BBC Launches Public Philosophy Program


The BBC has launched a new program called “The Global Philosopher.” Each episode is a public philosophy session led by Michael Sandel (Harvard) with participants video-conferenced in from all over the world. Video footage is then edited, put online at the BBC’s site, and also broadcast on BBC Radio 4.

You can watch the first episode, on immigration and refugees, right here (press the yellow button to start it):

 

guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kostas
Kostas
5 years ago

It makes me sad to hear educated greek women talking about the danger immigrants posses for national identity and culture, their statement being the most ahistoric, non-proven, immoral and ironically against the core of hellenic culture since homeric times: philoxenia(hospitality). I guess they are calling for all current greek migrants to be thrown away or return to their ”full of opportunities” homeland. And that would be the good guess. because I suspect that somehow they think greeks are different, more entitled and less dangerous for the national of others than the rest of migrants which don’t share their culture. I have news for you girls: you are a minority of stupidity and misanthropism in yourn country.Report

Hey Nonny Mouse
Hey Nonny Mouse
Reply to  Kostas
5 years ago

Immigrants change national identity and culture. I don’t regard that as a bad thing, but there is a conflict between not regarding this as a bad thing and the common belief that national identity and culture are something to be celebrated. The way to resolve the conflict, in my view, is not to be more worried about immigration, but to stop regarding national identity and culture as something to be celebrated.Report

Brian Mannell
Brian Mannell
5 years ago

I feel like those who have the belief that everything should be shared, should then have to accept that they should share their own homes and beds to those who need it. It’s hard for anyone to do that, because we develop a personal connection to people and objects that benefit us, and we want to protect those same people and objects from others because they mean more to you.

Aside from that, there is a push and pull aspect of borders vs. no borders. When the world is open with no borders, there could very well be anarchy, and people are naturally imbued with some form of selfishness (we can overcome it, but it’s still there) when it comes to their own well-being, and the well-being of their families (so sharing things like food and homes are very hard to do). Its a paradise that will never happen, because we all have feelings and emotions for ourselves and others we are connected with. Even inanimate objects.

We all have differences, and needs/wants that we should accept/tolerate, not get rid of. We will transcend as a species when we find balance between having borders, and sharing the world with each other, accepting the views of each other, and trying to protect one another. In other words, we can’t have extremes of both.

I’m at work, so I can’t clearly express my thoughts at the moment. I don’t hold the views I presented as gospel, and I’m not sure if I wrote well enough to reflect my actual thoughts on this discussion.Report

Bob Stead
Bob Stead
5 years ago

We have to be very careful of our use of language when talking about the continuum between refugees and economic migrants. The legal definitions are complex but politicians and the media have been eager to encourage us think of all those on the move as only economic migrants. This absolves us of our responsibility to address people’s real needs in a humanitarian way and allows is to easily scapegoat those as others who will merely be a burden, and a drain on our resources.Report