Mandy @ POLI 333D

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html

I get inspired by one of you guys to get insights from TED talks 🙂

According Mr. Sandel, central to Aristotle’s thinking on justice is the idea that, it is hard to debate what is justice, without being able to first decide the purposes of social institutions and what quality is worthy of honor and recognition. To illustrate his points, Mr. Sandel used the example of same-sex marriage to suggest that, whether same-sex marriage should be legalized is really a matter of what you think the purposes of marriage are. As such, Mr. Sandel argues that, in order to achieve productive democratic debates and more important, mutual respect in a society, citizens should engage directly with the moral and religious convictions of themselves and others, instead of shying away from these convictions before entering into the political and civic life.

I find My Sandel’s points compatible with my understanding of developmental democracy, which advocates the protection of political and civil rights by the law. These rights include the freedom of speech, expression, association, voting and belief.  Among the proponents of developmental democracy, John Stuart Mill in his Essay on Liberty (1859), emphasizes the importance of freedom of discussion and of crash of ideas, which are both regarded as stimulation for human development. I have no doubt that Mill would be disappointed if he had a chance to look at contemporary political discourses, in which not only citizens but also politicians actively take an accusatory tone against their opponents. Therefore, it is hard for anyone to disagree with Mr. Sandel that, the art of democratic debate, has really been lost.

I believe the revival of the quality of citizens and of democracy must be pursued simultaneously, and that one way to do so is to reeducate citizens the meaning of free speech and democratic debates. Citizens should learn that their freedom of speech only grants them the right to determine their positions with their convictions and to use reasons to debate with others, but not the right to disrespect other ideas which are incongruent with their convictions. It is my belief that, though respectful discussions and debates, people with different convictions would be more able to not only reach agreements which better serve without offending both sides, but also to enhance their individual development by enriching their understanding of fellow citizens.

Tags: No Comments