Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate

譯者: Geoff Chen 審譯者: Zhu Jie

One thing the world needs,

這個世界所必要的一件東西

one thing this country desperately needs

這國家所急需的

is a better way

是一個更好的

of conducting our political debates.

論辯政治的方式

We need to rediscover

我們需要重新發現

the lost art of democratic argument.

早已失傳的民主論辯的技藝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

If you think about the arguments we have,

想想我們現今的主要辯論，

most of the time it's shouting matches

大多數時間，它們都是

on cable television,

有線電視頻道上的叫囂比賽

ideological food fights on the floor of Congress.

國會上演的意識形態 大胃王比賽

I have a suggestion.

我有一個建議

Look at all the arguments we have these days

看看近來 我們所有的這些

over health care,

關於健保的辯論、

over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street,

看看關於華爾街的獎金和緊急援助、

over the gap between rich and poor,

關於貧富差距、

over affirmative action and same-sex marriage.

看看關於防止種族與性別歧視的 積極行動和同性婚姻

Lying just beneath the surface

在這些爭論之下

of those arguments,

潛藏著

with passions raging on all sides,

一種鼓噪的欲望湧向四方，

are big questions

這些是

of moral philosophy,

倫理哲學上的大問題

big questions of justice.

涉及正義的大問題

But we too rarely

但我們卻很少

articulate and defend

表達、維護、

and argue about

與爭論

those big moral questions in our politics.

這些藏於我們政治生活中的倫理議題

So what I would like to do today

所以，今天我要做的是

is have something of a discussion.

討論一些事

First, let me take

首先，讓我引述

a famous philosopher

一位著名哲學家的話

who wrote about those questions

他曾寫過這些關於

of justice and morality,

正義與道德的問題，

give you a very short lecture

我要談一段在舊時雅典

on Aristotle of ancient Athens,

古老雅典時代的亞理斯多德

Aristotle's theory of justice,

的正義論

and then have a discussion here

接著會後討論

to see whether Aristotle's ideas

看看亞理斯多德的想法

actually inform

是否在實際上，

the way we think and argue

告訴了我們 思考與辯論

about questions today.

今日問題的方法

So, are you ready for the lecture?

所以，你們準備好這堂課了嗎？

According to Aristotle,

根據亞理斯多德

justice means giving people what they deserve.

正義 意指 給予人們他們所應得的

That's it; that's the lecture.

意思就是，這堂課

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

現在，你們也許會說，嗯，那是再明白不過的道理

The real questions begin

真正的問題開始於

when it comes to arguing about

當人們爭論

who deserves what and why.

誰應該得到什麽、以及爲什麽

Take the example of flutes.

以長笛為例

Suppose we're distributing flutes.

假設我們分配長笛

Who should get the best ones?

誰應得到那最好的呢?

Let's see what people --

讓我們看看有誰...

What would you say?

你認為呢？

Who should get the best flute?

誰應該得到最好的？

You can just call it out.

你可以直接說

(Audience: Random.)

（觀眾：隨機分配）

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

Michael Sandel：隨機選取，你們可以透過抽籤

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

或者先到先拿

Who else?

哪一種？

(Audience: The best flute players.)

（觀眾：最優秀的長笛吹奏者）

MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)

Michael Sandel：最優秀的長笛樂手（觀眾：最糟的長笛樂手）

MS: The worst flute players.

Michael Sandel：最糟的長笛樂手

How many say the best flute players?

有多少人贊同 最優秀的長笛樂手

Why?

爲什麽？

Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.

事實上，那也是亞理斯多德的答案

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But here's a harder question.

但這裡有個更難的問題

Why do you think,

爲什麽你們認為

those of you who voted this way,

你們這些贊成此法的人

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

最好的長笛 應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手呢？

Peter: The greatest benefit to all.

Peter：這賦予所有人最大的利益

MS: The greatest benefit to all.

Michael Sandel：賦予所有人最大利益

We'll hear better music

我們得以聆聽好音樂

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

如果把最好的長笛 給予最優秀的長笛樂手

That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)

那是 Peter？（觀眾：Peter）

MS: All right.

