citizens bring to public life,

pe care cetatenii le aduc in viata publica,

rather than to require

in loc sa ne asteptam

that people leave their deepest moral convictions

ca oamenii sa isi lase cele mai profunde convingeri morale

outside politics

in afara politicii

before they enter.

inainte sa intre in dezbatere.

That, it seems to me, is a way

Acesta, dupa parerea mea, este o cale

to begin to restore

de a incepe sa reinstituim

the art of democratic argument.

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.

Multumesc foarte mult.

Thanks. Thank you.

Multumesc. Va multumesc.

Chris.

Chris.

Thanks, Chris.

Multumesc, Chris.

Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses

Chris Anderson: De la flaute la terenuri de golf

to same-sex marriage --

si la casatorii intre persoane de acelasi sex.

that was a genius link.

Asta a fost o conexiune geniala.

Now look, you're a pioneer of open education.

Acum, tu esti un pionier al educatiei deschise.

Your lecture series was one of the first to do it big.

Seria ta de prelegeri a fost printre primele care au avut succes.

What's your vision for the next phase of this?

Cum vezi tu urmatoarea faza a acestui proiect?

MS: Well, I think that it is possible.

MS: Pai, cred ca e posibil.

In the classroom, we have arguments

In sala de clasa, avem dezbateri

on some of the most fiercely held

despre unele dintre cele mai categorice

moral convictions that students have

convingeri morale ale studentilor

about big public questions.

in legatura cu mari chestiuni publice.

And I think we can do that in public life more generally.

Si cred ca putem face asta in viata publica la o scara mai larga.

And so my real dream would be

Asadar adevaratul meu vis ar fi

to take the public television series

sa luam serialul de televiziune publica

that we've created of the course --

pe care l-am creat pentru curs --

it's available now, online,

este acum disponibil online

free for everyone anywhere in the world --

pentru oricine, oriunde in lume --

and to see whether we can partner with institutions,

si sa vedem daca putem colabora cu institutii,

at universities in China, in India,

la universitatile din China, din India,

in Africa, around the world,

din Africa, din jurul lumii,

to try to promote

pentru a incerca sa promovam

civic education

educatia civica

and also a richer kind

si de asemenea o forma mai utila

of democratic debate.

de dezbatere democratica.

CA: So you picture, at some point,

CA: Deci iti imaginezi, la un moment dat,

live, in real time,

in direct,

you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions,

ca ai putea avea acest gen de dialog, intrebari incitante,

but with people from China and India joining in?

dar cu oameni din China si India care sa se alature discutiei?

MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here

MS: Exact. Am facut o parte mica aici

with 1,500 people in Long Beach,

cu 1500 de oameni, in Long Beach,

and we do it in a classroom at Harvard

si o putem face intr-o clasa la Harvard

with about 1,000 students.

cu aproximativ 1000 de studenti.

Wouldn't it be interesting

N-ar fi interesant

to take this way

sa mergem pe aceasta cale

of thinking and arguing,

de a gandi si a dezbate,

engaging seriously with big moral questions,

de a confrunta in mod serios mari probleme de ordin moral,

exploring cultural differences

de a explora diferentele culturale

and connect through a live video hookup,

si de pune in legatura printr-o conexiune video in direct,

students in Beijing and Mumbai

studenti din Beijing si Mumbai

and in Cambridge, Massachusetts

si din Cambridge, Massachusetts

and create a global classroom.

si sa cream o sala de clasa globala?

That's what I would love to do.

Asta mi-as dori sa realizez.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)

CA: So, I would imagine

CA: Ma gandesc

that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor.

ca sunt multi oameni care ar fi incantati sa se alature eforturilor tale.

Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)

Michael Sandel. Multumesc foarte mult. (MS: Va multumesc mult.)