0:00:03 > 0:00:06Suppose that some terrorists have planted a bomb on an airplane.
0:00:06 > 0:00:12There are 300 passengers on board the plane, and in one hour the bomb is going to go off.
0:00:12 > 0:00:15TIMER BEEPS
0:00:15 > 0:00:21The authorities have apprehended someone they suspect is the leader of the terrorist plot.
0:00:21 > 0:00:24He won't reveal where the bomb is. It's going to go off in an hour.
0:00:24 > 0:00:28TIMER BEEPS
0:00:28 > 0:00:32Do you think it would be right to torture the terror suspect
0:00:32 > 0:00:34to get the information about where the bomb is?
0:00:37 > 0:00:39SHOUTING
0:00:39 > 0:00:42- No, I don't think so.- No, I don't think you should torture people.
0:00:42 > 0:00:44Yes, I would.
0:00:44 > 0:00:46SHOUTING AND ROARING
0:00:46 > 0:00:48Absolutely not.
0:00:48 > 0:00:50Yeah, I think it's right if it saves lives.
0:00:50 > 0:00:52Torture would not be justified or condoned.
0:00:52 > 0:00:58- What about the 300 people? - 300 people against our human rights?
0:00:59 > 0:01:03It sounds pretty cold, but human rights are for everyone.
0:01:03 > 0:01:06TIMER BEEPS
0:01:18 > 0:01:23Let's step back from this discussion
0:01:23 > 0:01:28and notice how many objections have we heard to what they did?
0:01:28 > 0:01:32We heard some defences of what they did...
0:01:32 > 0:01:34'My name is Michael Sandel
0:01:34 > 0:01:38'and I teach political philosophy at Harvard University.'
0:01:40 > 0:01:44To me, philosophy is not only a subject for the classroom.
0:01:44 > 0:01:47It's a way of thinking through
0:01:47 > 0:01:51the hard moral choices we make and debate all the time.
0:01:52 > 0:01:57Should minorities always bend to the will of the majority?
0:01:57 > 0:01:59Should you lie to protect a friend?
0:01:59 > 0:02:03Is torture ever justified?
0:02:03 > 0:02:08To answer questions such as these, we need to think about justice.
0:02:08 > 0:02:15To do so, I'd like to invite you to join me on a journey to meet three philosophers.
0:02:15 > 0:02:20Each had a different answer to the question, what is justice?
0:02:22 > 0:02:26For Jeremy Bentham, justice means seeking the greatest happiness
0:02:26 > 0:02:29for the greatest number of people.
0:02:31 > 0:02:34Immanuel Kant disagreed.
0:02:35 > 0:02:40He argues that justice means respecting human dignity.
0:02:40 > 0:02:43Aristotle took a different view.
0:02:43 > 0:02:50For him, justice is about cultivating virtue and a good life.
0:02:50 > 0:02:52So who was right?
0:02:52 > 0:02:57And what do these philosophers have to say to us and to our world?
0:03:01 > 0:03:05We begin in London with Jeremy Bentham.
0:03:05 > 0:03:10Though he lived in the 18th century, you can visit him today.
0:03:12 > 0:03:14A rather eccentric character,
0:03:14 > 0:03:20he instructed in his will that his body be preserved and put on display.
0:03:20 > 0:03:23An auto icon, he called it.
0:03:25 > 0:03:27So here's Jeremy Bentham.
0:03:27 > 0:03:30Jeremy Bentham, yeah. The auto icon of Jeremy
0:03:30 > 0:03:33has been here for many years in this particular part of the college.
0:03:33 > 0:03:39It was part of my duties, I used to be the head beagle at the front lodge there
0:03:39 > 0:03:42and I used to open him up on a daily basis
0:03:42 > 0:03:44and close him up on a daily basis,
0:03:44 > 0:03:48which normally entailed about 7:30 in the morning until six at night.
0:03:48 > 0:03:51Those were his unofficial hours.
0:03:51 > 0:03:54What do you call him? Do you call him Mr Bentham or Jeremy?
0:03:54 > 0:03:58Mr Bentham, I address him as.
0:03:58 > 0:04:02- You're not on first name terms after all these years? - THEY LAUGH
0:04:02 > 0:04:04Every morning once I opened him up,
0:04:04 > 0:04:09I used to say, "Good morning, Mr Bentham. Another quiet day ahead."
0:04:09 > 0:04:11THEY LAUGH
0:04:12 > 0:04:15Jeremy Bentham was born in 1748.
0:04:15 > 0:04:22He was a child prodigy who went to Oxford at the age of 12 to study law.
0:04:22 > 0:04:26So this is one of the manuscripts in Bentham's hand?
0:04:26 > 0:04:30That's right, an original manuscript dating from about 1798.
0:04:30 > 0:04:32Bentham wrote prolifically.
0:04:32 > 0:04:36His works, which will ultimately fill 68 volumes,
0:04:36 > 0:04:39are still being edited at University College, London.
0:04:39 > 0:04:43He started off as a legal philosopher,
0:04:43 > 0:04:48and he discovered his principle of utility in 1769,
0:04:48 > 0:04:50when he was 21 years old,
0:04:50 > 0:04:54and started to apply it to legal practice.
0:04:54 > 0:04:59As he went on he found it could be applied universally, really.
0:04:59 > 0:05:02What did he mean by utility?
0:05:02 > 0:05:06It was a shorthand, really,
0:05:06 > 0:05:09for happiness or pleasure.
0:05:09 > 0:05:15The way he would put it was that someone who was an adherent of the principle of utility would be a
0:05:15 > 0:05:21person who supported the increase of pleasure and the diminution of pain.
0:05:40 > 0:05:47In his book on The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham set out the central
0:05:47 > 0:05:54idea of his utilitarian philosophy - seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
0:05:55 > 0:05:58On the basis of this simple idea,
0:05:58 > 0:06:03Bentham proposed various schemes to improve British society.
0:06:03 > 0:06:06He wanted to reform the legal system
0:06:06 > 0:06:11so as to serve what he saw as the rational principle of utility.
0:06:11 > 0:06:15He called for homosexuality to be decriminalised
0:06:15 > 0:06:20and he approved of any activity that added to the sum of human happiness.
0:06:20 > 0:06:23He was an early proponent of animal welfare,
0:06:23 > 0:06:28arguing that animals suffer pain just as humans do.
0:06:30 > 0:06:36But his moral calculus left no room for universal principles of human rights.
0:06:36 > 0:06:38Even torture could be acceptable.
0:06:38 > 0:06:43You can never rule anything out with Bentham's utilitarianism.
0:06:43 > 0:06:47You can never absolutely say that something is always
0:06:47 > 0:06:51and universally right and something is always and universally wrong.
0:06:51 > 0:06:54- Even torture?- Even torture.
0:06:55 > 0:06:59Bentham's proposals for reforming the poor laws
0:06:59 > 0:07:02also reflected the harsh face of utilitarianism.
0:07:02 > 0:07:07He thought that the sight of beggars in the street offended the sensibility
0:07:07 > 0:07:12of good citizens by evoking the pains of sympathy and disgust.
0:07:14 > 0:07:20His solution was to pay those good citizens to round up beggars at 20 shillings per head
0:07:20 > 0:07:25and place them in workhouses, where they would be required to labour for their keep.
0:07:25 > 0:07:30He recognised that this might make some beggars unhappy,
0:07:30 > 0:07:35but according to his calculus the good would outweigh the harm.
0:07:36 > 0:07:39What about the unhappiness of the beggar?
0:07:39 > 0:07:43Bentham's view was that it was in the beggar's interest as well as in the community's
0:07:43 > 0:07:49interest that the beggar became a productive member of the community rather than wasting their time,
0:07:49 > 0:07:51annoying people on the streets.
0:07:52 > 0:07:56What do they think of Bentham on the streets of London today?
0:07:56 > 0:07:58So that was his idea.
0:07:58 > 0:08:02- What do you think of it?- I think it's a rubbish idea.
0:08:02 > 0:08:07- Yeah? Why do you think so?- Why don't they just send people out with guns
0:08:07 > 0:08:10and let them shoot all the homeless? That would also
0:08:10 > 0:08:14solve the problems. And who was these people to decide who could be dragged
0:08:14 > 0:08:16into the workhouses?
0:08:16 > 0:08:19The only thing I can say is Bentham was right
0:08:19 > 0:08:22on just about everything else, so he might be right.
0:08:22 > 0:08:26- But it's fraught with problems. - You're cutting people off.
0:08:26 > 0:08:29You're saying put them people in a place like that,
0:08:29 > 0:08:32and you're cutting them off from society. That's all you're doing.
0:08:32 > 0:08:35This is what the government is trying to do with the Olympics.
0:08:35 > 0:08:41"Get all of the homeless off the streets, because we don't want the tourists seeing how it really is."
0:08:41 > 0:08:46So what do you think of Bentham's philosophy, that the way the law
0:08:46 > 0:08:53should be should depend on whatever makes the greatest number of people the happiest?
0:08:53 > 0:08:55- What do you think about that idea? - No.- It's rubbish.
0:08:55 > 0:08:58And why? What's wrong with that idea? Tell us what's wrong.
0:08:58 > 0:09:05Because I think in society, you have a responsibility to care for the more weakest and more vulnerable,
0:09:05 > 0:09:11and if you sort of go along with whatever makes more people happy...
0:09:11 > 0:09:16What if it makes more people happy that they don't see any old people because they smell?
0:09:16 > 0:09:19"Let's put all them away. And disabled people.
0:09:19 > 0:09:23"I don't really like looking at them. Let's put them away."
0:09:23 > 0:09:25Where do you stop with that?
0:09:25 > 0:09:31Then you're sort of moving into Nazi Germany, don't you, and let's have the wonderful, perfect race.
0:09:39 > 0:09:46One of the strongest arguments against utilitarianism is that it fails to respect individual rights.
0:09:46 > 0:09:51For example, suppose a big majority strongly dislikes women wearing burkas.
0:09:51 > 0:09:55Does that mean the burka should be banned?
0:09:55 > 0:09:58In France, they think so.
0:09:58 > 0:10:01In 2010, backed by huge public support,
0:10:01 > 0:10:06the French government passed a law banning the burka in public,
0:10:06 > 0:10:10claiming that it violates France's secular tradition.
0:10:10 > 0:10:14If a woman is wearing a burka or or niqab on the street,
0:10:14 > 0:10:17the police will come and take her home back, you know?
0:10:17 > 0:10:22If there is a second attempt, she will certainly be taken back again,
0:10:22 > 0:10:24and certainly will get a fine.
0:10:24 > 0:10:30Peter Singer is one of the world's leading utilitarian philosophers.
0:10:30 > 0:10:37If a big enough majority is made very unhappy by women wearing burkas on the street,
0:10:37 > 0:10:42is it right that they should be banned according to utilitarianism?
0:10:42 > 0:10:46If millions of people are made seriously unhappy and there's
0:10:46 > 0:10:50no way they can get around their unhappiness or adjust to the presence
0:10:50 > 0:10:51of women in burkas on the street,
0:10:51 > 0:10:55then certainly the numbers ought to prevail in that situation.
0:10:55 > 0:10:58But what about religious liberty?
0:10:58 > 0:11:01For a utilitarian, religious liberty is not an absolute.
0:11:01 > 0:11:06Utilitarians don't find any list of rights somehow written up
0:11:06 > 0:11:11in heaven or self evidently delivered to our minds.
0:11:11 > 0:11:14They're not going to say that there's just an absolute
0:11:14 > 0:11:18right to religious liberty which trumps utilitarian considerations.
0:11:18 > 0:11:21On the contrary, they'll say rights are things that we devise and draw up
0:11:21 > 0:11:25and enforce where they conduce to the larger,
0:11:25 > 0:11:28long term benefit of everyone affected.
0:11:28 > 0:11:32# La donna e mobile
0:11:32 > 0:11:35# Qual piuma al vento... #
0:11:35 > 0:11:38Bentham's focus on maximising happiness
0:11:38 > 0:11:43led him to reject the distinction between high and low culture.
0:11:43 > 0:11:48According to Bentham, it's not for us to judge some pleasures as higher or more noble than others.
0:11:48 > 0:11:51Some people like to go to the opera.
0:11:51 > 0:11:54Others like to watch football or dog fighting.
0:11:54 > 0:11:57What matters is the quantity, not the quality of the pleasure.
0:11:57 > 0:12:03States often put a lot of money into opera, and I wonder why, when it is
0:12:03 > 0:12:06for rather a small group of clientele who are supporting it.
0:12:06 > 0:12:10And I think states ought to be more concerned about
0:12:10 > 0:12:15the happiness and welfare of all of their citizens, not of a minority.
0:12:15 > 0:12:18But this is the question I want to press you on, Peter.
0:12:18 > 0:12:22Is it just a matter of taste, of subjective preferences?
0:12:22 > 0:12:28Surely the reason states subsidise opera or the arts generally is the view that cultivating
0:12:28 > 0:12:34an appreciation for the arts is something that is intrinsically worthy?
0:12:34 > 0:12:37I have trouble with the idea of intrinsically worthy here.
0:12:37 > 0:12:41I can see that some things do stimulate us to think about
0:12:41 > 0:12:46other things, but the idea that it is more intrinsically worthy,
0:12:46 > 0:12:50independently of those consequences, is something
0:12:50 > 0:12:54that I'm not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean.
0:12:54 > 0:12:58All right, but suppose, Peter, you've got these people who love dog fighting.
0:12:58 > 0:13:04You take them to football matches and you try to change their tastes.
0:13:04 > 0:13:09You may even take them to the opera and persuade them that they would like that even more.
0:13:10 > 0:13:13But you fail.
0:13:13 > 0:13:15They've been to the football match,
0:13:15 > 0:13:20they've gone to the opera, they've heard your arguments,
0:13:20 > 0:13:23but they say, "We still love dog fighting.
0:13:23 > 0:13:27"Yes, it creates some suffering for the dogs, but there aren't that many
0:13:27 > 0:13:33"dogs and there are thousands upon thousands of us." Then?
0:13:34 > 0:13:41You're trying to make it very tough, and it is tough, because
0:13:41 > 0:13:44I still think that dog fighting is something we ought to get rid of,
0:13:44 > 0:13:48because I think it has a brutalising effect, not only on these small
0:13:48 > 0:13:52number of dogs there, but on people's attitudes to animals in general.