Michael Sandel：好的。

Well, it's a good reason.

嗯，這是好理由

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

我們所有人都會過得比較好，假使他演奏好音樂的話

rather than terrible music.

而不是難聽的音樂

But Peter,

但是，Peter

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

亞理斯多德並不同意 你所說的是合理的

That's all right.

沒關係

Aristotle had a different reason

亞理斯多德有不同的理由

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

當他提到 最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手

He said,

他說

that's what flutes are for --

那是長笛存在的目的

to be played well.

就是要被拿來好好演奏

He says that to reason about

他說 推論一件事物

just distribution of a thing,

是否公平地分配

we have to reason about,

我們必須提出、

and sometimes argue about,

並且有時候要辯論

the purpose of the thing,

這東西的目的何在

or the social activity --

或 這個社會活動的目的何在

in this case, musical performance.

在這個案例中，是音樂表演，

And the point, the essential nature,

在這一點上，音樂表演的

of musical performance

主要本質

is to produce excellent music.

是爲了產生絕佳的音樂

It'll be a happy byproduct

它會營造一個歡樂的副產品

that we'll all benefit.

使我們所有人皆獲得益處

But when we think about justice,

但，當我們思考正義時

Aristotle says,

亞理斯多德說

what we really need to think about

我們真正必須思考的問題是

is the essential nature of the activity in question

這個活動的主要本質

and the qualities that are worth

以及那值得尊重、欣賞、

honoring and admiring and recognizing.

、與承認的品質

One of the reasons

關於最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手

that the best flute players should get the best flutes

的其中一個理由是

is that musical performance

音樂表演

is not only to make the rest of us happy,

並不只是爲了要使我們感到愉快而已，

but to honor

它還得使那

and recognize

最傑出的音樂家

the excellence

獲得殊榮

of the best musicians.

並認可其傑出表現

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

現在，分配長笛似乎...

may seem a trivial case.

看起來是個平凡的例子

Let's take a contemporary example

讓我們舉一個關於分配正義的

of the dispute about justice.

當代例子

It had to do with golf.

這與高爾夫有關

Casey Martin -- a few years ago,

幾年前，Casey Martin

Casey Martin --

Casey Martin

did any of you hear about him?

有人聽過他嗎？

He was a very good golfer,

他是一個非常好的高爾夫球手

but he had a disability.

但他是殘障人士

He had a bad leg, a circulatory problem,

他的腳有問題，循環系統出了問題

that made it very painful

這使得他在走路時

for him to walk the course.

奇痛無比

In fact, it carried risk of injury.

事實上，這也有運動傷害的危險

He asked the PGA,

他問 PGA

the Professional Golfers' Association,

美國職業高爾夫球協會

for permission to use a golf cart

是否可以在比賽中

in the PGA tournaments.

使用高爾夫球車

They said, "No.

他們說：「不，

Now that would give you an unfair advantage."

那會讓你得到不公平的優勢。」

He sued,

他一狀告上法院

and his case went all the way

他的案子一路上到

to the Supreme Court, believe it or not,

美國最高法院，你們相信嗎

the case over the golf cart,

這麼一件關於高爾夫球車的訴訟

because the law says

因為法律上說

that the disabled

我們必須考慮到殘障人士

must be accommodated,

為他們提供妥善的輔助設施

provided the accommodation does not

提供妥善的殘障設施 並不會

change the essential nature

改變比賽

of the activity.

或活動的本質

He says, "I'm a great golfer.

他說：「我是一位優秀的高爾夫球選手

I want to compete.

我要參加比賽

But I need a golf cart

但我需要一輛高爾夫球車

to get from one hole to the next."

讓我可以從這一球洞到下一球洞。」

Suppose you were

假使你們是

on the Supreme Court.

最高法院

Suppose you were deciding

假設你們要審議

the justice of this case.

這個涉及正義的案子

How many here would say

有多少人會認為

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

Casey Martin 有權使用高爾夫球車？

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

另外，有多少人認為他沒有？

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

好，讓我們做個調查，請舉手

How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin?

有多少人站在 Casey Martin 這一方？

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

那有多少人不支持他呢？

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

很好，我們已有兩種不同的意見了

Someone who would not

有人不給予

grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart,

Casey Martin 使用高爾夫球車的權利

what would be your reason?

你們的理由是什麽？

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

請舉手，我們會試著把麥克風遞給你

What would be your reason?

你的理由是什麽？

(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)

（觀眾：那會形成不公平的優勢）

MS: It would be an unfair advantage

Michael Sandel：那會形成不公平的優勢

if he gets to ride in a golf cart.

假使他可以得到高爾夫球車

All right, those of you,

好的，在你們之中

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

我想多數不願給他高爾夫球車的人

worry about an unfair advantage.

大多擔心勝之不武

What about those of you who say

那麼，在你們當中，那些認為

he should be given a golf cart?

應當給予他高爾夫球車的人怎麼說？

How would you answer the objection?

你們會如何表達反對立場？

Yes, all right.

是，好的

Audience: The cart's not part of the game.

觀眾：車子並不構成比賽的一部份

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

Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Charlie）

MS: Charlie says --

Michael Sandel：Charlie 說

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

我們會給 Charlie 一隻麥克風，當有人想要回答時

Tell us, Charlie,

告訴我們，Charlie

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

你爲什麽說他應該獲得一輛高爾夫球車？

Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.

Charlie：車子不是比賽的一部分

MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?

Michael Sandel：那從一洞走到另一洞又怎麼說呢？

Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.

Charlie：這與比賽無關，它不算比賽的一部份

MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?

Michael Sandel：在賽程中走路不算比賽的一部份？

Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.

Charlie：對我來說不是，它不是。

MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.

Michael Sandel：好，請留在那，Charlie

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Who has an answer for Charlie?

誰想替 Charlie 回答？

All right, who has an answer for Charlie?

好，有誰想替 Charlie 回答的？

What would you say?

你會怎麼說？

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

觀眾：耐力是比賽中一個非常重要的部分，

walking all those holes.

走完那些球洞

MS: Walking all those holes?

Michael Sandel：走過所有那些洞？

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

那是高爾夫比賽的一部份？（觀眾：一點也不錯）

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

Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Warren）

MS: Warren.

Michael Sandel：Warren

Charlie, what do you say to Warren?

Charlie：你有什麽想跟 Warren 說？

Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.

Charlie：我堅持原來的論點

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

MS: Warren, are you a golfer?

Michael Sandel：Warren，你打高爾夫嗎？

Warren: I am not a golfer.

Warren：我不打

Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.)

Charlie：但我打。（Michael Sandel：好的。）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

You know,

你們知道

it's interesting.

這很有趣

In the case, in the lower court,

在這個案例中，在下級法院

they brought in golfing greats

他們把偉大的高爾夫選手帶進

to testify on this very issue.

這個特殊的案例中

Is walking the course essential to the game?

步行在比賽中是必不可少的過程嗎？

And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.

於是他們找來 Jack Nicklaus 和 Arnold Palmer

And what do you suppose they all said?

你們猜他們都怎麼說？

Yes. They agreed with Warren.

是的，他們同意 Warren 的說法

They said, yes, walking the course

他們說，是的，走完全程

is strenuous physical exercise.

是費力的運動

The fatigue factor is an important part of golf.

疲憊是高爾夫球賽中的重要一環

And so it would change

所以讓他使用高爾夫球車

the fundamental nature of the game

會改變

to give him the golf cart.

比賽的根本性質

Now, notice,

現在，請注意，

something interesting --

這裡有件有趣的事

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

嗯，我應該先告訴你有關最高法院的事

The Supreme Court

最高法院

decided.

作了裁決

What do you suppose they said?

你們認為他們怎麼說？

They said yes,

他們說，是的，

that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart.

Casey Martin 必須獲得一輛高爾夫球車

Seven to two, they ruled.

