URL
embed-a3140958e1
<p><strong>Lucy Marshall </strong></p> <p>Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Sydney Ideas, the 爆料王's flagship public talk series. I'm so pleased to welcome you here tonight. I want to start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands on which we meet. We are meeting today on Gadigal land. This has been a place of learning, of community, of discussion and disagreement for 10s of 1000s of years, and it feels particularly important to acknowledge that tonight. So my name is Professor Lucy Marshall. I am a Professor of Civil Engineering, and I'm also Deputy Vice Chancellor, Community and Leadership here at the 爆料王. The Community Leadership Portfolio, the vision of the portfolio, is to create a University community that is thriving, that is inclusive, where everyone in our community feels an opportunity and a responsibility to contribute to discussion, to disagree across lines. And that's why moments like tonight are particularly important, where we come together as a community, we come together to listen, come together to learn, to remain curious, and yes, to disagree potentially across differences. It is my pleasure to open tonight's event, it's also my pleasure to see so many of you back here again for the second in this series of events around Conversations For Good. Our first event was Across Platforms, where we looked at technology and democracy, looking at the current state of play for our public discourse and what it takes to create the conditions for constructive dialogue. Tonight's conversation is Across Political Philosophies, and we're going to go a little bit deeper tonight. Tonight we're going to understand the fundamental values and beliefs that shape our sense of self, our political systems, our visions of progress. How can we see our lines of difference, and then also how can we move beyond those lines of difference. We have a great conversation in store for you this evening. Our panelists are two very good friends who love to disagree, and I think we're going to unpack some really exciting ideas. I encourage you all to stay connected with us. We're going to have more events like this throughout the year. Please follow Sydney Ideas to come to some of these events and stay engaged. So now to the conversation. I'll hand over to our host and moderator, Fenella Kernebone. Thank you.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you very much, Lucy. Hi everybody. How are we? Let's bring up our guests. We've got Luara and we've got Alex. Make them welcome. I will introduce them properly. So, hi everybody, great to see you all here for the second part of this series, and thank you so much, Lucy, for that introduction. Across political philosophies, we are reflecting on something that is genuinely complex: the fundamental beliefs and divisions that shape us, and how can we cultivate open, critical, and generous dialogue in pursuit of a better society? How can we do this? Well, tonight we're going to find out, in part because we've got two political philosophers in conversation, and as we now know, they are good mates, but they also disagree. Yeah, so hopefully we won't see too much argy bargy, but I think the fact that they do disagree with each other is probably a pretty good thing. So I'm very happy to have you here. Now, Alex Lefebvre studies how states around the world are shifting from simply managing behaviour to actively prescribing what a good life looks like. Would you please welcome Alex? And Luara Ferracioli is interested in how a plural society like Australia and institutions such as this one, a University, can hold disagreement without disappearing into division. Have I got that right, Luara? Yep. Please welcome Luara as well. They've got lots and lots of books, each of them. They're all very good. There's more on the way. And a really a fun fact before we get into it is that both of their surnames coincidentally translate to the same word. Could you please say it at the same time? You ready? 1, 2, 3.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Blacksmith.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>I wasn't sure in which language.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>How good's that? Both of their names mean blacksmith. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Blacksmith, yep.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Amazing. There you go. Make them welcome again. Amazing. All right. Lots to get through. We've also got time for your questions towards the end. I'll let you know when we're going to be able to do that. You can use Slido, and we've also got a roving mic, and you can use the tag Sydney Ideas on Slido if you choose to. So why this conversation and why it now? Let's get cracking right into the thick of it. Disagreeing with somebody, whether it's about politics, religion, or any other hot button topic, is becoming increasingly fraught. So, what kind of changes have you seen in how we handle disagreement, Luara?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>I think this has been a challenge, you know, since we've formed communities and tried to live together in peace. So this is not new, but it is a topic that's quite salient in politics because you know we have one political party arguing that we should have a monoculture in Australia. More on that later. I'm sure we're going to touch on this, and of course, universities this week have been thinking. Members of the university community have been thinking and talking about what role we play in liberal democratic societies when it comes to dealing with disagreement. So it's quite salient, and for us in philosophy, dealing with disagreement is part of what we are all about. It's the kind of bread and butter of philosophy, right? Because we are interested in how to evaluate arguments, how to strengthen our arguments, and so this is a question that we're always asking ourselves. So for us, there's nothing new, or you know, nothing that we haven't already been thinking and talking a lot as members of the philosophical community, but I think it is becoming more and more salient, and so it's really important for us as a community of scholars at the 爆料王 and the broader community, and also as members of this liberal democratic society to take a step back and think, how should we handle this agreement?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And how did we get to this point? So maybe Alex, just to follow on from that, what are some of those forces potentially that are intensifying conflict at the moment? What are you seeing?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>So two big things. First, I think that there is a broader range of disagreement today, as kind of the window is shifted for what polite, normal disagreement is to a much vaster range of opinions, so more disagreement, but much much less disagreement face to face, and I think that we confine our disagreements to like-minded audiences, which amplify in bubbles the stuff you talked about, I imagine, last session. But we live in our little bubbles, and we, we, we play to them, and then face to face disagreement just, we lose the virtues that's required for them, and we lose the occasion to, to do it.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So we've lost the skill to almost communicate in front of each other, but we're better at shouting at each other online. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Correct. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>Okay. And do you guys shout at each other? Because I know I've talked about that you're, you're friends. So how do you disagree? And also, why, Luara, is it so important to actually say at the top of this entire conversation about about this that, that you you don't always agree with each other.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, so we've been disagreeing since I started here at Sydney Uni almost 10 years ago. But one thing that became very clear to me was that Alex is a kind of senior colleague, right, who welcomed welcome me here, was that I didn't have to agree with him for him to respect me. From the very start, he made it really clear that he respected me as an independent thinker. He was interested in my views, and we could be friends and colleagues without agreeing. And so I felt very comfortable from the very beginning to be very open about you know things. And whenever he has written things about liberalism, or now the new project, I feel very comfortable telling him the parts that I think are right, the parts that are not so right, the projects that he's going to get some pushback on, etc. And he has the same attitude towards my work. And so I think, as a result of being open to constructive criticisms and disagreement, we have helped each other to produce better work. If we were interested only in kind of pleasing each other or, you know, creating an identity, I think that would have been worse for our work. And it's not even clear that it would have been better for our friendship because it would have been boring if we agreed on everything.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>It would be pretty boring, I could imagine. All right, we're going to unpack some of that a bit later on. I suspect in more detail as well, particularly when we start to talk about the role of universities and institutions. But let's start off with one of the the words or the phrases that was actually in the description for tonight's event, which was the term "common good". And I learnt something from you in our chat the other day because you've got a pretty clear angle, Alex, on what this phrase actually means, and it's different to what I was expecting. So, what, what's, what is it about that phrase that is curious for you?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Well, for my for my research and for my prurient curiosity, I look at a lot of right-wing blogs, that's that's part of my job. And the term "common good" today, I don't know if you know, has become sort of a dog whistle. The term "common good" typically gets taken up a lot by the right, as a particular term of solidarity and how we should be moving our politics, and it's situated within a much broader history. And this is important. So this is my own work, and I can just situate it within a moment. So we today live in a liberal democracy where we think it's right, normal, and good that people can basically do their own thing. So you want to have kids, have kids. You want to get married, don't want to get married, you want to be a blacksmith, you want, you know, whatever. You, you do, you do you is sort of the mantra of liberal democracies, and we think that's like straight up normal and not worth remark anymore. It's worth defending, but it's just common sense. But what's extraordinary, that's a that's a unicorn in the history of political philosophy. That's a view that's 200 years old. The idea in ancient Greece or in medieval Christianity or in contemporary China or Islam that you do you, are you nuts? No way. And so the idea there is that what liberalism does, you might say, is it privatises the good. Your good life is up to you, you do you. And so what all of these resistance movements to how we are in this country and other liberal democracies, they want to try to recover a much more substantial, thick moral consensus based on real moral ideals of what it means to live well, and they'd given that name, the common good. And so, the common good really refers to this whole moral reorientation of politics around the pursuit of a good life, which is no longer altogether a matter for you and me to decide on our own, but to be figured out authoritatively by, by in a community and often by authority.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Does this include how we categorise ourselves often in Australia or at least publicly as you know, the fair go kind of country? </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah, that's right. That's that's our morality. Our, the common good for us is you can put it this way. It's ironic. It's ironic in the sense that it doubles back on itself. There's no common good. There's just ensure a society in which we can all pursue within reasonable limits what we think is the common good, and we, that's what the fair go. I mean, look, you probably hear American in my accent. I'm Canadian, but.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Get it right. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah, get it right. If we could, but if, if you guys could bottle it and put it like a jam and send it out worldwide, "fair go" is the best motto, the most economic Australian perfect motto for liberal democracy: two words, bang, and you got it, so.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>The other one is "yeah, nah". That works pretty much all the time. Luara, what's your converse view if you you have one? What does the common good mean to you from your perspective?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, so I disagree with Alex. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Excellent.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>What?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>First one. Let's start counting it.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>That when it comes to liberal values, it's just kind of a type of cultural. That these values are just cultural, and there's this this moment in time that when we find ourselves subscribing to freedom and equality, but look at this history where we haven't done that, and you know we've the state has used its power, has used its power to get the citizens to subscribe to a certain view of what a good life looks like. So I agree that that has happened, but I think the moment now is unique in that there is something special about liberal values, in that we, we have found a solution to the fact that we're always going to disagree about moral issues. So in the past we hadn't found a solution. Now we have, and the fact that you know this has happened just 200 years ago, wherever Alex wants to say, you know this new tradition started, doesn't matter because now we've got it right, and it's worth fighting for it, and seeing that this is a very important moment in the history of humankind. That now we found a way of living together despite our disagreements, our moral, religious disagreements. And you can you can say there's a, it's you know, being liberal is you know, it's a cultural it's part of your cultural identity. I mean, you can say that, but it's the cultural aspect is different because it's something that is meant to just apply to the institutions, to the laws, to the norms, and in fact create the space for us to then pursue whatever other cultural values, or religious, or moral values we care about, so I don't I don't care if we if we see it as a kind of cultural development. I do think it's a very important development, political development, because now we have a solution to this persistent problem of disagreement. It's a very good solution. It's good that I can do me and Alex can do him.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Do you have anything to respond to that?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>So what would you say? </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Oh yes. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Okay. Right. Right. Okay. So what happens? So so we got it right. What happens when a whole bunch of people no longer think that we got it right?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>We need to convince them.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Right. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>So it's the same thing. You know, you can say, oh, you know, we haven't taken human rights seriously for a long time, and now we have yes, and it's good, and we need to remind people how important it is that now we have this regime of human rights that we, we want to protect certain moral rights in a robust way, and that the fact that there's this long history of us not caring about human rights doesn't change the fact that now we have this very good institutional setup that allows us to pursue the things we care about without getting in the way of others, when it comes to their pursuit of what they care about.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, maybe we need to unpack a little bit more about what all of this really means and actually get into a bit more of the, the, the sort of the, the conversation about values and what it is that how we take people's worldview seriously. So you talk about liberalism as you said it before, like a way of life. You have one sort of phrase in your book, or maybe it's a story about, it's like the water that. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>It's the title.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Oh yeah, right. Yeah, that's true. Actually, that is right. Yeah, you wrote the book. You should know. You talk about it as the water that we're already swimming in. That it's everything. So just explain for that for us pretty quickly.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>So we can play a parlor game. The camera's on us, so you can, it's everything's private at school. Who here is not religious? So I'm going to out you. That's like 75% of people in this room. And the question then I have that I start my book with, it's called Liberalism as a Way of Life, and it's like, okay, you godless people that put up your hand, I'm right there with you. Where do you get your values from? That's my big question. And for someone who's religious, that question is easy peasy, no fuss, no muss. They're like, bang, my church, ah, the Bible, that tradition. But for us unchurched people, what the hell? What do we point? My mom? Like, what do we say? My friends, my family, my, none of that's wrong. But all that is very local, and it has to sit within a sort of broader structure of values and of, and of tradition. And so my pitch to, to an audience like this is that you are probably small l liberal in a very very deep sense. Okay, so last thing, more parlor games. So, who here's main top line values? They're like, yeah, that's me. Would be like freedom, fairness, tolerance, fun. And that, ladies and gentlemen, we will come back to this, is why we live in a monoculture today. Over to you. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>You guys walked into that. Just playing.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What would you like to say in response? </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No, so the issue with calling it a monoculture is that I think it obscures what we're trying to clarify, right? I think we give the opponent of liberalism ammunition that we don't have to by calling it a type of culture because now they say, "Oh, look! But that's just like my religious viewpoint. So why do we get to live in the way you like by subscribing to those values rather than the way I like, where I get to decide how everyone lives? I'm anti-abortion, so no one should have a right to abortion", etc. etc. And what's important about liberalism is that it creates the conditions so that you know those who believe that abortion is immoral don't have to have an abortion, but those who do can have an abortion. So there is a difference. You can call all of those things culture, but only one of us is trying to prescribe how others should live, right? The other is trying to create a society or set up institutions, laws, norms that really make it the case we can live well together despite disagreeing about moral religious issues. We're never going to agree. We're only going to agree if we we use coercion, manipulation. If we use the power of the state to deal with dissent, and even those who are then lucky because they happen to agree with the state are going to see their friends, their colleagues, you know, being treated unfairly. So even if you get lucky in the society because you happen to agree with the state, there is you know, a huge moral cost in living a society where you see your fellow citizens being coerced into subscribing to things they don't believe in, and so we all pay this cost if we go that route. But if we go the liberal route, and you know realize those values of freedom, inequality, tolerance, fun. Then we can, you know, whoever wants to lead a religious life is free to do so, and whoever wants to lead a non-religious life, as many of you, you know, given your hands want, then you're free to do so.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>What does it look like within, there's the Australian version of liberalism, but you've done some study, Alex, in other cultures and other places, from Hungary to China and beyond. What does a flourishing like look like there in comparison to what we might think it looks like as well? And how do they prescribe it?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah. So the the main point of the book I'm trying to write right now, which is called "The Good Life State", look for it in 2040. The gambit is, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>When everything's right. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Not a joke. Yeah, won't stop dying. It's not going to be not timely. So, sidebar. So, all we the liberal commentariat, like the super fancy liberals of today, the people who write for the New Yorker, Atlantic, they tend to think that the regimes that are non-liberal are just held together by, forgive me, bad shit, by a quest for for domination, by corruption, by authoritarian, by younger mistresses, like you name it, like that's why Putin gets up in the morning. And I think that that explains Putin or whatever, explains these regimes to like 20 to 30 percent, but it doesn't explain why people find them attractive, why they're stable, and so what I'm trying to do is go to these bad for liberals places and try to see what is their conception of human flourishing, what for them makes a good human life, and why do they think the state is authorised to go do that thing because they do think that. So I spent two months hanging out with Orb谩n and his his crew in in January and February, before they knew the ship was sinking, they knew the ship was sinking. But before it was official, the ship was sinking, and they had rich ideas about loyalty, about love, about tradition, and for liberals, those values make us uncomfortable. But say what you like, they're values of a kind. I'm going to go to China now, particularly to study the concept of harmony within CCP think tanks, and I'm going to do India, United States, and Israel. And I'm going to get canceled, and that's the book.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What frustrates you, though? We're moving on to institutions and universities in a moment, but what frustrates you about the assumption that everybody is just liberal?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Yeah, because okay. So then, first of all, so many things. First, it has no predictive power because every day liberals are going to wake up and say, "Shit, Trump won again", or whatever that thing is. We're going to be continually stupefied that people wanted something other than the way we live, and that's just no way to have not just be a decent person, but to have predictive accuracy or purchase on your world. Second, it tends to be very sanctimonious and scolding. So forgive me, I love you dearly. But the idea that we got it right and they got it wrong-like, what do you say to that? Where does that go at that point? Like it just, it means we have to relieve their confusion. They just want other stuff, perhaps, and I think that that is a more powerful thing. And third, it just makes liberals look so bad. I mean, we already have a rap for being sanctimonious, scoldy, just jerks, and, and I just think that a little epistemic general. Not general, I don't want to apologise or praise these regimes, but to try to see them in a way that would be accurate to how they describe themselves seems a good first step.