0:13:52 > 0:13:55It would be the same if instead of dogs we would have picked some
0:13:55 > 0:14:00despised racial minority and make them fight, as the Romans did with the gladiators.
0:14:00 > 0:14:04Wasn't a racial minority, perhaps, but it was captives.
0:14:04 > 0:14:09We have to think about the attitude that that inculcates,
0:14:09 > 0:14:12to think that it is OK to treat people like that for our amusement.
0:14:12 > 0:14:18If the only reason you condemn it and reject it is that
0:14:18 > 0:14:23in the long run it will produce less happiness, isn't something missing?
0:14:23 > 0:14:28Don't you want to say it's wrong in itself, isn't it, quite apart from how the calculus works out?
0:14:28 > 0:14:34I want us to have an instinctive reaction that says "You must never do that."
0:14:34 > 0:14:37But as philosophers,
0:14:37 > 0:14:40I think we also want to ask further questions about
0:14:40 > 0:14:46what does this instinctive reaction really show?
0:14:46 > 0:14:51Probably it shows something about the way we've evolved to
0:14:51 > 0:14:55care for others in our community, and that is something that is good and we want to encourage.
0:14:55 > 0:14:58But does it show some kind of
0:14:58 > 0:15:05absolute moral right that people have not to be treated as a means to the ends of others? I don't think so.
0:15:09 > 0:15:14Jeremy Bentham left us with more than his eternal physical presence.
0:15:14 > 0:15:19He also left us with two big questions of moral and political philosophy.
0:15:19 > 0:15:26First, should we respect individual rights only insofar as doing so promotes human happiness?
0:15:26 > 0:15:33Or is there a principle of human dignity above and beyond utilitarian considerations?
0:15:33 > 0:15:40And second, is happiness just a matter of pleasure, of satisfying our subjective preferences?
0:15:40 > 0:15:44Or does happiness mean living a life that helps us see
0:15:44 > 0:15:49certain preferences, certain values, as higher, as worthier than others?
0:16:02 > 0:16:09One of the most powerful responses to the question of rights came from Immanuel Kant.
0:16:09 > 0:16:14Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian town of Koenigsberg.
0:16:14 > 0:16:18He was a university professor who lived in the era
0:16:18 > 0:16:22of Frederick the Great when Prussia was becoming
0:16:22 > 0:16:25a cultural and political powerhouse.
0:16:25 > 0:16:29Immanuel Kant rejected utilitarianism.
0:16:29 > 0:16:34He didn't think morality was a matter of satisfying our preferences.
0:16:34 > 0:16:37According to Kant, morality requires using our reason
0:16:37 > 0:16:40to arrive at a universal moral principle
0:16:40 > 0:16:45that doesn't depend on any of our wants and desires.
0:16:45 > 0:16:49The principle he argued for, he called the categorical imperative.
0:16:54 > 0:17:00The categorical imperative tells us that we must always treat one another with dignity and respect,
0:17:00 > 0:17:04and never use anyone simply as a means to an end.
0:17:06 > 0:17:12For Kant, morality is not about calculating the consequences of our actions.
0:17:12 > 0:17:15It's about acting out of duty, out of principle,
0:17:15 > 0:17:18doing the right thing for the right reason.
0:17:18 > 0:17:21He illustrates this by asking us to imagine
0:17:21 > 0:17:27an inexperienced customer, say a child, who goes into a shop to buy a loaf of bread.
0:17:41 > 0:17:43Guten Tag.
0:17:43 > 0:17:47- Ein brot, bitte.- Ja.
0:17:50 > 0:17:57The child doesn't know a 50-euro note from a five-euro note, so the shopkeeper could easily cheat him.
0:17:59 > 0:18:02So why does she give him the correct change?
0:18:02 > 0:18:06A calculating shopkeeper thinks she will gain something in the end.
0:18:06 > 0:18:12She believes that a reputation for honesty is good for business.
0:18:12 > 0:18:15This calculated honesty lacks moral worth.
0:18:15 > 0:18:20That's because the shopkeeper is acting not out of principle, but only out of self interest.
0:18:20 > 0:18:25For Kant, what matters is the motive.
0:18:31 > 0:18:37In a famous moral conundrum, Kant explored the duty to tell the truth
0:18:37 > 0:18:40in a much debated story about lying.
0:18:42 > 0:18:49According to Kant, telling a lie, even to spare someone's feelings, is wrong.
0:18:49 > 0:18:51It's at odds with the categorical imperative.
0:18:51 > 0:18:57But suppose a friend is hiding in your house and a murderer comes to the door looking for him.
0:18:57 > 0:19:02Do you have a moral duty to tell the truth even to the murderer?
0:19:07 > 0:19:10Ist Manfred hier?
0:19:10 > 0:19:14It seems you have only two choices, both bad.
0:19:14 > 0:19:17Tell the truth, in which case you are helping the murderer...
0:19:17 > 0:19:19Ja.
0:19:22 > 0:19:24Or tell an outright lie...
0:19:24 > 0:19:27Nein.
0:19:27 > 0:19:30..thereby violating the categorical imperative.
0:19:30 > 0:19:34Kant's hard line against lying,
0:19:34 > 0:19:39even to the murderer at the door, seems difficult to defend.
0:19:39 > 0:19:42But is there something to it?
0:19:42 > 0:19:47Carolin Emcke is a war reporter and a leading German intellectual.
0:19:47 > 0:19:52Look, I don't want Kant to sound like
0:19:52 > 0:19:56completely unrealistic, irrelevant philosopher.
0:19:56 > 0:19:59If we come up with this example of the murderer,
0:19:59 > 0:20:02everybody looking this will say, "What an idiot!
0:20:02 > 0:20:05"Of course you'd lie."
0:20:05 > 0:20:10I want to defend the rigourism
0:20:10 > 0:20:16of adhering to values no matter what the circumstances, not because I
0:20:16 > 0:20:21think we would never lie in such moments - of course we would lie.
0:20:21 > 0:20:25But in order to say what would happen
0:20:25 > 0:20:32if we would defend this. What Kant reminds us of with his rigourism,
0:20:32 > 0:20:36though, is to say you lose something.
0:20:36 > 0:20:39You something when you lie,
0:20:39 > 0:20:44not just the respect of the other person, also the dignity of yourself.
0:20:44 > 0:20:47Kant's emphasis on human dignity
0:20:47 > 0:20:51has led him to be called the father of human rights.
0:20:51 > 0:20:54And his influence remains strong in modern Germany.
0:20:54 > 0:20:58The first article of the constitution declares that
0:20:58 > 0:21:03human dignity shall be inviolable, never to be compromised.
0:21:05 > 0:21:08But what happens when respecting someone's dignity
0:21:08 > 0:21:13prevents us from acting to save an innocent life?
0:21:19 > 0:21:21In 2002, Jakob von Metzler,
0:21:21 > 0:21:28the 11-year-old son of a prominent German banking family, was kidnapped.
0:21:28 > 0:21:35A few days later, the police arrested Magnus Gaefgen after he had collected the ransom money.
0:21:35 > 0:21:40But he refused to say where his victim was hidden.
