There is a magnificent series of lectures called Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? on YouTube. The nine one hour programs feature political philosopher Michael Sandel teaching at Harvard University. They were the first classes that Harvard offered to the public at no cost and they are priceless in every sense of that concept. Sandel is an exceptional teacher but even more exciting are his earnest students whom he deftly engages in discussions of the arc of philosophical thinking from Aristotle to the present day.
I came upon the series as an assignment from a class that I was taking at the Rice University Glasscock School of Continuing Studies and became instantly enchanted with the thought provoking theories and arguments about what truly constitutes political justice. I finished both the Rice class and the Harvard videos understanding the power and virtues of open discussion. In the end there are many theoretical philosophies about justice and political engagement but the most compelling aspect of learning about such things is the art of doing so in a respectful way. The old concepts of the Socratic Method still work whenever we are attempting to open our minds to differing ways of thinking.
In our class at the Glasscock School we spoke freely and with different voices and points of view. What we all had in common was a desire to openly discuss important questions with each other without recrimination. Our commentaries were often just as lively as those of the Harvard students in Sandel’s lecture hall. Generally in both scenarios there was an understanding of freedom to in a respectful dialogue aimed at finding universal truths and common ground. Neither the Harvard class nor the Rice class ended with a single perspective other than the realization that each person in society is guided by differing religious and cultural beliefs that color our visions of justice.
Dr. Sandel spoke with a kind of reverence of the Lincoln/Douglas debates in order to contrast the differing philosophies of neutrality versus morality. Essentially Douglas argued that because the opinions regarding slavery were so diverse, the government should not become involved in judgements or laws regarding whether or not to allow slavery to continue. Lincoln on the other hand insisted that due to the overriding moral evil of slavery the nation had to speak and act forcefully in favor of limiting its growth. In other words, sometimes morality must intervene in our justice system. We cannot simply look away in order to allow each individual to make his or her own choices. In a good society we often do what we believe to be morally right to override the idea of self rule by neutrality.
Of course there are so many issues in today’s political cauldron that we would do well to legitimately and earnestly discuss without rancor and with the intent of ultimately doing what seems to be right regardless of our many highly personal beliefs. We have to rationally determine answers to intricate questions and can only do so if we are willing to listen to the differing points of view and ideas for solving our problems rather than being rigidly tied to group think and insults about thinking that is different from our own. Dr. Sandel demonstrates how to do this both with his lectures and his inclusion of students’ thoughts in each discussion.
I suppose that debates between political candidates were intended to demonstrate the beliefs of each individual vying for positions in our government. Somehow over time they have become more akin to farcical comedy than rational discussion. Opponents often show no signs of actually listening to each other to discuss differing ideas so much as to wound and insult each other. It feels more like a fight between gladiators than a substantive comparison of stances on important issues. Such showboating has also found its way into the halls of government were one side or the other simply forces its will on the minority group.
It really is possible for each of us to learn how to discuss even the most contentious problems that face us without rancor and with a determination to find common ground. The gladiator demonstrations that have become so common do nothing to face the issues that have been festering for far too long. Our contentious insistence on deriding the differing political philosophies of one another rather than discussing the pros and cons of our ideas is driving us farther and farther apart and setting us on an uncertain future. It’s well past time to eschew those who seem only interested in pandering to narrow beliefs rather than understanding that sometimes we are not as far away from agreeing with each other than it might seem. If we really begin to listen and to think and even to be willing to reconsider our thinking we are more likely to have a smoothly running society.
Never in the history of the world has it worked well for everyone to be governed by a tightly knitted group demanding total loyalty to one person’s ideas. The most vibrant environments allow our many voices to really be heard, not just tolerated. They are respectful of the possibility that someone’s critiques may be sincere and even valid. A discourse that genuinely attempts to get to the heart of an issue is always the best way to find justice in our society. Aristotle and Socrates understood these things in the long ago which is why their words and their methodologies resonate to the very day. We would do well to learn how to search for justice with open minds and rational discussion. It’s time we accomplish something other than rigidly standing firm with our personal beliefs.
All It Takes Is A Little Love 