On the afternoon of 18 May, 2011, a session of an undergraduate course “Critical Thinking and Moral Reasoning” took place at Tsinghua University, one of China’s elite universities. The session featured Professor Michael Sandel from Harvard University, who led a heated discussion with Chinese students on the principles of morality, virtue and justice.
The course is offered by Tsinghua’s School of Economics and Management (SEM). It is modelled on Sandel’s course “Justice” at Harvard, one of the most highly attended in Harvard’s history. In the past two decades, over 15,000 students have attended the course to explore questions of justice, morality, democracy and citizenship. It is the first Harvard course to be made available online for students through the Harvard Extension School. An abridged 12-episode series is also available on the Justice with Michael Sandel website, with an accompanying book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, a New York Times bestseller.
Michael Sandel at TED 2010. Image by Flickr user redmaxwell (CC BY-NC 2.0).
In fact, Sandel is finding a huge audience not only in the West, but also in Asia. As Thomas Friedman reported in The New York Times, Sandel is a ‘rock star’ in China, Japan and South Korea. Millions have watched his lectures online and bought his books. Tickets for his lectures are highly sought after. Dean Qian Yingyi of Tsinghua’s SEM explained that Sandel’s method of teaching justice is “both refreshing and relevant in the context of China,” because “the philosophic thinking among the Chinese is mostly instrumentalist and materialistic,” and also because of “the contemporary obsession on economic development in China.”
On the occassion of Sandel’s visit to China, Dai Zhiyong, editor of the Guangzhou-based Southern Metropolitan Weekend, together with Liu Yu from Tsinghua University and Zhou Lian from the People’s University of China, conducted an interview with Sandel. They have covered topics as vast as virtue, ethics, citizenship, freedom, Confucianism and markets. These topics have been covered in depth by Sandel’s writings, but how do they relate to contemporary China? Below are translated exerpts from the interview.
Liu: You may have heard about the debate in China over “universal values”. Those who support this concept think that liberalism and democracy should be introduced to China, while those opposing it think it is just the wrappings of Western cultural imperialism. How do you view this question? Do you think “universal values” above all cultures and countries really exist? For example, is there universal human rights?
Sandel: Because your question has important political meaning, let us first define precisely what does “universal values” mean. I have two points to make. First, the contrast between “universalism” and “relativism” in philosophy. Are justice and ethics merely the prevailing customs at certain place and time? To this I answer: no, justice and ethics are not merely the prevailing customs at certain place and time. On this, I am not a relativist.
But there is another question in the debate on “universal values”. That is, how do we find the principles of justice and ethics that are not bound by certain space and time? There are different answers to this. Since historical records begin, many philosophers have tried to find these principles that go beyond “customs”.
I think it is a mistake to assume that “universal values” are concepts from a certain political system that are forcibly imposed on others. This mistake would cause people to oppose to “universal values”. If that’s the case, it would be a tremendous loss.
Rousseau and Tocqueville: two republicanisms
周濂:您在书中提到两种共和主义,一种是卢梭式的,一种是托克维尔式的。
Zhou: In your book, you mentioned two types of republicanism: Rousseau and Tocqueville.
Sandel: Yes, and I am biased towards Tocqueville republicanism. This is because the Rousseau style of republicanism has the risk of being too close to ‘sovereign will’, and this is a danger I have mentioned before. I prefer Tocqueville because he emphasized autonomy and sharing. On the other hand, he also emphasized citizenship ethics and character building, and he stressed the importance of a diverse community. This is how I understand Tocqueville republicanism. Many liberals are opposed to citizenship ethics and character building because they think that this will hinder personal choices of ethics and character. This is why I insist on distinguishing between the two liberalisms.
In my debate with liberals, one key difference is the importance of the nurturing of citizenship ethics and character. I believe that this is very important for a good society. In a diverse society, citizenship education and the common good are very crucial, but many liberals are suspicious. This is a debate within Western liberalism. I am personally opposed to ‘excessive liberalism’, and am sympathetic to the tradition of citizenship and the common good.
Liu: I would like to ask a related question. Just now you mentioned the difference between liberalism and republicanism. In your book, you also emphasize different concepts of justice, including liberalism, utilitarianism and communitarianism. Because you emphasize their differences, I would like to ask if they have anything in common. Do they all assume a common bottom line of freedom?
Sandel: They are all about freedom, but their views on freedom are different. The biggest difference is that some interpret freedom as purely personal choice, while some see freedom as a way to realize one’s potential. The latter is republicanism, Tocqueville and Aristotelian. From their point of view, our freedom is not merely freedom exercised in the market; only when we can participate in public activities to realize our potential can we be free. This is the freedom I advocate. Laissez-faire and utilitarianism emphasize ‘freedom of choice’, and I call it ‘consumerist freedom’. And this view of freedom neglects the possibility of realizing our potential as human beings.
Liu: I raise this question because in today’s Western societies, the debate is relatively technical. For example, is the ‘affirmative action’ policy reasonable? What are the limits of the ‘welfare state’? You no longer debate on whether people should enjoy freedom of speech. But in some other countries, people still debate about whether basic freedom exists. In this context, finding the common ground for different concepts of justice would be more important than emphasizing their differences.
I understand what you mean. I agree that a debate would take on different meanings in different countries. In some countries, the debate may be fundamental differences; in others, it may only be a minor point of contention within the same ideology. I feel that to debate about my theories with scholars and students from another background, like China, is very stimulating. Perhaps my theories would offer some help to thinking about China, but it is apparent that I can learn more by knowing your framework of debate. This is a process of learning.
Zhou: Four years ago, I attended your seminar at Tsinghua. There you talked about the concept of “shielding relatives from punishment” in ancient Confucius law. From your point of view, do Confucian traditions have any relevance in contemporary China? Could Confucian traditions enjoy vitality like Aristotelian traditions in the West?
Sandel: I wish I know more about Confucian traditions, but I am not qualified to answer this question. As far as I know, Confucianism contains rich insights about the “politics of virtue”. My books advocate virtue and ethics in the Aristotelian traditions. I cannot judge what kind of ethics is needed in today’s China. But I believe there is a kind of connection between efforts to revive Aristotelian ethics in the West and Confucian ethics in China. I am interested to know more about their similarities and differences. One way to do so is for scholars from the Aristotelian and Confucian traditions to learn from and discuss with each other.
Zhou: In a lecture in 1998, you discussed the question of “what money cannot buy” and the limits of the market. You may have realized that China is a highly commercialized society. Do you have any suggestions on this situation?
Sandel: My suggestion to China is the same as that to the US, since the US is also a highly commercialized and marketized society. My view is that the market is an invaluable tool to organize production and create wealth. In the past few decades, the market has also effectively created prosperity in China. But market is not the whole of life. This is because there exists the danger of the displacement of “non-market values” by “market values”. These “non-market values” include justice, fairness, equality, community spirits and sense of responsibility between individuals. I worry about this danger in America and Europe. When I hear about the development trends in China, I also have the same worry. Therefore, myview is that the market is an invaluable tool for enhancing prosperity and organizing production. But this is not the goal. Some more significant ethical goals should not be forgotten. In fact, I am writing a book – its name is What Money Cannot Buy: The Ethical Limits of Markets.