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Luara,</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, no, I think it is important to be generous and try and describe those regimes in the most generous way. I like that, and I like Alex's project. I think it's quite insightful. But I think it's important to draw a distinction between support, the stability point and the support point. I mean, you can get stability out of coercion, manipulation, fear, right? So just the mere fact that some of those regimes are stable doesn't tell us that people have generally subscribed to them. And when it comes to this issue of you know you tell them they're wrong, we're right. I mean, I have two hats. Here I have my Australian hat. I have two citizenships. I'm Brazilian. I'm Australian, and I have my liberal hat as an Australian Liberal Democratic hat. And as a Brazilian, I've had the Liberal Democratic hat, and then that hat kind of slowly, you know, disintegrated during Bolsonaro, and I and I saw what it looked like for a society to move away from those values. And yes, I think that society got it wrong. It got it wrong because we stopped treating each other in Brazil with respect. Women started being humiliating public, in the public space, in public arena. You know, it became very common for politicians to be openly sexist and racist, and I saw what it looked like, and I have no problems telling fellow Brazilians who supported that regime, that change, they got it wrong, including family members, that that's what happened. Brazil was more liberal, and then it became less so, and now it's moving back to where I was, and we'll have an election this year, and we'll see what happens.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>So I think you know, and as someone who grew up in Brazil and then moved to Australia, and wasn't here as a child, maybe I don't take certain things for granted that a lot of people take for granted when they grow up in a liberal democratic society. I mean, a well-functioning Brazil is a liberal democratic society to some extent. As I said, you know those values have eroded over time, and now they're, we're rebuilding them. But it's a country with a lot of poverty, with gross human rights violations, with a lot of abuse on the part of you know the police and the military, etc. And so when I come here and I live in a very safe society, respectful society, where I feel free to you know espouse my views. I mean the stuff about, I write about abortion here, I wouldn't do it in Brazil, where abortion is not even legal. I would be worried about what that would mean for my job or my safety, right? So having this, having made this transition from living in Brazil to Australia, I don't take our institutions for granted. Never. Every day, I feel so lucky that I live in a country where, you know, I get to pursue my own good, but help shape institutions that allow my fellow citizens to also do that.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>It's a it's a good opportunity though to go from the international perspective, and you've you've talked about being here in Australia, moving from Brazil as well. So, I mean, in comparison, yes, you can talk about your research and do it, but in the spirit of today's conversation, what's changing with Australian institutions, and in particular with universities, the mission of what the university is, not just this university, the role of universities more broadly, what their job is in terms of communication, talking, allowing disagreement to take place.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong> </p> <p>Yeah. So I think many things have happened in the past few years that have made us think a bit more carefully about this question, what role we play in this broader ecosystem. And I think we, we have ignored that question maybe for too long at our own peril. And it's really important. It's unfortunate that kind of we've been pushed into asking those and answering those questions, but it's important that we're doing that. And I think, even when things become more stable, you know, and some of the forces that have moved us towards asking those questions, hopefully, go away. That we don't, we never stop this process of constantly asking what role the university plays in the broader ecosystem in a liberal democratic society, because I think sometimes the public, and not even us academics, want universities to do too many things, and that can create the conditions for us to lose sight of what it is that we are fundamentally about. And we are institutions tasked with, I think, this is my view of what a university is about, what role it plays in the kind of broader liberal democratic ecosystem. We are the only institution tasked with the job of pursuing truth and disseminating knowledge. There's no other institution in society that's primarily in the business of pursuing truth, and everything else I think should be subordinated to that goal. We are not think tanks. We are not political parties. We are not the media. We are not businesses. We're none of those other things. If we try and do everything, we might not do anything well. So it's better that we, you know, go back to basics to some extent. I know people don't like that, and we have now expanded and have done lots of things that maybe, you know, have departed quite a bit from those main goals. But I think there is a case for taking a step back, remembering our core mission, and focusing on doing those things really well.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, so you talk about epistemic virtues that students are to be taught, so critical thinking to, to, to basically to learn,</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah. So how can we do our job well? How can we pursue truth? How can we transmit knowledge? Well, we need to cultivate those virtues in ourselves as academics, in our students. So you know, intellectual curiosity, honesty, courage, charity is a great example of someone doing this, right? So it's really important that we are generally open-minded as academics, and we don't pursue our research projects in a, in a way that's already where we we feel that questions have already been settled, you know, or that we're so convinced by a certain conclusion that we just retrofit the arguments or the data, whatever it is, right? So I can't speak for other disciplines, but in philosophy we are not doing surveys, we are not doing empirical research, we are developing arguments, and I think it's really important for philosophers that we don't start our kind of research enterprise by already being committed to a certain conclusion, because then you can't really trust that you've developed the right arguments. You have,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Or censoring yourself, </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Or self censoring because you want to belong to this community or you want to have this identity. Rather, you need to let the arguments lead you. And you, and if you are, you know, if you have those epistemic virtues, if you're generally curious and open-minded and brave, then that will put you in the best position to develop, you know, the best arguments you can.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>So to challenge, but also to be challenged is, is part of it. Alex, can I get your thoughts on this, and have you experienced this as well?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre</strong> </p> <p>I agree completely for a change of pace with Luara, this is perfect. I'd go sharper. I would say that the kinds of virtues that we're talking about right now, and that this forum is here to promote civility, inclusion, those sorts of things. I think those are subordinate, and they're instrumental goods to the pursuit of truth. If they're in institutional context, they're not leading to truth. I don't mean capital T truth. I'm not, I'm not naive. Yeah, but the idea is that those are values. This is an institutional mandate that we should be pursuing, not advocacy, not inclusion for its own sake. Truth. And I find that that's crucial to set up a classroom space in which viewpoints can be articulated. I do find there's a big shift lately, and I don't know. I've been here 16 years now. Last five years, students less willing to speak a controversial point of view. They'll come see me after and say I didn't feel comfortable, or I don't know who would agree with me, or da da da da. And that's a shame. And I get why they're doing that. I get the caution, but it's a shame. And I try my very best not to do it. But there's broader forces than just Luara Alex's tutorial at stake here.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So we're getting worse and worse at being able to analyse, criticise, and to think is what is what I'm hearing. What's the flow-on effect if we can't do this in the classroom anymore? </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>We're getting less,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What happens later on?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Worse is too big. We're getting, people are public shy to do this, so I don't know if worse is too strong of a diagnosis. Gun shy, reticent. Those are the kinds of words I'd use for that.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, but what's the what's the impact? Let's look down the 10 years from now. If we're less able to communicate to talk, what what are we going to see?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Sorry, I got I got an answer to this.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No, no, it's okay.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Okay. Tocqueville, one of the great French thinkers of the 19th century once said that the French, French Revolution happened because all you had was intellectuals in Paris drinking coffee who had never had a meeting essentially. And were just ready to go kind of YOLO on their principles and just say fuck it, and then just pursue that, rather than have the kinds of civic virtues that are acquired through the kinds of conversations that we need. So deference, forbearance, patience, all that stuff gets blocked out if you don't. Those virtues, they're virtues. They need to be trained. And if they're not cultivated, then you're going to get people with different attitudes, more adventurous attitudes, shall we say? </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>It's bad news for democracy. It's bad news for communities. It's, you know, of course, in this community, it's bad news for our pursuit of truth and for us to do our work well. We're training the next generation of academics. We want them to have those virtues. We want them to be genuinely curious and open-minded, and not come here because they've already decided these are the right answers to all these questions, and no matter what, they're gonna get there. Because you know, there's, there are many things that are still very, there are many topics, many issues that are generally very difficult. I mean, you know, I mentioned abortion before. This is something we constantly talk about.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>I disagree. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>It's a very. And we disagree deeply, and,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>It's one of those topics, </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>You know, when some, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>you can't get consensus on. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>So someone I respect so much, right, who holds the exact opposite view of me, when it comes to this, should give me some, should remind me.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>I'm more handmaid's tale. I don't know where you're putting me here.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>But should remind me, right, of how easy it is to get it wrong. And instead of you know taking that disagreement personally, getting upset, no longer being friends with Alex, and going find the people who agree with me, this is an invitation to go back to the drawing board and see if I can come up with something else, and maybe the next time I will convince him. Or not. Or maybe, or maybe you'll convince me, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>TBD.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Or maybe we're gonna meet in the middle,</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Or no, no, </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Or maybe we're gonna, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>What we're gonna do is clarify the disagreement. That's what we're gonna do.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>We'll clarify, and that's already progress.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yes, that's progress. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So this, </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>We, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So this is,</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>You make a lot of progress.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Setting up the conditions for disagreeing </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Well. So, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yep.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Help, help us out here. What are some conditions to help us all, students, but us here in the room, to have open exchange, knowledge sharing. How can how can we do this?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Okay, I was prepped on this question only, so I have, I have four rules. Rule one. Take your interlocutor as a morally serious person. If they're not, then just bail. Like, what are you? It's like the thing with pigs, right? Like don't fight with them, they like getting dirty. Like it's that that thing. So step one, take them seriously. Step two, and this is I think the most important thing. Reconstruct their view in a way that they can recognise themselves in. That's called steel manning, or as opposed to straw manning. I think that's crucial. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Could you could you explain that again? What, what is steel manning versus straw manning?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>So, if someone's coming at you with the perspective, try to give it the most robust, intelligent reconstruction that you can, such that they can say that yes, you've captured my argument adequately, and I see myself accurately in it. And if you've passed that test, that's not to say you agree with them. You just you've, you've gotten you've had the minimum kind of interpretive generosity to get there. Third, don't impute motives too quickly to arguments. So if someone says, I don't know, "I'm against immigration", for example, don't move right away to, "Oh, you're a racist", or "You're thinking about the Sydney housing market", or like whatever. Just try to understand, take a step back, don't impute motive right away, because then you'll just read your stuff into it really, really fast. And I had a fourth rule, which will come to me.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Luara,</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>I yeah I agree. I think these are very, the you know everything Alex discussed. I think the being generous to your opponent is so important that is something we're seeing we're seeing less and less of. I mean, politicians are not great role models, they don't do that. And, and we all suffer as a result, we're having, you know, less rigorous political discussions than we should, as a result of that. Maybe we're not developing the best policies and responses to things as a result of that. That their discussions are, you know, we're not all, when politicians are not being as constructive as they as they could or and should. And so yeah, we we see that how, how, how much people depart from it in different domains, and that's one reason I love philosophy so much and why I want everyone to study philosophy, because as I said before, that's the bread and butter of philosophy. That's what we do. We take these these rules so seriously, and I think we do it partly because we've been trained to it. But I think ultimately because we can, there's self-interest there, right? Like if I engage with the best version of Alex's argument, then that forces me to develop the best version of my argument. If I'm dealing with a straw man, then you know I win by coming up with something that's not as good. We all lose, and yeah. So we're very sensitive to sensitive to this in philosophy, and is it is one reason why, you know, philosophy is having a moment now with AI, but it's not just AI. It's this issue of disagreement that hopefully people, you know, those in the community who are you good people who support the humanities and philosophy that you continue to do so because you can see the role that this discipline can play in helping us having these important conversations.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And furthering our conversation across society as well. I think we're going to open it up to questions right now. Can we give these guys a round of applause? It's been fascinating, and I believe if you do have any questions, then you can put your hand up for the microphone, or indeed you can use the tag Sydney Ideas on Slido. Is that right, Andy? Thank you. While we're waiting for your questions, I do have a couple of my own. Surprise, surprise. And I wanted to, I don't know whether we're going parallel or into another universe here, but I know you both have different opinions about the Karl Stefanovic, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Uh huh.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Story of late. Is anybody here in this room unfamiliar with Karl Stefanovic? Okay, Luara, do you want to quickly give us a backdrop? He was a presenter</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>I think,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>On TV. He got kicked out. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Alex was following it more closely. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, Alex, go for it.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Because you know he mentioned how he is reading the right wing media, so he knows. But I, but I will, I'll give you my two cents.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, my question is, him is it stifling opinion? Is it shutting down debate as he has claimed, or what else is going on, Alex?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>So my baseline is often that I'm a liberal. I like, capital L, not capital, sorry, not in this country. Small L liberal. That's not a dig. It's not, not the way I roll. And when I heard about Karl's cancellation, I'm like, liberals are freaking at it again. Like having this hysterical trigger happy reaction. And I don't know if I can do this. I'm going to do it. Who here was happy that Karl got canned. Who here was unhappy that Karl got canned? Right. Okay. I'm unhappy.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What about who just didn't really care? </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah. Who didn't give a shit? </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah. Yeah. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>The same majority,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Probably real with that going on. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Right. And so, so then I watched the Tommy Robinson interview, and I thought it was fawning. I thought it was bad journalism. But then again, it's a podcast, so I think it was not a great professional look, but I don't think it was worth ending the guy's career. And I think that this gives really knock-on chilling effects. And I know also that Channel Nine is not the government, and they're a private business, and they can run it the way they see fit. But still, I thought it was a very. At a macro level, is a very unstrategic contribution to the civic fabric to kick a guy off the boat because he supported a position that now 30 to 40% of the electorate support.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, and in opposition.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong> </p> <p>So I think what maybe we don't disagree as much, but it's just when this came out, there was this issue of whether it was a freedom of speech issue, and I don't think it was. It was just Channel Nine deciding they didn't want to be associated with his brand, and that doesn't mean that his freedom of speech has been violated, right? He can still run his podcasts, and you know his followers are still listening. And this is someone who commands a lot of attention and speaks a lot and has been listened to for quite a long time, and so yeah, I just thought I understand why Channel Nine made that decision, and I didn't I didn't have this reaction, all liberals, you're you know, being too sensitive, etc. But I I do disagree that the view he was showcasing in the podcast is the view of 30% of the Australian population. I think that's right. I think that is quite to the extreme, and we're seeing already that even though One Nation received, you know, was quite popular for a while, that's going down because people. It's becoming clearer what exactly the view is, and it's not clear to me that people want to go for the whole package, the monocultural dimension, etc. I think there are certain things that resonate with people, and Alex is absolutely right that if we, you know, when it comes to the issue of immigration, if your response is, "Well, you, you want fewer immigrants in Australia, must be a racist". Then, then that response, well, first of all, it's not generous. But also it can push people to an to the extreme of politics. Right? You might have a view on migration that it's less, you know, more, you you. Look, I work on, on migration, so say a little bit about this. So you might think that, you know Australia is too generous. The borders should not be closed, but we should have fewer immigrants, not for racist reasons, but to do with housing and some other considerations, right? And then if you're told by your opponent that you must be a racist because you don't think that we should be taking more immigrants, then I think one thing that comes from that is that you're more likely to move even further to the right and then agreeing with someone like the, the what's his name?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Tommy Robinson.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yes, right. Whereas if you engage in a generous way with someone like that, oh, why do you think we should have fewer immigrants? Is it because the economy, this and that? You discuss their arguments, you don't go all racist, I'm gonna not gonna talk to you. Then I think there's a greater chance that you you might meet somewhere. At least this person won't be radicalised and start going for positions that are borderline beyond the pale.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Can I add one thing about I stirred deep things in,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>We've got lots of questions.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Okay, alright.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>No, no, keep it pretty quick. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>No, no, no. Okay, you know how? Okay, you know how in mafia movies the mob boss never kills anyone? It's always he delegates, right? It's like the capos do it, the lieutenants do it. When conservatives look at the liberal state, they see a mob boss, basically someone who keeps their hand dirty while delegating all their cultural banishment to subcontracting parties like Channel Nine, like the universities, so Albanese gets to say, "Hey, whatever", gets to stay out of this discussion. Whereas all of the really aggressive liberal hegemony cultural work is going on at one tier lower, which is why conservatives feel like this is not a home for them. It's a, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I know you need to write a reply. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I'm going to make </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Go.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>The quickest point. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>And then we'll move into questions. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>But what this, what we're doing here is not mob work. We're standing up for these values of freedom, equality, and tolerance, and this is not dirty work. This is good work. You know, these values are worth, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Rightful killings.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Standing up for, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Rightful killings. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>And we're not using violence.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Right. No, we're not. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>And not violating human rights. We're just saying, look, we want to live in a society where you don't, you know, feel comfortable to espouse horrible racist views, where you feel, oh, you know, you openly say that you think someone is moral inferior because of, you know, their their their race or their gender.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>You're opening it up for a conversation, which means listening. It's challenging learning. I think it's good. This is fascinating. So, lots of questions. Thank you for sending them through. Are you guys ready? We're going to try and get through as many as possible. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Lightning round?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>From anonymous, I love your first name. Imperfectly simplified, simplified. I can't say that word, simplified, today. What's wrong with me? In the right versus left, what happens if only one side subscribes to disagreement? What the, would the other side win without resistance of the other trying to change their position? How to avoid disagreement becoming apathy?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, I don't think that's right. I don't think the right or the left right now, at least in Australia, you know, has gotten it fully right or fully wrong. I think we see authoritarian impulses on both sides. You know, the left, the extreme left, can be very anti-speech, and so can the you know some parts of the right will say, oh, you know, they don't, they don't care about free speech, they don't want to have difficult conversations, but they have their own way of ways of avoiding certain conversations, or, or you know, shaming people who hold certain views, etc. So I don't think any any side of politics has got it right. I do think that the extremes on both the right and the left are less likely to want you know, less open to disagreement precisely because they feel very strongly right that they you know they they have very strong views and that's partly why they are on the extreme of either the right and the left so it's not surprise, what I'm saying is that it's not surprising that those more on the kind of centre, more open, because just by being the centre, the very fact that you're more in the centre, centre right, centre left, means that you can generally, you know, identify that different sides of politics have something to contribute to the discussion.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, thank you. Jess asks, why is it not possible for more prescriptive ideas of the common good to exist within the pluralism of liberalism, or is liberalism too comprehensive to include intolerance within it?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>So, okay, good question from you, there I've outed you, Jess. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Good question. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Yeah, so the boring answer is that in a democracy we're all co-holders of our society's power? You get a piece, you get a piece, I get a piece. And so then who made you the boss, Jess, to be able to push your conception of the good life onto me? So that's why, in principle, prescriptive ideas of the good life are not cool for liberal democracies. So that, that's the kind of on paper answer. But then, like I was saying, Luara, the conservatives will come right back at us and say, "Dude, are you kidding me? You've been pushing the good life on us, 75% of the people raised their hand for the same value packet. What the hell?". This is happening, anyways. So then we get into a really dynamic, nasty culture war, which is where we are, circa 2026 I think.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, thank you. Again, if you do want to ask a question in person, thank you. We've got a microphone here.</p> <p><strong>Audience Member </strong></p> <p>Thanks for the valuable insights. You mentioned the precondition, you know, to enable disagreement and critical thinking and advance discussion. However, I would like to hear more about the materiality of it, because I felt they were a bit stated in a vacuum. We know that universities are more and more defunded, or you know industries penetrating. Research is not about you know seeking the the truth or you know, science for the public good, but it's mainly or more and more you know, aligned with national or economic interest. So I felt your preconditions were a little bit delinked from the materiality. Maybe your department is fully funded, and that's a problem many of us out there have. And if you could maybe respond on that, also including a perspective on war of positions and class war because we are seeing also just connecting to the last statement where I don't think we are co-holding power anymore or even less because it's political capture and so on. So if you could just relate a little bit more for the poorer academics outside of your department. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you very much. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Listen, just very. I think you're totally right, especially the the commercialisation agenda. Whatever, the first part of your question, I think you're right. But then, aren't we playing the same game? You're saying there's been an institutional, I'm not indicting this institution to sectoral thing. There, there's been an institutional drift away from truth towards something else. So you and I are, agree. So what we're saying, I don't think, precludes critique or saying that we've gone very far away. Luara emphasised other stuff, more kind of justicey stuff, rather than no, but then rather than commercial than than money. But they're the same problem, they're just pulling us away from the same thing.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, and I mean, I was describing an ideal, right? But that's not to disagree, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>With you that we're being pulled in different directions. You're absolutely right when you said, "Oh, philosophy is well funded". No, we have to write the is it the NIT or the NIPT test in the ARC grant? In philosophy, we also have to explain how our work, you know, serves the Australian community, etc. So philosophy is not immune from that pressure, and some of that pressure is coming from the government in the way it funds research with the ARC. So we we all have, as researchers, as academics, play that game to some extent. And I actually don't think, and some philosophers agree with me about this. I don't think it's that bad to be encouraged take a step back and think about how your research affects your fellow citizens. You know who can benefit. All of that. I think it's important to think about, you know, the role your research plays and the what value it has and and why. But it's just that it can't become that instrumental, right? I think most academics here would agree. There are questions that are, first because some questions generally have intrinsic value. We want to know, like we just want to know the answer to certain questions. This is the kind of creatures we are, and we've been in this game for a long time. So some questions in philosophy is not going to solve. It's not going to lead to better policy here. Or just even think political philosophy. There are some questions about justice and legitimacy that's, that's not going to lead to you know better public policy next week. And maybe I have to say that, and some of us do say that when we apply for things. But there, first of all, we want to know the answer to certain questions. We want to know what justice requires. We want to know what it means for a state to be legitimate, irrespective of what effect it has in politics. Because we are also creatures who care about knowing things, right? So that's the first thing. And the second, sometimes it's by pursuing those questions that you actually can have a positive effect. There's so many examples in how the pursuit of a question that an academic just found fascinating, then led to something tangible, practical in the world, and maybe if they hadn't been able to do that because of some ARC rule or some funding, right? Then we would not today be benefitting from that. So it can it can have those instrument, it can have instrumental value, but sometimes we can't anticipate that. So it's really important that as researchers we're given the freedom to pursue the things we are fascinated by, curious by, and then we and that we come to it with an open mind and with the right, you know, attitude. But that's not to deny that these pressures are there.