 Fulbright Taiwan is celebrating 60 years of educational exchange and has provided scholarships to over 3,000 grantees. I'm William Vokey, the executive director of Fulbright Taiwan. Fulbright sends Taiwanese to America and brings Americans to Taiwan. We send scholars both ways to do research and to teach. Students both ways to get graduate degrees and do research and language teachers both ways to teach either Mandarin or English. Fulbright Taiwan has been an intimate part of Taiwan's economic and democratic development supported by both the US and Taiwan authorities. The vision of Senator Fulbright was a world with a little more knowledge and a little less conflict. He believed that educational exchange would not only enrich our lives with knowledge but would also lay a foundation of cross-cultural understanding that could be the basis for a more peaceful world. Our keynote speaker today fits perfectly into that vision. Dr. Michael Sandell teaches political philosophy at Harvard. Newsweek describes him as the most relevant living philosopher or a rock star moralist. The new republic as the most famous teacher of philosophy in the world. Dr. Sandell has done the impossible. He's made political philosophy fun and engaging without losing its nuance or its depth. His legendary course Justice is the first Harvard MOOC to be freely available online and has been viewed by millions around the world including in China where China Newsweek named him the most influential foreign figure of the year. Described by the Guardian as the man who is currently the most effective communicator of English in the world, Sandell's book and lectures have brought him the kind of popularity usually reserved for Hollywood stars and NBA players. It's a great pleasure to be here today with LeBron James. Now Dr. Michael Sandell. It's great to be back in Taiwan. Now the subject I teach is philosophy, moral and political philosophy. There are some people who think that philosophy resides in the heavens far above the world in which we live. I think philosophy belongs in the city where citizens gather because every time we make a choice about the right thing to do whether in our public life or in our everyday lives with our friends and with our families or in business. Every time we choose we presuppose we commit ourselves to some answer to the kinds of philosophical questions that great thinkers have thought about and written about. Great thinkers going back to Socrates and to Confucius. Now these days if you look around the world there is widespread unhappiness and frustration with the terms of public discourse with politicians with established political parties. We see this everywhere. I think one of the reasons for the frustration with public discourse is that we are not very good at reasoning together in public about big questions that matter including questions about values and ethics. Questions like what makes for a just society? How should we deal with rising inequality, the growing gap between rich and poor? What do we owe one another as citizens? These are the big questions of values and ethics that people want to think about and reason about and even argue about together. So I think our public life would go better if we overcame the habit of avoiding these questions in public discourse. Now what might a better kind of public discourse look like? One that addressed more directly the big ethical questions that matter and that people care about? Well to try to answer this question I would like to engage with you in a discussion of some ethical questions we face today. Are you willing to join me in that kind of discussion? Yes? All right now you have two different colored pages is that right? All right so you're ready? Now I'm going to put some questions to you and I want to get your views and so we'll vote but more than that after we vote I want to hear your reasons your arguments. Now I'd like to begin with a question related to justice between generations. I've been reading about the debate going on here in Taiwan about pensions and about the debate about pension reform and I would like to begin by asking you this question. Consider these two opinions about pensions and pension reform. Opinion one is this. The government should spend less on generous pensions and more on childcare, long-term care, and early childhood education. That's opinion one. Opinion two says even generous pensions that may be expensive represent a promise to an older generation of workers and that promise should not be broken. So two opinions how many agree raise the yellow page. If you agree with opinion one government should spend less on pensions and more on childcare, long-term care, and early childhood education. Now keep the yellow cards up and if you agree with opinion two pensions as a promise raise the gray card. All right in this audience all right thank you for that. In this audience it looks like there are more people who agree with opinion one about pensions. So let's begin with those of you who voted for opinion one and who will begin our discussion by offering us a reason an argument in favor of the idea that the government should spend less on pensions and more on these other policies. First tell us your name and then tell us why you voted the way you did. My name is Megan Ferguson and I voted as I did partially because I think there's a lot of evidence that supports the idea that the earlier children get education and the longer term their care is the more they will likely make in their lifetime and the more person makes in their lifetime the more there is available for pensions even if the percentage that we use for pensions stays the same in the long run or is even cut so that we can spend those funds on other things like this care. So I think overall by focusing in the short term on turning to care and turning to childhood will be more likely to provide for our elders in the long run. Okay thank you for that so Megan makes a long term argument about what will actually generate funds to grow the size of the economic pie. Let's hear from someone now who disagrees someone who voted for the opinion that a pension even what may seem like an overly generous pension represents a promise to a previous generation of workers who will give us his or her reason done here. Dr. Sando my name is Akira and my argument is actually simple. I don't think this paying for too much is very fair but if I can trust the government on this that they will keep their promise then I can trust them on anything else. So a promise is a promise and tell and there are some people who are agreeing with you over here I can tell and tell me your name again. My name is Akira. Akira keep the microphone for the moment. And let's hear from someone who disagrees with Akira stand up now wait tell us your name first of all. Hi everyone. Hi Dr. Sando my name is Jane Wong. Jane. Yes. All right speak directly to Akira Jane and you heard his argument a promise is a promise it's a basis of trust what do you say to that. Well actually I would like to disagree with both and actually agree with both in the sense that I think both are important however if we remain on only one side and there's no side that's gonna win in the end and so I propose a third way it has to be a third way which is that for example you keep your promise what the elderly need is to have their needs met and to feel secure in their golden years right and so that's