On September 30th, professor Michael Sandel delivered a lecture in the CFL called "The Lost Art of Democratic Argument." Sandel teaches a course called "Justice" at Harvard University, which models the ancient Greek assemblies in debating moral and ethical issues. At the Luther lecture, the assembled students and teachers raised and responded to questions under the moderation of Sandel. Wireless microphones circulated through the audience in response to the various scenarios Sandel laid before his listeners. This open forum got to the heart of our ethical values, pitting autonomy against universalism, and asking, "What is the right thing to do?" The lecture was an introduction to the format of his Justice course, which he claims recaptures 'the lost art of democratic argument.'
Sandel's lecture is a model to teachers for asking good questions, though the scenarios he presented might not be appropriate out of the philosophy classroom. In our particular lecture, Sandel was dealing with the process by which we arrive at moral decisions. Example: if a rail car is careening out of control toward five people standing on the tracks and you are standing a switch that could divert the car to a track with only one person on it, would you throw the switch? The assembled Luther crowd favor numbers until Sandel changed the scenario a bit. What if you were standing on a ledge overlooking the tracks next to a fat man who could stop the car if you pushed him off the ledge, would you do it? The numbers were the same, but the ethical dilemma changed dramatically. This essentially sums up the lecture. Whenever an audience member came to a definite decision, Sandel tweaked the circumstances to complicate that decision.
The format was effectively engaging if admittedly limited. Sandel's strategy was adept at raising ethical issues but did little to resolve them. Nor was it really meant to. In altering his fictitious scenarios, Sandel reduced them to the absurd in order to get at the heart of our moral values. A scenario that began partially based in fact had so many 'ifs' attached to it eventually that such a scenario was reduced to absurdity. If you were and solider on a covert mission in Afghanistan and came across two civilians and knew those civilians were actually disguised enemy combatants and knew that letting them go would be the deaths of your entire company, would you kill them? This scenario is ridiculous. It presents the wrong number of choices, - you could easily tie them up and leave them until later - but it is meant to engage our moral thoughts on loyalty, empathy, and duty
The implications for teaching are quite profound. The assembly format and general discussion of difficult questions engaged the audience with extraordinary effectiveness. We analyzed our moderator, our peers, and even ourselves in one assembly. We thought critically, asked question. In short, it was one of the most effective lectures I've ever attended. And it makes me wonder how far that format could be extended. Is it limited to democratic discourse or could it be applied in Biology and English classrooms? Sandel's scenarios might no longer be effective, but questions can still be raised to complicate our perceptions and engage a critical response. Debate and discussion reinforce our abilities to communicate and ask good questions, both of each other and ourselves. Such discussion stimulates interest in a topic before the particulars are approached, and can therefore be used as an effective teaching mechanism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9bOIYnGqbs&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment