You are on page 1of 1

The necessity of rediscover the lost art of democratic argument.

The arguments we have is: shouting mouths on cable TV, ideological food fights on the congress. All about healthcare, over the gap between rich and poor, over the same sex marriage but beyond that are questions of philosophy, moral questions and we rarely think about them in our politics. Aristotle and his theory of justice and morality, and in the first debate intents to prove if his ideas were informed the way we think this days According to Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve, but who deserves what? And why? Because the best flute players should have the flutes. But Aristotle doesnt agree, he said that is about just distribution: the aim of a musical instrument is to be well played. The reason is not only to make the rest of us happy, but to honor and recognize the excellence of the best musicians. In the example of golf, the player needs the golf cart to go through a hole from another because he has a bad condition on his leg. The court agrees on that because essential nature of golf or other game isnt the physical effort, but it is the amusement so the argument about fairness is not the only thing in state, because if it was, the fair thing to do would be to let everyone to ride in a golf cart if they want to. Then, the fairness objection goes away. That illustrates that with golf and the flutes, is hard to decide the question of what justice requires, without grappling (forcejear) with the question: what is the essential nature of the activity in question and what qualities and what excellences, connected with that activity, are worthy of honor and recognition. Same sex marriage: what ways of thinking about justice and morality underlie the arguments we have over marriage? For the ones who are in opposition of same sex marriage, the purpose of marriage is procreation, thats why they dons recognize and encourage it. On the other hand the defenders of same sex marriage say that procreation is NOT the ONLY purpose of marriage. They value the lifelong mutual loving commitment as the PURPOSE of marriage. Aristotle has a point for the 3 examples: is hard to argue about JUSTICE, without first arguing about the PURPOSE OF SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS and about WHAT QUALITIES ARE WORTHY OF HONOR AND RECOGNITION. The tendency is to think that if we go directly to moral questions in politics thats the recipe for disagreement and intolerance and coercion. So is better to ignore this subjects (moral and convictions people bring to civic life) For Sandel, the better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with moral convictions people printed in public life rather than to leave them outside the politics, before they discuss. This is the way to restore THE ART OF DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENT. EDUCATION WITH DEBATES AND TRY OT ON PUBLIC LIFE ALL OVER THE WORLD.

You might also like