you may not it may not take the form of a generous pension anymore but you can you can break down what their needs are for example they want they need company they need care and but maybe you can create a different kind of institution for example I heard an idea I don't know if it's exists yet where you can combine nurseries with elderly care and you create what essentially villages used to do which is a multi-generational kind of place where everyone can interact and have their needs met so then you would have childhood education and early childhood care along with you know wisdom from the elderly and then they would be able to company the elderly and you know you can spend your money together that way. All right so you're looking for an alternative change you aren't if you don't mind my asking you're not by any chance considering a career in politics are you? I am currently working on something I would love to share one day with Fulbrighters but not politics not politics but includes politics but now I want to but Akira I watched Akira listening to what you said and it sounds like as far as the expectation of retirees who say they were promised the eight let's be specific the 18% annual payout of the lump sum they had accumulated prior to 1995 I believe now for them Jane's alternative proposal might not be they might not consider that keeping the promise though do you agree with that? I log about it but yes they could well we could address their concern what would what would you say Akira? Actually I think I agree with the expectation thing because I believe that the government did not give them 18% for nothing so they must have sacrificed something or the government must have promised them for because they done something at first so when they done the sacrifice they expect to get something back and now you're taking that away from them is taking the taking the trust of our government away because now I can now I can no longer be sure that when the government promises me that okay you do this first now and I will pay you back someday I can no longer trust you alright so Akira sticks by the the moral weight of a promise bound up with trust who can address that argument directly someone who disagrees with Akira but who has an argument a reply to this very strong claim about a promise and trust raise your hand if you have a reply yes what do you think? I'll use English for now sorry I'm Emily and I just kind of want to respond and qualify that so you say that a promise is a promise but you also have to take into consideration the context and the time at which the promise was made because now this is years and years later that these pensions are actually being paid back so you have to consider that the circumstances under which the promise was made may have changed over that time so that doesn't mean that the significance of the promise is any less but it might be necessary to sort of alter some of the numbers in order to better echo the circumstances as they are quick reply what do you say? I believe that's that's not the person that that's not the thing that I need to think about it's the person who gave me but gave me the promise that needs to think about before giving me the promise alright so if if you if you came to me and said you wanted to borrow a hundred dollars and you promised to pay it back and then you promised to pay it back next month and next month you came and said well my circumstances have changed you would still consider that you owe me the money yes yes what about that? I think we're also looking at a different time span here so we're talking about years that have not just a month but years that have changed that's relevant here I suppose just to put a challenge to Akira well the number of workers who are working compared to the number of people who have retired that's changed dramatically today even even about a decade ago there were nine workers for every sorry there were nine workers for every retiree and today there are six and with a low birth rate and expanding longevity people living longer there are fewer and fewer workers today for every retiree the ratio is shrinking what do you say to that? well well I don't think it's if what I'm going to say is politically correct but to be honest those people who were promised to give this amount of money they won't live for forever they will eventually pass away and then this thing will be end for good so you have to keep the government has to keep its promise because it's not like it will go on forever and it will just make our nation down it won't it will last like for 30 years alright so Akira is sticking very strongly to his argument is there someone who in the course of this discussion has begun to change his or her mind or rethink the position with which you began is there anyone yet who is beginning to yes you are what's your name? you just call me Raymond so I originally agree with Akira about about the position of a promise is a promise and I think that the government should stick to this promise part of it is because not only the government shouldn't be compared to a person aha since the government's promise is on a larger scale and with more heavier ethical heaviness yes so I think it should be preserved but right now I think that yes because the government shouldn't be compared to it to an individual so we shouldn't consider them with the classical view of personal credit right all right it's a very interesting suggestion you've begun to change your thinking first you accepted the model the image the metaphor of an individual promise Akira to me for the hundred dollars but as you've thought about it you began to wonder whether a collective promise made by a government or a large political community may be somewhat different from a promise that one person makes to another person is that right yes indeed all right so and it raises a very interesting philosophical question about the extent to which a government or a political community at a particular historical moment can make a promise or undertake a commitment that morally binds future generations it's very interesting and to explore that question we would have to explore the very interesting philosophical question of whether moral commitments and moral responsibilities to what extent must they be individual and to what extent can they be collective and extended across time I can commit myself to repay Akira a hundred dollars next month but can a political community or can a generation make a commitment that binds future generations maybe so but then the question arises well just how many future generations the next generation what about the one after that what about a generation a hundred years from now so this is a very interesting suggestion and and you're now trying to figure out what you think about the original question okay I think we should consider that the government and its society is a productive collective entity and it is considered particularly politically continuous yeah yes so the individual which compares to the societies is continually changing okay very very good to a certain extent you would you would say that the two societies in different time points are individually on a similar right and different right it's very interesting too because it raises questions sometimes very difficult fraught controversial questions about the moral responsibility of one generation to redress wrongs that may have been committed by their grandparents generation and that too raises questions about whether moral responsibility can reach across time whether it can be collective as well as individual and to what extent do we bear the burdens of moral responsibility for acts our great-grandparents generation may have committed I want to thank everyone who's joined in this first round of discussion on tension what we already see is beginning with the discussion of a very concrete policy question leads us to some very interesting and important broader philosophical questions I'd like to shift to a different kind of example but also a contemporary political and policy question the use of nuclear power now the Taiwan government has recently announced it's going to transition away from reliance on nuclear power how many how many think that's a good idea how many people are in favor of Taiwan not relying beginning in the near future on nuclear power raise yellow if you want to transition away raise gray if you think Taiwan should continue nuclear power here I see quite a mix more of an even divide I see a lot of people want to get rid of nuclear power but about an equal number want to continue with it now here's a related question I would like a question related to nuclear power that I would like to ask you let's suppose that for the moment given the use of nuclear power there's a need to store the waste somewhere the radioactive waste and much of that waste in the case of Taiwan as I understand it is stored is an orchard orchard island is that right orchard island and the people on orchard island are not very happy about having more and more nuclear waste stored there and so the question rises what to do with it now here's one possible solution I would like to get your reaction to suppose there's a country maybe a poor country somewhere in the world maybe a number of such countries who are looking for ways to make money and suppose countries including at Taiwan that want to store their nuclear waste somewhere else enter into a deal with say a poor country in Africa will ship you our nuclear waste to store and we will pay you a good amount of money to accept it and suppose there are countries willing to accept this deal to accept monetary payment to store Taiwan's nuclear waste how many people think this would be a good idea and how many people find it morally objectionable how many people think it's wrong let's so let's if you think it's a good idea raise the yellow card if you think it's morally objectionable raise the gray card the majority mixed opinion the majority seem to find it objectionable let's hear from someone who's raised the gray card why is it objectionable what's wrong if if both countries agree what's wrong with it who will begin our discussion of nuclear waste disposal for pay outsourcing so to speak nuclear waste storage yes stand up and tell us your name hello my name is Emily the question I want to kind of ask in response is who is truly making that decision in the poor country that the nuclear waste would be sent to is the decision being made by presumably wealthy well-advantaged politicians where I would not hesitate to say the waste will not be stored in their backyard or is that decision made as a country as a whole so that's kind of make a difference you suspect it will be a leaps who will make those decisions aren't most decisions made that way in developing countries and that they won't bear the burden of their choice yes and even if they do once again money pays for health care so if there were health consequences they would not be as consequential would your pay what and what's your name Emily Emily would your opinion differ you you said that these are probably not going to be democratically made decisions but suppose that they were then would that remove your objection that would remove that specific objection I think I have other ones but that was my primary one all right let's see all right let's see if there are others who have objections we have one objection from Emily that she doubts that these decisions will be democratically made they'll be made by elites but suppose for the sake of argument just to test the principle that it would be democratically made in the developing country does someone have a further objection let's hear from someone who favors the idea of paying the country way back in the corner stand up paying other countries countries that are willing to accept the waste what's your name hello my name is Anita and I think that this is a typical way how to deal with externalities from economical point of view and let's say this country is really poor they don't have enough money for schools for infrastructure so for storing this waste they can maybe use this money for building new infrastructure for improving health care for improving life standard so why not to use it because maybe there will be a new scientist who will come from this country who will in the end find a way how to work with this a nuclear power and with this waste and who will find a solution so why not to improve a living standard in the country okay if we can good and you mentioned it this is a classic way of dealing with what you call an externality you aren't by any chance an economist yeah I have economist background I see all right so Anita has provided a strong economic argument in favor of doing this the country that receives the money can use that money to improve the lives of their people and let's assume they do it's true that elites might use it white squander it on palaces or or private jets but let's suppose it's democratically decided and suppose the money is used as Anita suggests to improve the lives of the people who has a who disagrees with Anita and has a reply and I want to say again if you want to speak in Chinese feel free in whatever language you prefer who has a reply to Anita yes hi my name is Tanya I don't know if the polar bears have a leech who dominates the other polar bears but let me here thank you for that let me here another object is here's any further answer to Anita's argument that the country that accepts the nuclear waste for money should be able to make that decision both countries are better off Taiwan is better off finds a place to keep the waste the poor country is better off because it makes money that will go to the benefit we're assuming will go to the benefit of their people for health for education for improvement who has an answer to that argument yes hi my name is Uchi my response is basically that that's very idealistic if perhaps in the short term we can provide the African country can provide better schools and better health care but then afterwards they're gonna pay for the health care right all those side effects and whatnot so and then they're gonna end up paying more money for actually not nothing right so maybe ten years of kids will benefit decision and so the policy is all right you think it's wrong to outsource to an African country will give a financial payment to communities domestically here in order to compensate them do you like that idea in principle better than the outsourcing well I was more so responding to this idealistic what do you think faced with those two choices which would you prefer I don't like either of those choices why don't we go back to the original choice where Taiwan's cutting the so you get rid of nuclear power all together I mean I would defer to Emily over here so you want to get rid of it all together but while it exists is there anything what do you say go ahead what I wanted to say was well my opinion in general about two people who who agree who make agreement and are informed when they're making that agreement is that people who are outside of those those two you know people's countries are making that agreement should should respect that you know respect that they've made that choice they bought that risk just like when Taiwan is creating nuclear waste there is a risk that no one will buy that nuclear waste and they will have to sit with it right and it might cause health you know right health issues and just like an African country who decides to buy it by the nuclear waste if they made that decision being well informed they are paying for that they're getting that money and they are receiving that risk that is the cost right so if both sides are well informed yes including the country that buys the risk they they understand what the risk is whether they're buying it look domestically in a particular community or in Africa yeah so long as they're informed and they come to an agreement a deal is a deal it's a voluntary exchange and some and so nobody should criticize it yeah what what is your name my name Lena Lena all right you ever do you disagree with Lena all right why do you all right stand up and tell us why hi my name is destiny I don't have that much to say but I think that you have to take into consideration that the other country is probably underprivileged very poor and so I want to compare this situation to say somebody who's starving on the streets and working in the sex industry like is that really their choice to sell their you know they know they know what they're doing they're informed right but they're hungry yeah so what's what's the lesser of the two evils okay great let's go back and let's Lena reply you know then that's the prostitutes just if they're just like the example you gave was that it was a democratic decision the whole country made that decision right to to take in the waste yeah so if if let's just put that example to the prostitute if they did it out of yes out of necessity shouldn't be them who decides whether they want food or not and how they decide to get that food all right but then let me let me take you used an interesting word just now yeah if they you're following the analogy the challenge destiny's challenge to the to the voluntary deal let me you said suppose the prostitute does it out of necessity now is a choice made out of necessity or extreme poverty is that truly a choice that's destiny's challenge right well destiny says it's not a real choice what do you say it's not a real choice but if I I think that unless the person outside of you who who is making that not not and that okay forced decision unless someone is willing to give you that food give you that money then I don't think they should be a part of that do you know I mean if if destiny I think I do you shouldn't do that I think I should should if destiny can't help I'm sorry I don't mean to know but wait a minute so you accept you accept the force of destiny's analogy to prostitution yes and you say even in the case of a prostitute who's very poor the prostitute makes a kind of choice even under necessity and that should be permitted I I think it's like I'm not I'm not saying prostitution is like you just do it okay I'm not promoting it okay I'm just putting that out there but it's permissible it's morally permissible if it's I don't think I should judge them it's what I'm saying I don't think I should judge them for the decision that they made okay now what's interesting if you thank you for that thank you everyone who's joined in this discussion of the nuclear waste outsourcing couple of observations first you notice how this argument unfolded we began with a collective policy question one country selling its nuclear waste to another country a poor country and as we began to think about the moral arguments for and against this transaction we found ourselves drawn to an individual example just as we did in the earlier case the case about the promise we found ourselves testing a policy choice a collective decision by analogy to an individual choice borrowing $100 promising to repay next month and then the suggestion but how good is that analogy an analogy between what a country does or a political community does and what an individual may do and here in the discussion of outsourcing nuclear waste we found ourselves in a discussion of what really is a free choice what is a voluntary deal and there too the argument by analogy invoked an individual choice by a prostitute whether or not to sell her body or his body and the second interesting feature of the way this argument unfolded was it became an argument about how much necessity how much desperation is consistent with a voluntary transaction just how poor is the country that is agreeing to buy sorry to to take the nuclear waste for pay how free is the choice it's related to I suppose to the worry about elites rather than a democratically decided choice how free really how voluntary is the choice and if necessity or desperation is lying in the background of the choice does that undermine the initial thought that a voluntary exchange is a mutually beneficial deal as economic reasoning introduced by Anita suggests a deal is a deal both parties to a deal make a choice about what's in their interest and it's not for some third party some outside observer to judge that was one argument and the counter argument was but if an outside observer or anyone can determine that there was necessity or coercion or desperation maybe the market logic the logic of the voluntary deal is called into question or should be called into question like to take a third case of an issue that's been debated recently in Taiwan same-sex marriage you know that the highest court has ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage is a violation of the equality embedded in the Taiwan Constitution I'm trying to tread delicately here and some people and left it to the legislature to figure out how to change the law to make it consistent with equality they've given the legislature two years to do this there are some people who are in favor of same-sex marriage of the law recognizing same-sex marriage there are other people who are opposed so let's see what people in this room think if you are in favor of the law recognizing same-sex marriage raise the yellow and if you are against raise the gray well I see a sea of yellow with only a small handful of gray signs so let's now hear let's hear first since there's a small minority who raised the gray sign I want to begin with the minority and have someone see if there's someone who will share his or her view against the law instituting same-sex marriage well someone begin our discussion someone who is against the law recognizing same-sex marriage is there some brave person because if you don't present the argument I'll have to present hi I'm James I think that marriage as we know it is a very particular specific way in which we can experience intimacy mostly two monogamous people who share property together and I think that the institution of marriage provides a lot of social and legal benefits to a couple and in so doing it can it necessarily doesn't provide those to a lot of other people who have different ways of experiencing intimacy that isn't very specifically monogamous land sharing type of relationship is not monogamy it's the opposite sex can marry right so only the opposite sex so I think that in extending the institution of marriage we normalize that these benefits should only be extended to people who want to participate in marriage whereas the only benefit legal benefit that really is particular to marriage is the right to divorce but how is that different in the case of same-sex couples they want they want to get married the element of intimacy is present the element of monogamy can be as present in same-sex unions as opposite sex unions so what's the possibly relevant moral difference that you have in mind the difference that I what I have in mind is that in extending the right to marriage we seem to be agreeing as a society that these benefits should be only given to people who want to participate in the institution of marriage right and in so doing we discriminate against everyone who doesn't participate or doesn't want to participate in this institution of marriage and by sending it to same-sex couples yes we normalize that difference or we say that that is something that should exist all right so you're saying it's an implicit endorsement for the law to recognize same-sex marriage is implicitly to endorse same-sex intimacy no it's explicitly to endorse that to endorse the rights associated with marriage should only be associated with marriage that the the rights to the tax rights the rights to visitation all these rights right but the question is who should be have access to those rights yeah I'm just listening and I'm hearing you say and I tell me if I'm wrong that your argument against extending marriage rights to gay couples would be that it is imposing or reinforcing heteronormative norms on the gay community okay that's what I was hearing okay thank you I was helping clarify that is not my position no I understand okay that's good thank you thank you for that so it might be a kind of moral imperialism imposing heteronormativity on same-sex couples all right so that's one possible objection you also have an objection so I think when we come to this questions I want to make sure we're asking the right questions I think in my opinion it's not about this is right or wrong there's nothing right around to the same sex marriage right but whether or not Taiwan is ready for this institutions so Taiwan is a more like a confused community even though it is democratic institutionalized but it's still we have this more like collective behavior in Taiwan where families value family norms counts before individual norms individual values so I really need to be careful myself when I think about this question is it's okay like to me there are outliers in biodiversity we see differences right wines in ten thousands wine hundred thousands is that we see a gay or lesbian but what if this is happening in your family especially to those in a traditional Taiwanese family could people actually accept it are we really ready for this kind of norm embedding our society and what do you think well I think we're not ready for that for sure now probably still take a decade or two decade yeah to get there okay over here my name is Jose I'm from Honduras and I'm a lawyer back home we have this we just had this discussion and I come from a country that we tend to think a lot about God and religious aspects of this kind of discussions but I'll try to get my comment in a really professional scientific way from my point of view in the law and in the law it's meant to be followed by everyone right but if we don't cover those kind of people are they allowed to not follow the rest of the law so you think that from the standpoint of the universality of the rule of law it's important that the institution of marriage as a legal institution be open to same-sex couples as well as a couple to everyone because you think that's part of that encourages respect for law as such and you think it would be unjust discrimination do you to exclude same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage I agree you think so and what do you say to the argument I didn't hear your name Jason Jason's argument that Taiwan is not ready for same-sex marriage and Jason also made the point that the Confucian tradition of the family is in some tension tell me if I'm recalling correctly with the idea of same-sex marriage do I have that right yes what do you say to that argument well that's not a leak that's not strictly about the rule of law that's about whether but I'm gonna tell you something things that this kind of things are happening if you like it or not I mean I don't like it and I don't have a family member that's in that's in that situation but I respect it I respect it and since it's happening it's like murder you don't like murder do you but but we have but we have to oversee it we have to have some sort of control about that well all right so let me see if I understand now we've been we've been noticing various arguments by analogy this is quite a dramatic argument by analogy if I understand what you're saying what's your name again Jose Jose is you are saying if I understand you that you favor legal recognition of same-sex marriage you regard it yourself as morally objectionable like murder even but since murder happens and what I don't regard myself I don't regard myself in opposition of it I just don't have experience about it but you're saying that murder is a fact we better learn to live with it and likewise same-sex unions are a matter of fact we better learn to live with it yeah that's that's what I would call a not very robust defense of same-sex marriage but all right fair enough I want to see now we've heard a few objections does someone with someone else like to add another objection beyond the ones that we've heard objection to same-sex marriage let's is there anyone who hasn't yet spoken an objection to same-sex marriage yes go ahead I think I understand the law in the past we all think that the law is why there's a difference between morality and ethics is because the law is directed by the police and then by the court to direct the law like for example murder why do you need to have the law is because when you violate the power of the country to punish this violation of the social order of the behavior then my own question is or I don't quite understand why we will need when we say we respect each person when we choose to turn it into our country's law so so I'm not very proud of the same-sex marriage I see so the Helen is saying she doesn't agree with same-sex marriage being legalized because the law requires us to do certain things but marriage people can get married on their own without having to bring the law into it yes I've got it now all right so but Helen what I still don't quite understand on your view same sex couple should be able to get married privately but should they enjoy by all of the privileges that the law confers upon people who are engaged in a traditional marriage the law enters in deciding certain tax implications certain benefits for married couples the law does enter marriage in those respects if you're suggesting that same-sex marriage can be done privately without legal endorsement or sanction what about all of the privileges that the law that the society confers on couples who are married in the traditional way should same-sex couples enjoy all of those privileges do you think all right and did you you had an objection also that you wanted your alright do you want to tell us okay I think marriage is a private contract of two individuals and therefore should not be effective should be effective even without governmental salvation and agreement so well alright this in a way connects to what I thought I heard Helen say that marriage is a private arrangement it's an agreement between two persons and if that's the case the law should not endorse or affirm this person's this the this couple's marriage or that or that couple's marriage is that yes and I think that should apply to a traditional traditional marriage as well and so you think that the state should not endorse or recognize anybody's marriage no way yes yes that is what see I thought that's what he was saying and tell me your name again or Raymond Raymond yes okay so Raymond raises actually a third alternative the traditional debate and we see this in Taiwan and we see this around the world the traditional debate is between those who want the state to endorse same-sex marriage and those who want the state to endorse only marriage between a man and a woman but Raymond's suggestion and this has arisen at the edges of debates around the world is why should the state endorse or recognize or affirm any particular kind of marriage maybe the state should get out of the business of conferring recognition on marriage at all and allow all marriage to be a kind of private arrangement perhaps within religious communities for those who followed the certain religious traditions perhaps outside of religious communities for those who want to get married that way one one way of describing Raymond's third alternative to same-sex or traditional marriage is to say that marriage should be so to speak privatized no longer recognized by the state now lying behind this idea well is I suppose the impulse to get around the intense moral controversy that arises when societies debate what the laws of marriage should be and also underlying this suggestion maybe a philosophical idea that says this role of the state should not be to pass moral judgment to honor and recognize this or that way of forming a family the role of the state should be neutral with respect to the choices individuals make so this would be I suppose the underlying moral idea of Raymond's proposal if I understand it correctly is that a more thoroughgoing consistent liberal philosophy of the state would have the state try to be neutral with respect to controversial judgments about how to form families about what sorts of unions between persons and intimacies are morally legitimate or not now to explore this what's interesting is that the mainstream debate about marriage and about same-sex marriage is between those who want to claim the recognition and affirmation of the political community as a whole it's between those who see marriage as a public not a purely private activity so in order to evaluate the privatizing proposal of Raymond as a way of dealing with marriage we would have to think through together the larger philosophical question of whether it is part of the role of the state or the political community to confer honor and recognition on certain ways of life including certain forms of family life or whether a just society is one in which the state is non-judgmental I'd like to put to you a different kind of case it's about new technology and about the growing role of technology in our lives now some of you may have watched movies on Netflix yes and have you seen how after you watch a certain number of movies they recommend to you based on your previous choices the movies they think you will like have you followed those recommendations and are they usually right or they predict they predict what movies you will like by getting to know you so to speak it's all a kind of machine learning an algorithm that tries to predict the movies you will like based on the movies you've seen and maybe how you've rated those movies now artificial intelligence and machine learning is improving they are improving very rapidly suppose that an app were developed with a very sophisticated algorithm that could take all of the information you provided including all of the personal data embodied in your email your Facebook account your online searches all this data is available about you and suppose you feed it into the app and the app generates recommendations not of what movies you will like but of the three potential marriage partners who will be the best match for you anywhere in the world and now let's suppose the algorithm is even more sophisticated than the one that recommends movies you will like we'll call it the marriage prediction app and it it identifies three finalists here's my question how many of you would you here's my question would you trust the recommendations of the marriage prediction app more or than the advice of marriage partners offered by your parents that's what I'd like to see your your vote on now raise the yellow sign if you would trust the app the marriage prediction app more than your parents and raise the gray if you would trust your parents more than the app I see a lot of yellow cards I see a maybe 20 or 30 gray cards all right who can explain why who will tell us yes my name is Rubin young and I believe that whether you choose to believe in your parents or you choose to believe in the app the basic essence of the prediction is a set of algorithm and to me I believe that algorithm of the app would be more precise than those of my parents depending on more precise yes because my parents are human and human are bound to predict things in the wrong direction yes and that's but I believe that is just a technical problem if it's a technical problem who you will marry it's a technical problem whom you will marry it's just an algorithm it's an algorithm love is just a just after fact of hormones all right love wait let me make sure that I understand this love even love can be determined by an algorithm yes no my idea is that the even if you are to let your parents decide whether who you are to marry your parent decides that person by algorithm so even the parent is using a kind of informal algorithm by by actually relying on certain rules where about whom you liked in the past about what your tendencies are so even the parental recommendation yes is based on certain rules or general yes principles for example if your parents were making a recommendation for you what sorts of rules or principles would they implicitly be relying on maybe it's a belief the religious belief of the partner or the wealth or just the personality okay religion wealth personality yes is what your parents might have in mind when they make their recommendations not your parents why what would they consider they consider that I trace my love by myself they don't enforce their recommendation on me so they don't enforce it no but here it's just a recommendation yes so if they recommend they will be using such things as religion wealth I just put some examples right and for example and in principle a machine could do that better yes in a more sophisticated alright who disagrees with Ruby yes don't hi so I actually also said that I would choose the app over my parents but my logic was just that the app would have a larger selection whereas your parents know fewer people so but I disagree with that because I think there's a level of human interaction that is necessary because not everything is black and white I don't think an algorithm can solve everything I don't think an app can determine I don't think in technological algorithm can determine human interaction more accurately than an actual human being can predict but we're talking about predicting not determining why can an algorithm not in principle predict who will be the best partner for you I think they can there would be a way to predict like you can pick out things that are similar now the rhythm can put things together right but even just with what's available of your personal data online that doesn't fully encompass your beliefs or you as a person so there's always going to be more nuance in you as a human being than there is in the data available you think your parents will be better at getting at that nuance than the app I think you in the no I think the app has a better selection I don't think even another human I think my parents would know me perfectly as a human but I think they do it they do know you or do not know you perfectly no they do not know me perfectly right but would it be different let me what's your name Savannah Savannah would it be different if instead of your parents I said your friends your best friends yes so there you would trust the friend more than the app I still think the app has asked I would value both but if I do pick one over the other I and it's just you know for an initial like see if it works I think the app would have just access to a larger pool so the working better would like you would go with the app even over the friend never mind your parents I mean I think I would realistically go with both but I just think the app does provide like a larger pool all right I think that your idea it all comes down to a idea that how well the person that is predicting your partner knows about you if your parents knows about you perfectly they will be able to predict your future partner very precisely I guess if that if your friends knows you're perfectly they will be able to predict predict precisely am I right yeah I think there's just so much if like computer can does know you better than your parents or your or your best friend couldn't they predict your future partner better than them because the way of how they predict rather is a human computer is by a set of algorithm computer has algorithm in electrons we have algorithms in our neurons and it's just the same yes it's all electrons and neurons bouncing around and the app can better organize and know if suppose the computer knows you as well as your parents couldn't they decide better all right what all right that's the issue of principle what do you say to that I just find it hard to believe that the nuance of human interaction and conscience could be boiled down to numbers and an algorithm is what I I mean maybe some people believe that I just find it hard all right let's see if there is someone else who disagrees with what your name again Ruby with Ruby someone someone who disagrees in principle with Ruby hello my name is Eliza where I disagree is the level of trust and human ability to change so what I'm saying is if somebody comes along and they tell their parents all these things their parents has the ability to watch you change from baby all the way up to 24 I think that parent is gonna have a better chance than if you go with the algorithm and you type everything in for only like 30 seconds that algorithm will not be able to figure out all the details of your change is that just because the parent has more data so to speak yes that's what I'm saying and now that's the thing if you're saying that oh this algorithm has the same amount of data yeah okay that's great but how do you collect the data oh well but you're conceding a lot to Ruby when you say that parental understanding or knowledge of the child is just a matter of data and the only question is whether they have more of it than the algorithm has you're conceding quite a lot there aren't you what do you think Ruby doesn't that's still I mean doesn't you mentioned that the problem is whether the computer can collect the same amount of data as your parents mm-hmm doesn't that still come down to a techno just a technical problem the technical that's why I say you're conceding a lot it's a technical matter okay which my argument no no but do you it's there some what no it's it's a fair point but is there some if it's all data and all rules then in principle the algorithm the app could aggregate more data and run the algorithm more efficiently that's Ruby's claim is there anyone who who wants to challenge Ruby's underlying assumption and claim that knowing a person well enough to predict their best lifelong mate is not a matter of rules or algorithms or even data however much data might be aggregated is there anyone who wants to challenge that assumption I think it really depends on how advanced the algorithm is in deciding that and I like to think that maybe we think we're closer to being able to make those decisions through algorithms than we maybe are and then it also brings in mind a moral question of does this algorithm decide who you'll be the most happy with this is algorithm decide who you'll make the most aside a little change with so it also brings into question those kind of moral ideas in the parent how what's the parent deciding happiness or contribution to the common good the parents are probably deciding what they want most what they want most people what they think you want most all right is any I want to hear another any other objection in principle to the algorithmic notion of love and knowing a person yes hi my name is jahe I want to say something about the algorithm thing because I read somewhere in an in an article which says that the art the article basically explains why Alpergo always win you know do you guys know what Alpergo is yes okay okay so and then the writer concludes that the very reason while why Alpergo always win is because it does not have emotions people might might have emotions and then for example they can be a I don't know a fretted or while they are you know during the games but as a machine it does not have emotions so I have the same claim about whatever app that can predict your best partner because you know even though it has the most advanced algo algo whatever yeah okay okay but it cannot tell if that person you know for example what is the temperance of that person or if this if this person gets angry very easily or is it is this person you know a good guy to be with so these are the things that this app and no matter how how much this app knows about you they they they cannot you know tell you about the other and that and that's because and you're suggesting that this is because of what is generally a strength of machines and algorithms that they it's actually it's actually it's weakness is it's weakness in this context yes the the the lack of emotion right so the reason a machine can beat a go champion is that it has no emotion it just calculates right yes and that quality that emotion less quality makes an app even in principle unqualified to choose my lifelong right that's what I'm saying because it can't because it lacks emotion or insight into human emotions it couldn't possibly predict or understand how the couple might grow and change together for example no I don't think so you don't think it could no and whereas a friend or maybe even a parent might be blinded by certain of their emotions but also might be a given a certain kind of insight wisdom wisdom right I mean for example if a friend or a parents they can give you the wisdom that they have yes and you think that wisdom is not something that even a smart machine can have because you think wisdom is in part has an emotional component what do you say to that Ruby that's pretty powerful I still think that it just comes down to a technical problem because nowadays we don't have a computer strong enough to mimic humans emotion or wisdom as you might say but in the future there might be such a computer so that's in the future what you say that's in the future so but I thought you were saying that future is not even possible in principle but we are talking about this philosophical problem in the same principle if we if not and then this problem we would not we would not exist so in the future it must exist all right let me ask you this we're now you're confident that in the future in principle yes we could invent smart machines and apps so smart that they would include in their judgments wisdom even love yes do you think it would be let's suppose you're right about that for the sake of argument do you think that a world where machines could predict such things as wisdom and even love would that be a better world than the one that we currently inhabit that is hard to say for me but it's hard to say but it's it's a I would predict that no but now not predicting now judging evaluating would that be a better world a world in which machines could not only be smarter than us at go but also wiser than us and what is what do you mean by better well would you rather live in that kind of world than the one we live in now I'm I may not you may not but that is me the definition of better yeah it's quite complex and yes it is it is it shouldn't be judged by me or of whether it is better or not because like I said what is better do if a world full of machines that is a good as good as human right can produce can result in a better efficiency of a human society better if that is better for somebody that is better for that guy but if I want a society that's full of human and that is better for me so I can really say that what is actually better but for me I would rather like a more human society okay thank you all thank you for everyone who joined in this discussion of the merit prediction app this last exchange raises yet another big philosophical question well what is better and that is a difficult question and people disagree what is a better way to live to answer the question in the context of smart machines is to ask is there anything that makes human life and human wisdom and human love special specially important or is it all a matter of efficiency we can't really answer the question of better I think Ruben is right unless we figure out what we mean by a good life which in a way takes us back to the suggestion with which I began we're we've developed a bad habit in our public discourse and this is true in societies around the world we tend to shy away from engaging in public discourse with big ethical questions questions about justice about the common good about what makes for a good life at questions about what makes for a better way of life we tend to shy away from those questions I think for at least a couple of reasons first we know that in pluralist societies people disagree disagree about the meaning of marriage or about how to deal with pensions or nuclear waste people disagree about ultimate questions of the good life and to avoid disagreement certainly among politicians but even among the rest of us there's a tendency to say let's avoid controversial questions about values in public discourse let's agree to disagree and then there's also an argument we heard that reinforces that habit of avoidance the habit of avoiding contested moral questions in politics it's the idea of not judging living and letting live we don't want to be intolerant so even though you or I might have a certain view about this or that practice we don't want to decide collectively how to judge or how to evaluate isn't it better according to this argument isn't it better to try to make the law as neutral as possible toward moral judgments on which we may disagree this came up powerfully in the discussion about same-sex marriage it came up in the discussion even about prostitution so the impulse not to judge for fear of being intolerant the impulse not to engage in contested arguments about the good life to avoid controversy and disagreement these are powerful tendencies but I say it's a bad habit it's a bad habit because it leads to a public discourse that is empty that is hollow of larger moral meaning and I think it's that emptiness that explains the dissatisfaction and the frustration with the empty terms of public discourse around the world people want public life and public discourse to be about big things that matter and so I think it's not possible and it's not desirable to conduct our public life without engaging in debate about big moral questions but what about a tolerant society what about pluralism isn't this the worry well it depends what you mean by mutual respect among citizens one way of understanding mutual respect is the respect of avoidance I'll set aside our disagreements we won't get into them we'll ask citizens to leave their moral and spiritual convictions outside when they enter the public square that's one idea of mutual respect but I think a deeper kind of mutual respect of difference comes not from avoiding but from engaging with the competing moral and spiritual convictions our fellow citizens bring with them to public life to engage with them to reason together to learn together to disagree together there can be a kind of civility and mutual respect even in disagreement we saw we saw this in the debates the discussions we had where people held up sometimes the yellow sign sometimes the gray sign but that was the beginning not the end of the discussion we had and we saw how the discussions we had on particular issues led to broader questions about the meaning of a just society and the relation between ethics and law and the meaning of freedom free choice and the role of the political community in shaping or refusing to shape the moral judgments of its citizens and so what I think our discussions here illustrate is the possibility of reasoning together in public about big moral questions that matter but doing it in a way that respects those differences that sometimes learns from them rather than in a way that tears us apart my hope my wish my dream even for our societies is that we learn from this example not because engaging with our moral disagreements will lead to unanimity but instead because engaging with one another on big questions with which we may disagree on which we may disagree with one another we'll make for a better public life and we'll make all of us better citizens thank you all very much we'll write Taiwan would like to thank Dr. Sandel for demonstrating how our regular concerns reflect ethical choices and for engaging so effectively how you stimulated members of the audience to express themselves on tough issues was wonderful the ability to debate and still maintain a civil discourse is a skill we increasingly need to cultivate we hope you join with us in Senator Fulbright's vision of a world with a little more knowledge and a little less content