七比二，他們裁決。

What was interesting about their ruling

有趣的是，關於他們的這項判決

and about the discussion we've just had

以及關於我們剛剛的討論，

is that the discussion about

那些有關

the right, the justice, of the matter

權利與正義等問題

depended on

都是建立於

figuring out what is

我們對高爾夫球比賽

the essential nature of golf.

的必要本質的認識，

And the Supreme Court justices

而最高法院

wrestled with that question.

審慎思量了那問題

And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority,

Stevens 法官，寫給多數人

said he had read all about the history of golf,

說他遍讀了高爾夫球的歷史，

and the essential point of the game

而這項比賽的必要之處 在於

is to get very small ball from one place

把一個非常小的球，從一個地方

into a hole

推到另一個洞裡

in as few strokes as possible,

盡可能地使用最少的稈數

and that walking was not essential, but incidental.

而走路並不是必要的，反而僅只是次要的

Now, there were two dissenters,

現在，有兩位持反對意見者

one of whom was Justice Scalia.

一位是 Scalia 法官

He wouldn't have granted the cart,

他不願賦予使用高爾夫球車的權利

and he had a very interesting dissent.

他提出一個非常有趣的異議

It's interesting because

有趣 是因為

he rejected the Aristotelian premise

他否決了大多數人所持的

underlying the majority's opinion.

亞理斯多德假設

He said it's not possible

他說

to determine the essential nature

要決定一項賽事的本質，比如高爾夫球賽

of a game like golf.

是不可能的

Here's how he put it.

以下是他的見解

"To say that something is essential

「當談到某些事物是必要時

is ordinarily to say that it is necessary

通常我們會說，它是在

to the achievement of a certain object.

爲了要達到某種目標時，是必要的。

But since it is the very nature of a game

但畢竟一項比賽的最終本質

to have no object except amusement,

除了達到娛樂目的之外，並沒有任何其他目標

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

that is, what distinguishes games

也就是說，把比賽

from productive activity,

與生產活動區別開來

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

it is quite impossible to say

我們不可能說

that any of a game's arbitrary rules

任何一種比賽的任意規則

is essential."

是必要的。」

So there you have Justice Scalia

所以在這，你們有 Scalia 法官

taking on the Aristotelian premise

採取亞理斯多德

of the majority's opinion.

的多數人意見的假設

Justice Scalia's opinion

根據兩個原因，

is questionable

我們可以質疑

for two reasons.

Scalia 法官的意見

First, no real sports fan would talk that way.

第一，沒有哪個真正的球迷會那樣說話

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If we had thought that the rules

如果我們想到

of the sports we care about

我們所關心的比賽的規則

are merely arbitrary,

只不過是任意性的，

rather than designed to call forth

而非一種追求

the virtues and the excellences

道德與卓越的設計

that we think are worthy of admiring,

一種值得我們尊敬的事物

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

我們根本不會關心這項比賽的結果

It's also objectionable

這也是第二個客觀的

on a second ground.

的理由

On the face of it,

面對它時

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

當面對這些高爾夫球車的辯論時

an argument about fairness,

它看來似乎是一項關於公平的爭議

what's an unfair advantage.

一項不平等的優勢

But if fairness were the only thing at stake,

但，倘若公平性是唯一一項受到威脅的事物的話

there would have been an easy and obvious solution.

解決辦法應該是再簡單明白不過

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

那是什麽？（觀眾：讓每個人都有車）

Let everyone ride in a golf cart

讓每個人都可乘坐高爾夫球車

if they want to.

如果他們要的話

Then the fairness objection goes away.

這麼一來，就可以消除那些關於公平性的反對聲浪了

But letting everyone ride in a cart

然而，讓每個人乘坐高爾夫球車

would have been, I suspect,

可能會，我懷疑，

more anathema

可能會使美國高爾夫球公開賽

to the golfing greats

與那些球星

and to the PGA,

蒙受詛咒，

even than making an exception for Casey Martin.

甚至如果為 Casey Martin 首開先例的話，其結果也有可能變得如此

Why?

爲什麽？

Because what was at stake

因為，在這高爾夫球車的爭議中

in the dispute over the golf cart

所受到威脅的事物

was not only the essential nature of golf,

並不只是高爾夫球的本質而已

but, relatedly, the question:

它還涉及所謂運動員天賦的問題：

What abilities

什麽樣的能力

are worthy

是值得

of honor and recognition

運動員的才華

as athletic talents?

獲得崇敬與認可呢？

Let me put the point

我盡可能地試著

as delicately as possible:

細緻地鋪陳論點：

Golfers are a little sensitive

高爾夫球選手們 多多少少

about the athletic status of their game.

對於比賽的地位有些敏感。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

After all, there's no running or jumping,

畢竟，這項比賽沒有跑步或跳躍，

and the ball stands still.

而那顆球通常也靜止不動。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So if golfing is the kind of game

所以，如果高爾夫球是那種

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

可以安坐於車上的比賽的話

it would be hard to confer

這麼一來，人們就很難賦予

on the golfing greats

那些高爾夫球巨星

the status that we confer,

偉大崇高的地位了，

the honor and recognition

也很難給予偉大球星

that goes to truly great athletes.

榮耀與認可了。

That illustrates

這說明了

that with golf,

高爾夫球

as with flutes,

如同長笛一般

it's hard to decide the question

是很難界定

of what justice requires,

其所需的正義，

without grappling with the question,

當你們不解決如下問題時：

"What is the essential nature

「什麽是這項活動的

of the activity in question,

內在本質、

and what qualities,

以及 什麽樣的品質、

what excellences

什麼樣的卓越內涵

connected with that activity,

關於這項活動

are worthy of honor and recognition?"

是值得尊敬與認可的？」

Let's take a final example

讓我們拿最後一個例子說明

that's prominent in contemporary political debate:

當代著名的政治辯論：

same-sex marriage.

同性婚姻

There are those who favor state recognition

有些人認為，國家僅僅只能

only of traditional marriage

承認傳統的婚姻

between one man and one woman,

在男人與女人之間的婚姻；

and there are those who favor state recognition

另外，也有些人希望，國家能承認

of same-sex marriage.

同性婚姻

How many here

這裡有多少人

favor the first policy:

贊成第一項政策的：

the state should recognize traditional marriage only?

國家只應承認傳統婚姻？

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

另外，有多少人贊同同性婚姻？

Now, put it this way:

現在，這麼說好了，

What ways of thinking

在我們既有的

about justice and morality

涉及到正義與道德的這些爭議下

underlie the arguments we have

關於婚姻，

over marriage?

我們有什麽樣的思考方式？

The opponents of same-sex marriage say

反對同性婚姻的人說

that the purpose of marriage,

婚姻的目的

fundamentally, is procreation,

基本上說來，是爲了生育，

and that's what's worthy of honoring

而那是值得尊敬、

and recognizing and encouraging.

認可、與鼓勵的；

And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no,

然而，捍衛同性婚姻的人說：不，

procreation is not the only purpose of marriage;

生育並不是婚姻的唯一目的，

what about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment?

那一個終身的、相互的、愛的承諾又如何呢？

That's really what marriage is about.

那的確與婚姻息息相關啊。

So with flutes, with golf carts,

因此，長笛、高爾夫球車、

and even with a fiercely contested question

甚至如此激烈爭辯的議題

like same-sex marriage,

像同性婚姻

Aristotle has a point.

亞理斯多德提及了一個重點

Very hard to argue about justice

倘若我們首先沒有探討

without first arguing

社會制度的目的、

about the purpose of social institutions

與什麼樣的品質是值得

and about what qualities are worthy

尊敬與認可的話，

of honor and recognition.

要爭辯何謂正義是極為困難的。

So let's step back from these cases

因此，讓我們從這些案件回過頭來

and see how they shed light

看看它們如何向我們提供一種方式

on the way we might improve, elevate,

使我們藉此得以會進步、提高

the terms of political discourse

在美國的

in the United States,

政治論述的語彙

and for that matter, around the world.

以及世界各地關於這方面的政治語言方式，

There is a tendency to think

倘若我們在政治中

that if we engage too directly

愈是直接地涉入倫理議題，

with moral questions in politics,

人們會傾向於認為

that's a recipe for disagreement,

那是解決分歧的藥方，

and for that matter, a recipe for

從那方面說來，這也是一個

intolerance and coercion.

解決不寬容與強制脅迫的藥方。

So better to shy away from,

因此，我們不如迴避、

to ignore,

略過

the moral and the religious convictions

那些人們帶進公民生活中

that people bring to civic life.

的宗教與倫理衝突

It seems to me that our discussion

在我看來，我們的討論

reflects the opposite,

反映了相反的一面，

that a better way

一個達成相互尊重

to mutual respect

的更好方式是

is to engage directly

直接地涉入

with the moral convictions

公民帶入公共生活中的

citizens bring to public life,

的倫理衝突

rather than to require

而不是要求

that people leave their deepest moral convictions

人們在進入政治以前，

outside politics

把他們最深的倫理衝突

before they enter.

留在政治之外。

That, it seems to me, is a way

在我看來，那是一個

to begin to restore

開始重建

the art of democratic argument.

民主辯論技藝的方法

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you very much.

非常感謝

Thanks. Thank you.

謝謝，謝謝各位

Chris.

Chris

Thanks, Chris.

謝謝，Chris

Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses

Chris Anderson：從長笛、高爾夫球場

to same-sex marriage --

到同性婚姻

that was a genius link.

實在是非常巧妙的連結

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

你的確是開放教育的先驅

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

你的系列課堂是開創者之一

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

你下一個階段的計劃是什麽？

MS: Well, I think that it is possible.

Michael Sandel：嗯，我想這是可能的

In the classroom, we have arguments

在這個教室裡，我們有

on some of the most fiercely held

學生們曾經討論過的

moral convictions that students have

關於道德衝突的最激烈辯論

about big public questions.

涉及了許多大型的公眾議題

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

我想我們可以更廣泛地 把它置入於公眾生活

And so my real dream would be

所以，我真正的夢想是

to take the public television series

創辦一個我們曾有過的課堂辯論

that we've created of the course --

在電視節目之中

it's available now, online,

現在，透過網絡 這已經是可行的了

free for everyone anywhere in the world --

任何人在世界每個角落都可以進入

and to see whether we can partner with institutions,

看看我們是否可以與一些機構合作

at universities in China, in India,

比如在中國、印度、

in Africa, around the world,

非洲、和世界各地的大學

to try to promote

試著提升

civic education

公民教育

and also a richer kind

與更豐富的

of democratic debate.

民主辯論

CA: So you picture, at some point,

Chris Anderson：所以你在某種程度上，想像了

live, in real time,

一個現場的、即時的

you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions,

真實對談，徵求問題

but with people from China and India joining in?

但要求中國和印度的人們參與？

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

Michael Sandel：我們在這裡做了一點

with 1,500 people in Long Beach,

在 Long Beach 那兒有 1500 人參與

and we do it in a classroom at Harvard

另外，我們也在哈佛大學的講堂上

with about 1,000 students.

與 1000 位學生進行討論。

Wouldn't it be interesting

這不是很有趣嗎？

to take this way

以這種

of thinking and arguing,

思考與辯論的方式

engaging seriously with big moral questions,

深刻地討論宏大的倫理議題，

exploring cultural differences

發掘文化差異

and connect through a live video hookup,

並且透過現場直播

students in Beijing and Mumbai

使得在北京、孟買、

and in Cambridge, Massachusetts

劍橋、麻薩諸塞州的學生

and create a global classroom.

都能一起創造全球教室

That's what I would love to do.

那就是我想做的事。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

CA: So, I would imagine

Chris Anderson：所以，我猜想

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

會有許多人願意加入你的努力的

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

Michael Sandel，非常謝謝你。(MS：謝謝各位。)