0:21:40 > 0:21:46The deputy police chief of Frankfurt told this kidnapper
0:21:46 > 0:21:51that if he doesn't tell where the child is hidden, he would suffer
0:21:51 > 0:21:55in a way that he cannot even imagine.
0:21:55 > 0:21:59- He threatened to torture?- He threatened him with torture, exactly.
0:22:00 > 0:22:02The threat worked.
0:22:02 > 0:22:08Gaefgen admitted that he had already killed the boy and hidden the body.
0:22:10 > 0:22:13He was given a life sentence for murder,
0:22:13 > 0:22:16but remarkably, the deputy police chief
0:22:16 > 0:22:22was also prosecuted and convicted of violating the kidnapper's rights.
0:22:25 > 0:22:31You're trying to save an innocent child, and here you have the criminal who kidnapped him.
0:22:31 > 0:22:34The argument against it is that there are some
0:22:34 > 0:22:37inherent qualities in a person
0:22:37 > 0:22:42that a person cannot forfeit, even by doing the worst deeds possible.
0:22:42 > 0:22:50According to Kantian ethics, you're not allowed to just use a person,
0:22:50 > 0:22:53to just abuse him, to hurt him, to torture him,
0:22:53 > 0:22:58to get something out of him, even if the purpose of this was good.
0:22:58 > 0:23:05- Because that's using a person as a means, rather than respecting him as an end?- Exactly.
0:23:05 > 0:23:06Even though he's a criminal?
0:23:06 > 0:23:12- A kidnapper!- Even though he's a criminal, even though we think he didn't really act...
0:23:12 > 0:23:19He didn't have much dignity in his own actions, and why should you treat him with respect and dignity?
0:23:19 > 0:23:24Exactly. You're not allowed to treat a person as a means for another end.
0:23:24 > 0:23:26Now here's what a utilitarian would say.
0:23:26 > 0:23:32A utilitarian would say, "You've defended Kant
0:23:32 > 0:23:35"on his categorical principle,
0:23:35 > 0:23:41"but you've just shown what is morally absurd about the Kantian position."
0:23:41 > 0:23:49Within the utilitarian way of thinking about moral issues or moral cases,
0:23:49 > 0:23:56you cannot distinguish in the end any more what kind of action is good and what kind of action is bad.
0:23:56 > 0:24:01It's totally relative.
0:24:01 > 0:24:05In some instances it's good to torture, in other instances it's not good to torture.
0:24:05 > 0:24:08What about respect for human dignity?
0:24:08 > 0:24:12Well, I again I would say what about respect for the dignity of the child?
0:24:12 > 0:24:15Here is a child who is locked up somewhere,
0:24:15 > 0:24:19going to die slowly from hunger and thirst.
0:24:19 > 0:24:23There's no way that's a dignified thing to do to the child.
0:24:23 > 0:24:27As a utilitarian I would say if I know that I can save the child
0:24:27 > 0:24:31and I don't, then I'm responsible for that child's death.
0:24:31 > 0:24:32That's what, in my view,
0:24:32 > 0:24:37Kantians refuse to acknowledge - their responsibility for the things
0:24:37 > 0:24:40that they don't do that could save lives.
0:24:40 > 0:24:46In the German case, the kidnapping case, they were confident that they had identified the perpetrator.
0:24:46 > 0:24:52Let's assume that's the case, but the perpetrators still won't talk, even under torture.
0:24:52 > 0:24:59But he would talk if you tortured his 14-year-old daughter.
0:24:59 > 0:25:01Would you do it?
0:25:01 > 0:25:05That would be a much harder case, on an emotional level.
0:25:05 > 0:25:08I think, to torture someone who you know has done something horrible is something
0:25:08 > 0:25:15that you can psychologically come at more easily than to torture somebody who is completely innocent.
0:25:15 > 0:25:18If it's simply the one on one case here, I would say no,
0:25:18 > 0:25:21because the child you're torturing
0:25:21 > 0:25:23is just as innocent as the child who is dying.
0:25:23 > 0:25:26But if there are 10 children...
0:25:26 > 0:25:29If you up the numbers, I suppose I'm going to
0:25:29 > 0:25:36come under a lot of pressure and perhaps I will say, I don't know if I could do it, but perhaps I would say
0:25:36 > 0:25:43if you really knew that that was going to get the information to save the 10 children,
0:25:43 > 0:25:46then the right thing to do would be to torture one to save 10.
0:25:46 > 0:25:49Even an innocent girl?
0:25:49 > 0:25:51She's innocent, but so are the 10 innocent, of course.
0:25:51 > 0:25:54- And it's a matter of numbers. - It's a matter of numbers in the end.
0:25:54 > 0:25:57As a war reporter, I have to say...
0:25:59 > 0:26:02I can see...
0:26:03 > 0:26:10I speak to people who are victims of this kind of thinking.
0:26:10 > 0:26:17If you talk to people who were tortured badly, exactly with that kind of argument...
0:26:21 > 0:26:29It's so evident why you need Kantian thinking as the guidance, per se,
0:26:29 > 0:26:34to stop people from thinking they could use others as a means.
0:26:34 > 0:26:37For me, that's...
0:26:37 > 0:26:40I see it on every single trip I make,
0:26:40 > 0:26:43to whichever country, wherever I speak to people
0:26:43 > 0:26:48who were abused, who were tortured, who were
0:26:48 > 0:26:54mistreated with such kind of argument that, "It's for a purpose.
0:26:54 > 0:26:59"There's a good end to this. There's a reason why we can torture people."
0:26:59 > 0:27:02It's devastating to see that.
0:27:02 > 0:27:06So, I'm deeply convinced that Kantian thinking
0:27:06 > 0:27:11is the best guidance we have to protect human rights.
0:27:13 > 0:27:17The von Metzler case prompted much debate
0:27:17 > 0:27:22over Germany's constitutional commitment to human dignity.
0:27:22 > 0:27:24Those debates intensified
0:27:24 > 0:27:27as Germany and the rest of the world
0:27:27 > 0:27:29entered the age of terror.
0:27:49 > 0:27:53After the 9/11 attacks, flying was transformed
0:27:53 > 0:27:57from a symbol of freedom, into a sign of vulnerability.
0:27:59 > 0:28:03All over the world, governments enacted new policies
0:28:03 > 0:28:07to combat the threat of international terrorism.
0:28:07 > 0:28:11In Germany, one of the most controversial laws
0:28:11 > 0:28:15was the Aviation Security Act, which gave the German air force
0:28:15 > 0:28:21permission to shoot down any hijacked plane that could be used in a terrorist attack.
0:28:24 > 0:28:26The law was heavily debated,
0:28:26 > 0:28:28also in constitutional terms.
0:28:28 > 0:28:34I don't remember many laws that were so seriously debated before it was enacted, not only in parliament
0:28:34 > 0:28:37but in the general public as to its constitutionality.
0:28:37 > 0:28:42A year later, however, Germany's constitutional court overturned
0:28:42 > 0:28:46the law, saying it violated the dignity of the passengers and crew.
0:28:46 > 0:28:50The court interestingly enough used the formula of Kant.
0:28:50 > 0:28:54They didn't quote Kant, but it used the formula of Kant, that dignity
0:28:54 > 0:29:00means that you may not treat a person as a mere object for other purposes.
0:29:00 > 0:29:05- Everybody is a purpose in himself or herself.- An end in himself?
0:29:05 > 0:29:10An end in himself and herself, and you may not treat a person as a mere object for other purposes.
0:29:10 > 0:29:15But you see a plane flying into the World Trade Center
0:29:15 > 0:29:21and you decide not to shoot it down, because you respect the passengers as ends in themselves.
0:29:21 > 0:29:23What about thousands of people
0:29:23 > 0:29:27who in a few seconds will die in the World Trade Center?
0:29:27 > 0:29:29Aren't they also ends in themselves?
0:29:29 > 0:29:31Oh, yeah, they are also ends in themselves.
0:29:31 > 0:29:36But I think it makes a difference whether the state acts or does not act.
0:29:36 > 0:29:41I know, of course, that not acting is also a way of acting.
0:29:41 > 0:29:48But I think if the act is killing, if the act is killing
0:29:48 > 0:29:53innocent people, I think it has a different category than letting things happen.
0:29:53 > 0:30:00Why don't the numbers matter morally, a few hundred on a plane verses tens of thousands
0:30:00 > 0:30:08on the ground, especially when those few hundred on a plane are going to die in a matter of minutes anyhow?
0:30:08 > 0:30:16You are not allowed to really think, well, this life only lasts a few more hours or minutes whereas the life of
0:30:16 > 0:30:22the others who might be killed by that plane or live in a city might have lasted many more years.
0:30:22 > 0:30:25That is irrelevant. It is unconditional.
0:30:25 > 0:30:29I think this is a Kantian tradition gone crazy and I think it also shows
0:30:29 > 0:30:33the danger of having constitutional courts,
0:30:33 > 0:30:37that proclaim absolute rights in the face of what might be
0:30:37 > 0:30:40major public policy needs.
0:30:40 > 0:30:44Presumably, if they think that is a right, they would think the same would be true if you had to
0:30:44 > 0:30:50kill one innocent hostage to stop a nuclear bomb going off in the midst of Berlin.
0:30:50 > 0:30:53Even though when the bomb went off the hostage would be
0:30:53 > 0:30:55blown to pieces as well as five million other people.
0:30:55 > 0:30:59This is the problem with rights and this is where utilitarianism has such a huge
0:30:59 > 0:31:05advantage over rights, because if you get into an absolute right mode you could be saying these things
0:31:05 > 0:31:12whereas the utilitarian would say, five million lives lost or one life, which anyway won't last much longer?
0:31:12 > 0:31:15Obviously better to take one life now and save the five million.
0:31:28 > 0:31:34Germany today still bears the marks of its morally burdened history.
0:31:34 > 0:31:40The remnants of the Berlin Wall that divided the city during the Cold War.
0:31:40 > 0:31:45The stark lines of Nazi architecture.
0:31:45 > 0:31:52And now, a massive work of public art a few hundred metres from the German parliament.
0:31:52 > 0:31:56The memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe.
0:31:56 > 0:31:59The genocide of six million.
0:32:07 > 0:32:13For Germany's post-war generations, the insistence on human dignity
0:32:13 > 0:32:19is one way of coming to terms with the horror of the Holocaust.
0:32:19 > 0:32:26My generation is still morally responsible for the Holocaust.
0:32:26 > 0:32:33I think it doesn't matter if I committed the crime or whether it was...
0:32:33 > 0:32:40It doesn't even matter whether my grandparents personally committed any crimes, or were guilty
0:32:40 > 0:32:45of committing such crimes. That is irrelevant.
0:32:49 > 0:32:53These were so outrageous crimes and they were not just committed
0:32:53 > 0:32:57by individuals, they really were committed by an entire society.
0:32:57 > 0:33:01It was a collective crime that was committed.
0:33:01 > 0:33:04That explains why there's collective responsibility.
0:33:07 > 0:33:11When I was a child, we travelled on a school trip
0:33:11 > 0:33:18to Denmark and the children in Denmark would throw stones at us and yell at us as Nazi kids.
0:33:20 > 0:33:21You know, they were right.
0:33:23 > 0:33:27Taking responsibility for the sins of past generations
0:33:27 > 0:33:29is a powerful moral idea.
0:33:31 > 0:33:34But it's not clear that Kant's philosophy can make sense of it.
0:33:35 > 0:33:40For Kant, we are responsible only for the acts we freely choose,
0:33:40 > 0:33:45not for our country's past or for the crimes of our grandparents.
0:33:45 > 0:33:47Do you think this idea
0:33:47 > 0:33:55that you have articulated so eloquently of identity being shaped
0:33:55 > 0:33:59by nation, culture, history,
0:33:59 > 0:34:04could Kant make sense of it morally?
0:34:07 > 0:34:11Probably not. I think for a number of reasons.
0:34:11 > 0:34:14A, because Kant did not have, I think,
0:34:14 > 0:34:17as strong an understanding of psyche.
0:34:17 > 0:34:22He is not a psychologically informed philosopher.
0:34:22 > 0:34:28To some extent that's irrelevant, he would consider the idea of
0:34:28 > 0:34:31the sense of guilt, I think,
0:34:31 > 0:34:37or the sense of shame or the sense of inheriting something from
0:34:37 > 0:34:40generations before you.
0:34:42 > 0:34:45I don't think he would even have thought about this.
0:34:45 > 0:34:50Would he go even further and have a principled reason
0:34:50 > 0:34:55not to attribute any moral responsibilities?
0:34:55 > 0:34:57Probably. It's interesting.
0:34:57 > 0:35:01He doesn't speak about this so we are speculating.
0:35:01 > 0:35:04You're right, to some extent he probably would have been
0:35:04 > 0:35:08against a generation taking responsibility from a previous one.
0:35:08 > 0:35:11Because somehow that would also mean
0:35:11 > 0:35:19that generation is just an instrument of an earlier generation.
0:35:28 > 0:35:31Kant's insistence that morality means stepping back
0:35:31 > 0:35:35from our particular identities raises a difficulty.
0:35:37 > 0:35:42If all morality is something I will or choose, what about obligations of solidarity?
0:35:42 > 0:35:47Obligations bound up with the history of my people and my country?
0:35:47 > 0:35:51And there's a bigger question. Is it possible to define justice
0:35:51 > 0:35:55without first figuring out the meaning of the good life?
0:35:55 > 0:35:58Without first reflecting on the best way to live?
0:36:08 > 0:36:15These days we try to avoid bringing questions of virtue into debates about justice and politics.
0:36:15 > 0:36:19People disagree, after all, about the best way to live.
0:36:19 > 0:36:25But can politics really be neutral on moral and spiritual questions?
0:36:25 > 0:36:31To explore this, we turn to what may seem an unlikely place.
0:36:31 > 0:36:372,500 years ago in ancient Athens, we find a more demanding idea of
0:36:37 > 0:36:42citizenship and of politics than is familiar these days.
0:36:42 > 0:36:50For Aristotle, politics was not just about maximising GDP or even protecting individual rights.
0:36:50 > 0:36:52It was about the good life.
0:36:55 > 0:37:01Aristotle lived and taught in Athens in the fourth century BC.
0:37:03 > 0:37:07Aristotle, the great philosopher of Athens.
0:37:07 > 0:37:09He was not from Athens.
0:37:09 > 0:37:11Where was he from?
0:37:11 > 0:37:13He was from northern Greece, he was born in a
0:37:13 > 0:37:18small city in northern Greece, in Macedonia, Stageira it's called.
0:37:18 > 0:37:20So he was known as a Stagirite.
0:37:20 > 0:37:23He came to Athens at age 17.
0:37:23 > 0:37:27- What brought him here? - To study at Plato's academy.
0:37:27 > 0:37:28Apparently, he studied for 20 years.
0:37:28 > 0:37:33He did the full course of study, which means...
0:37:33 > 0:37:3520 years to get a degree?
0:37:35 > 0:37:38To get the degree to join the teaching body.
0:37:38 > 0:37:40Even our graduate students don't spend that long!
0:37:40 > 0:37:45- Well, they studied better in that period!- Probably! - THEY LAUGH
0:37:53 > 0:37:58For Aristotle, morality is not about absolute rules and abstract principles.
0:37:58 > 0:38:02It's about developing good character and virtue.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08This is something we learn by doing.
0:38:08 > 0:38:13By acquiring good habits and by emulating the behaviour of virtuous people.
0:38:20 > 0:38:25For Aristotle, justice means distributing things according to virtue.
0:38:25 > 0:38:27According to the relevant excellence.
0:38:27 > 0:38:31For example, who should receive the best musical instruments?
0:38:31 > 0:38:34The best bouzoukis? Aristotle's answer?
0:38:34 > 0:38:35The best musicians.
0:38:35 > 0:38:39They excel in the relevant virtue.
0:38:39 > 0:38:42Aristotle extends this reasoning to politics.
0:38:42 > 0:38:45Who should receive the highest offices and honours,
0:38:45 > 0:38:48who should wield the greatest influence in the assembly?
0:38:48 > 0:38:51Aristotle says those who are greatest in civic virtue.
0:38:51 > 0:38:56Those with the best political judgment and the deepest commitment to the common good.
0:38:57 > 0:39:01For Aristotle, we are, by nature, political beings.
0:39:01 > 0:39:05We can only develop our full human capacities
0:39:05 > 0:39:08by participating in a political community.
0:39:08 > 0:39:11Or polis.
0:39:11 > 0:39:14This is the Agora, the heart of ancient Athens.
0:39:14 > 0:39:17It included the marketplace, the civic buildings
0:39:17 > 0:39:20and public spaces where citizens gathered.
0:39:20 > 0:39:24Aristotle tells us that the purpose of politics or the
0:39:24 > 0:39:28political community is not just to provide us
0:39:28 > 0:39:33with security and not just to ease commerce and exchange.
0:39:33 > 0:39:35The point of politics, the purpose,
0:39:35 > 0:39:39the telos of the political community, is the good life.
0:39:39 > 0:39:41What does he mean by that?
0:39:41 > 0:39:43A good and full life.
0:39:43 > 0:39:49That is the fullness of human potential.
0:39:49 > 0:39:52Which includes
0:39:52 > 0:39:58public service, especially exercising responsibility in public life.
0:39:58 > 0:40:00But also a full intellectual life.
0:40:00 > 0:40:03So the life of political participation,
0:40:03 > 0:40:07the life of the polis, was not only to make the policies
0:40:07 > 0:40:09and make them well,
0:40:09 > 0:40:13it was to provide a civic education for the participants?
0:40:13 > 0:40:16Civic education which would lead
0:40:16 > 0:40:20to the maturity of personality.
0:40:20 > 0:40:27The personality grows through this process of public exposure and public action.
0:40:27 > 0:40:34So participating in politics was a way of improving your character, even? Shaping our character?
0:40:34 > 0:40:40Shaping and improving our character and realising our natural sociability.
0:40:42 > 0:40:46In Athens today, some still believe
0:40:46 > 0:40:51that modern Greek politics could learn a lot from Aristotle's ideas.
0:40:51 > 0:40:55The political life does not mean what we have today.
0:40:55 > 0:40:58Just politics. It means civil life,
0:40:58 > 0:41:02it means civic association and everything that
0:41:02 > 0:41:05goes with it. Being a part of a group as well as an individual and not just
0:41:05 > 0:41:11an individual who is a number in a huge mass or a huge structure.
0:41:11 > 0:41:15- Taking your pleasure with the others.- With the others?
0:41:15 > 0:41:17Sharing in the common good?
0:41:17 > 0:41:20- Not just pleasure. - No, but also pleasure.
0:41:20 > 0:41:24- Also pleasure. - Pleasure in deliberating, pleasure
0:41:24 > 0:41:28in deciding. Pleasure in obeying.
0:41:28 > 0:41:33That kind of pleasure takes place in the Assembly rather than in the shopping mall?
0:41:33 > 0:41:36Not just the Assembly. The Assembly is a tool.
0:41:36 > 0:41:40It is the life of the polis that is important.
0:41:40 > 0:41:42Politics is the tool for
0:41:42 > 0:41:48taking and realising this life and bringing it to its utmost potential.
0:41:48 > 0:41:50In a purely private life...
0:41:53 > 0:41:58That is probably the main difference between ancient Greece and modern
0:41:58 > 0:42:02European culture. The individual does not exist
0:42:02 > 0:42:04in ancient Greek culture.
0:42:04 > 0:42:09The notion of liberty does not exist in ancient philosophy.
0:42:09 > 0:42:12- Of individual liberty? - Of the individual.
0:42:12 > 0:42:16The notion is idiotic, the private person...
0:42:16 > 0:42:21- An idiot?- An idiot.- It is the word. Same.- Someone who has a purely private life?
0:42:21 > 0:42:27The etymology of the world idiot means a private person.
0:42:27 > 0:42:30He who chooses to be private is an idiot.
0:42:30 > 0:42:33What is wrong with a good, upright, private life,
0:42:33 > 0:42:38- according to Aristotle?- There is nothing wrong with it.
0:42:38 > 0:42:42Except that it remains incomplete,
0:42:42 > 0:42:49it remains limited to the level of domestic household activity.
0:42:49 > 0:42:52And that is not good enough.
0:42:52 > 0:42:54If you want to be a full person, a mature person,
0:42:54 > 0:43:00you have to participate in politics and you have to participate in politics in a virtuous manner.
0:43:00 > 0:43:05It's not enough to go and try to sway public opinion, you have to be
0:43:05 > 0:43:09mature enough and knowledgeable enough to be able to guide public opinion.
0:43:13 > 0:43:17This is the Assembly, where the citizens of Athens would
0:43:17 > 0:43:22gather to debate and decide the big public questions of the day.
0:43:22 > 0:43:276,000 to 10,000 of them would fill this open air assembly
0:43:27 > 0:43:31and they would listen to speakers, sometimes great orators.
0:43:31 > 0:43:34The orators would stand up here on this platform
0:43:34 > 0:43:36and they would make their case,
0:43:36 > 0:43:40they would advance arguments on all sides of public questions.
0:43:40 > 0:43:43Deciding, for example, whether to go to war with Sparta.
0:43:43 > 0:43:46It was a remarkable kind of direct democracy.
0:43:46 > 0:43:51Because if the people decided to go to war, they knew that they would be
0:43:51 > 0:43:54the ones, in a matter of days sometimes, to go off and fight it.
0:43:54 > 0:43:59CHANTING AND SHOUTING
0:44:06 > 0:44:09These days, Athens is not threatened by Sparta.
0:44:09 > 0:44:15But the current global economic crisis has caused Greece to go to war with itself.
0:44:18 > 0:44:24In 2010, it struggled with the financial crisis that engulfed the world.
0:44:24 > 0:44:30The age of austerity brought demonstrations and disturbances all around Europe.
0:44:32 > 0:44:35In Greece, the crisis was particularly acute.
0:44:35 > 0:44:43Faced with national bankruptcy, the Greek government proposed stringent cuts to the public sector.
0:44:43 > 0:44:47This was met with huge demonstrations and violent confrontations.
0:44:50 > 0:44:55My sympathies were for the demonstrators and against
0:44:55 > 0:44:59all violent actions, that were outside the scope,
0:44:59 > 0:45:04the system of simple, non-violent demonstration.
0:45:04 > 0:45:10Because a demonstration is one of the possibilities
0:45:10 > 0:45:14of civil society to make itself heard.
0:45:17 > 0:45:21The violence culminated with the deaths of three employees
0:45:21 > 0:45:25who were killed when their bank was firebombed.
0:45:25 > 0:45:33I would say that what it certainly refers to, even violence, is a general sense of
0:45:33 > 0:45:37incapacity of the population to take decisions about the future.
0:45:37 > 0:45:40A sense of disempowerment?
0:45:40 > 0:45:41Yes, disempowerment.
0:45:41 > 0:45:45A lack of confidence in the political system
0:45:45 > 0:45:50and the parties and representative democracy in general.
0:45:50 > 0:45:55I would say that my heart was with the problem that many
0:45:55 > 0:46:00of the people are facing, because of the austerity measures.
0:46:00 > 0:46:06But there is, to me, a small hypocrisy in the sense that we are all part of the problem.
0:46:06 > 0:46:11And demonstration is great as a negative message, but
0:46:11 > 0:46:16what we need now is positive messages which cannot come from demonstration.
0:46:16 > 0:46:19And those, I'm not hearing.
0:46:29 > 0:46:32The polarised politics of modern Greece seems
0:46:32 > 0:46:37far removed from Aristotle's vision of civic virtue and the common good.
0:46:37 > 0:46:45In an age of austerity, it can be hard to see how politics can aim at higher ideals.
0:46:45 > 0:46:49Does this mean that Bentham's utilitarianism has won the day?
0:46:49 > 0:46:52That Kant and Aristotle have nothing to offer?
0:46:52 > 0:46:55Both Kant and Aristotle are defeated.
0:46:55 > 0:47:00- They are defeated?- In numbers.
0:47:00 > 0:47:03They are defeated by...?
0:47:03 > 0:47:09- By reality.- By the sheer monstrous and irreversible reality. I'm very pessimistic.
0:47:09 > 0:47:16If you were to identify one of the thinkers who has more practice today, I would say it's definitely Bentham.
0:47:16 > 0:47:22- Bentham?- Yes. If we see what's going on around us, who is more realistic?
0:47:22 > 0:47:24Absolutely, I agree.
0:47:24 > 0:47:26Not whom we agree with more.
0:47:26 > 0:47:31But who would say, if he lived today, I told you so.
0:47:31 > 0:47:33THEY LAUGH
0:47:33 > 0:47:39Utilitarianism is the ethic that fits the modern world?
0:47:39 > 0:47:43- Oh, yes.- That describes it.- It fits it.- Yes.
0:47:43 > 0:47:46But you think it is an impoverished ideal?
0:47:46 > 0:47:48- Yes.- Of course.
0:47:48 > 0:47:50And it is impoverished because?
0:47:50 > 0:47:56It is impoverished because I would be very Aristotelian on this.
0:47:56 > 0:48:02Because it makes human life something much less than what it could be
0:48:02 > 0:48:05in the right context and in the right structures.
0:48:05 > 0:48:09Let's say that Aristotle can speak directly to Jeremy Bentham
0:48:09 > 0:48:14and Bentham's idea of utilitarianism. What would he say?
0:48:14 > 0:48:21Bentham would want a simpler, more straightforward satisfaction of human pleasures.
0:48:21 > 0:48:25And this is the democratic approach.
0:48:25 > 0:48:29Aristotle has an aristocratic approach, he wants to make people aristeia,
0:48:29 > 0:48:33- which means cultivate their excellencies.- It means?
0:48:33 > 0:48:35It means excellent, the best.
0:48:35 > 0:48:41Whereas for Bentham, he just takes our preferences as given, whatever
0:48:41 > 0:48:47they happen to be, good, bad or indifferent, worthy or unworthy, and says we should maximise...
0:48:47 > 0:48:52Try to make as many people happy as possible by satisfying those pleasures.
0:48:52 > 0:48:56And from Aristotle's point of view, that is impoverished because?
0:48:56 > 0:49:02Because it doesn't give, let's say, a motivation or stimulus for the
0:49:02 > 0:49:06cultivation of the better part within us.
0:49:11 > 0:49:14Aristotle's ideal of citizenship did not include everyone.
0:49:14 > 0:49:19Women were excluded and so were slaves.
0:49:19 > 0:49:24And yet, despite these moral blind spots, Aristotle's vision of civic
0:49:24 > 0:49:30virtue and political participation can still teach us something today.
0:49:30 > 0:49:35It reminds us that there is more to justice than utility and rights.
0:49:35 > 0:49:40And more to politics than the pursuit of self-interest.
0:49:40 > 0:49:43Aristotle's ancient idea that democracy should aim for
0:49:43 > 0:49:49the common good is inspiring a new civic activism in some unusual places.
0:49:49 > 0:49:55- OK, so what is a political philosopher?- A political philosopher is someone who
0:49:55 > 0:50:01asks questions, asks questions about the way the world is, and gets people to think.
0:50:03 > 0:50:09This is London Citizens. A British organisation that draws inspiration from the Greek polis.
0:50:11 > 0:50:15Today, 2,000 students, school children and young people
0:50:15 > 0:50:19have crammed into the O2 Centre for their Citizens Youth Assembly.
0:50:21 > 0:50:25In this hall, which usually stages rock concerts, they are celebrating
0:50:25 > 0:50:29a series of successful campaigns they have organised,
0:50:29 > 0:50:34from safer street initiatives to a long-running campaign
0:50:34 > 0:50:38to get London employers to pay all their workers a living wage.
0:50:38 > 0:50:42In London, life is very expensive.
0:50:42 > 0:50:49This is why London Citizens 10 years ago started asking large employers like universities, hospitals,
0:50:49 > 0:50:55banks and many others to pay their staff about £2 an hour more than they would normally get.
0:50:55 > 0:51:01# She cleans, she scrubs, she rub-a-dub-a-dubs... #
0:51:01 > 0:51:03Groups such as this are a model
0:51:03 > 0:51:06of what citizenship can mean in a modern world.
0:51:08 > 0:51:13They start with concrete problems facing neighbourhoods and communities.
0:51:13 > 0:51:21And they start young, educating even these schoolchildren in the hard work of democratic citizenship.
0:51:21 > 0:51:23But they aim at something bigger.
0:51:23 > 0:51:28A just society and a new politics of the common good.
0:51:28 > 0:51:33What so impresses me about everything I have seen today,
0:51:33 > 0:51:38is that you are looking injustice in the eye
0:51:38 > 0:51:42and you're gathering together to ask hard questions.
0:51:42 > 0:51:46In a way, you are, all of you, political philosophers.
0:51:46 > 0:51:49But you're ultimately citizens because you're not
0:51:49 > 0:51:55only asking hard questions, you are also asking what you can do and what we can do together
0:51:55 > 0:52:01to make the world a better place, more just than the way we find it.
0:52:01 > 0:52:03So congratulations and thank you very much.
0:52:03 > 0:52:05APPLAUSE
0:52:05 > 0:52:09Thank you very much. It's been great meeting you.
0:52:09 > 0:52:10A very wise man. Take care.
0:52:13 > 0:52:16- So we have been Ashley J. - And I have been TJ.
0:52:16 > 0:52:21And this has been the Youth Citizens Assembly at the 02 Indigo.
0:52:21 > 0:52:26The success of London Citizens seems to reflect a hunger for a new kind of citizen engagement
0:52:26 > 0:52:34which is increasingly being recognised by mainstream politics on both sides of the left-right divide.
0:52:34 > 0:52:40John Cruddas and Phillip Blond are leading thinkers of the Labour and Tory parties.
0:52:40 > 0:52:45Both of you are critics of Bentham and utilitarianism and individual
0:52:45 > 0:52:49subjective preferences being the basis for democratic politics.
0:52:49 > 0:52:51Let me read you this passage from Aristotle
0:52:51 > 0:52:58and see whether you find that more to your liking and closer to the truth of what politics should be.
0:52:58 > 0:53:02Aristotle wrote: "A city is not an association for residents on a common site.
0:53:02 > 0:53:07"Or for the sake of preventing mutual injustice and easing exchange.
0:53:07 > 0:53:10"But what constitutes a city is an association of
0:53:10 > 0:53:15"families and households for the sake of obtaining a truly valuable life."
0:53:15 > 0:53:20- Do you agree?- I totally agree and to me that's the guiding framework of political intervention.
0:53:20 > 0:53:23The key to politics is what sort of environment allows
0:53:23 > 0:53:25that form of self-fulfilment.
0:53:25 > 0:53:33Allows for a different type of life to be lived. There is a danger in urban environments like this that
0:53:33 > 0:53:37politics becomes vulcanised around identity and race and geography.
0:53:37 > 0:53:42What are the themes that can unify people in terms of a public policy agenda?
0:53:42 > 0:53:47That is why, for example, things like London Citizens, the campaign for a living wage, are actually being
0:53:47 > 0:53:53organically created in communities with secular and religious elements to it.
0:53:53 > 0:53:56What we need is debate about subjective values
0:53:56 > 0:53:58and we need to have atheists in there
0:53:58 > 0:54:02and humanists in there and we also need to have the religions in there.
0:54:02 > 0:54:06And if you debate about the idea of universality, you sort of create
0:54:06 > 0:54:10common frameworks between people who didn't think any existed.
0:54:10 > 0:54:15What I'm in favour of is a genuine shaping of virtue
0:54:15 > 0:54:19around what people feel is most pressing and most needed.
0:54:19 > 0:54:22So if you're on an estate, for example, in inner-city London,
0:54:22 > 0:54:25and you want to save that estate from criminals and drug dealing,
0:54:25 > 0:54:29from deep impoverishment, you form a common cause with your
0:54:29 > 0:54:32neighbours and your other residents on that estate.
0:54:32 > 0:54:34You might wish to not live next door to crime,
0:54:34 > 0:54:37but you can't do anything about it as an individual.
0:54:37 > 0:54:42If you're really serious about individual choice, you can only deliver it through groups.
0:54:42 > 0:54:48But there's another alternative. Some say in modern pluralist societies, we have to give up
0:54:48 > 0:54:52on that ancient project of civic virtue,
0:54:52 > 0:54:56the educative political community, and simply live
0:54:56 > 0:54:59and let live and have a neutral framework of rights
0:54:59 > 0:55:04that doesn't aspire to the good life. That is the alternative.
0:55:04 > 0:55:07Yes, and then we retreat into our initial departure point,
0:55:07 > 0:55:12- which is selfishness as a guiding human virtue.- You think that's the only alternative?
0:55:12 > 0:55:18That's where you end up. If you give up on that, you give up on politics
0:55:18 > 0:55:21as a search for that common good.
0:55:21 > 0:55:27Then you end up with quite an empty, isolated conception of how we live our lives.
0:55:27 > 0:55:34The political parties have yet to deliver a new politics of the common good.
0:55:34 > 0:55:36But the most prominent politicians of our day
0:55:36 > 0:55:41are trying to tap into the desire for a more strenuous citizenship,
0:55:41 > 0:55:43for a public life of larger purpose.
0:55:43 > 0:55:46You can hear it in their rhetoric.
0:55:46 > 0:55:50I know what to say to the cynics and the doubters and the smart Alecs
0:55:50 > 0:55:54who say to me, there is no appetite for people in this country
0:55:54 > 0:55:56to get involved in social action,
0:55:56 > 0:56:00there's no commitment to the common good any more, it's each to his own.
0:56:00 > 0:56:03There's no spirit of non-state collective action,
0:56:03 > 0:56:07it's just me and the Government, not we and the community.
0:56:07 > 0:56:10What rubbish that is. Now I say to those people, come here,
0:56:10 > 0:56:14look around you, here is the appetite, here is the commitment,
0:56:14 > 0:56:18here is the spirit of social action that this country needs,
0:56:18 > 0:56:21here is the Big Society right here in this room.
0:56:21 > 0:56:25What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility.
0:56:25 > 0:56:28A recognition on the part of every American,
0:56:28 > 0:56:33that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world.
0:56:33 > 0:56:37Duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly.
0:56:37 > 0:56:40Firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit,
0:56:40 > 0:56:45so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
0:56:47 > 0:56:50This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
0:56:56 > 0:57:02In the end, civic renewal will not come from presidents or prime ministers.
0:57:02 > 0:57:07It will only come, as it always has, when we decide to ask more from politics.
0:57:07 > 0:57:09And more from ourselves.
0:57:10 > 0:57:14When we find our way to a new, more demanding citizenship.
0:57:14 > 0:57:21When we learn to engage more directly in the public square with moral questions that matter.
0:57:21 > 0:57:25However hard and contested those questions may be.
0:57:25 > 0:57:28Which brings us back to philosophy.
0:57:28 > 0:57:31Philosophy seems sometimes to take place from on high.
0:57:31 > 0:57:34At a distance from the world.
0:57:34 > 0:57:40That's because there's always a gap between the way the world is and the way it ought to be.
0:57:40 > 0:57:45But if you look at the disagreements we have every day, lying just beneath the surface are big
0:57:45 > 0:57:50questions about justice and rights and the meaning of the common good.
0:57:50 > 0:57:54Grappling with these questions is not only a job for the philosophers,
0:57:54 > 0:57:58it is also what it means to be a citizen.
0:58:04 > 0:58:09If you want to find out more about justice and philosophy, go to:
0:58:13 > 0:58:16And follow the links to the Open University.
0:58:28 > 0:58:31Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd
0:58:31 > 0:58:35Email subtitling@bbc.co.uk