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you. So we've actually got two kind of related questions. I'm going to put them together, and if we could answer them pretty pretty quickly, if that's okay, because I think they're both pretty connected. So Matt has asked, do you think students' unwillingness to disagree could be due to the indelible nature of our digital footprints? And we also got a question from Adam earlier, who's a teacher at St Aloysius College, so from high school. As a teacher, we're not only continually discussing the media as indoctrinating students, but actively discouraged from teaching anything regarding opinions or how to disagree. What can teachers do to change this trend? So, </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Who wants to tackle the digital footprint? Or, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>I think you have two philosophers. They know stuff like arguments and principles. We do. Luara, you start because I'm catching up.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No, so I think high school teachers absolutely can play an important role because those virtues can start to be developed already in school, right? Children should, we should be encouraging children to develop those those virtues we talked about. Open-mindedness, curiosity, etc. and if you are not encouraged to develop those virtues in school, then once you get to university, it might be too late, or you might not be able to develop them to the same extent if you had already developed them, started to, started that journey early in your education years. I mean, I started studying philosophy, my mom is here; she can she can attest to that. I started studying philosophy when I was like six, and I you know, I think it served me well because children are open to things that you you you know might close your mind later on. So the earlier asking these big questions and developing those epistemic virtues, the, the better thinker you are, and the, and I think the better position you'll be to participate in politics and you know be a contributing member of society and have good thriving relationships. So absolutely, you can play that role. And of course, there will be people in politics. I'm focusing on the second question here, who will be saying that you shouldn't be playing that role as a high school teacher. That's not your job, and they're wrong. It might come across as indoctrination because opening the space might lead some students to hold views that a politician disagrees with, that's their problem. Your role as an educator is to develop those virtues, and I think people like us, we can see the value. Those friends of educators in in high schools and primary school have to support you in doing that. To stand up for your, for how important it is that you do that in the classroom, and how important it is for our children that they are being encouraged to, to develop those virtues. That's not to deny that some teachers abuse their role, but that happens everywhere, right? Some academics abuse their roles too, some doctors do that, some lawyers. Like there's nothing unique about you know sometimes people talk about us in academia as if you know, just because some of us are not perfect, and then some we all get tainted by the same whatever expression... brush. And we're like, look at society, that happens all the time.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>Could we just? There's a couple quick questions, and we've got to wrap up in just a minute. But just just kind of on that note, maybe one for you, Alex. A question about AI models are pretty liberal with responses, and that I'm guessing a whole bunch of liberal people develop these models. How do we ensure that these LLMs do not manipulate us either, being liberal or conservative? Do you have a pretty brief answer for that one? </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>No, I think that's right. I think that. No, I think that that's what's happening.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, okay.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>What's happening? I missed that. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>The liberalism is deep in the AI already.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>And there's not much we can do about it.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah. Yes.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Okay. Great. All right. Thank you. Thanks for the question. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>No, we can regulate it. But listen, it ate the internet, and you know, yeah.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay. All right. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli</strong> </p> <p>Can I just say that we absolutely have to regulate it?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yes. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli</strong> </p> <p>I mean,</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Well, wait. Do we have to? Okay. Hold up. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No AI. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre</strong> </p> <p>Do we have to regulate it to be less liberal? That's what's an issue.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No, no, not just the AI issue, right? I mean, they very interesting questions, and now it comes back to philosophy. I told you before, you know, sometimes you pursue questions about justice and legitimacy, and then it turns out that it's very helpful to have pursued those questions because now you have an issue that requires a good understanding of those concepts, and here we are, AI. I mean, the questions around regulation and what role we want AI to play in a liberal democratic society, for me, so many of those questions are they're philosophical, they're political questions. The very interesting questions that AI raises, I think, are political questions. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>No but the question here is,</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>No, no, no. But I'm not saying to regulate to be more or less liberal. That's the second step in the discussion. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Right, okay.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>I'm just saying that absolutely we should be thinking very carefully about how to regulate.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Agreed.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Agreed. Could you imagine sitting at dinner with these guys? Don't you think it'd be fun? </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>It's just our kids running around. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So, </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong> </p> <p>Bananas.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>My kids.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre</strong> </p> <p>Her kids.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So I'm really, I do apologise, unfortunately. I don't think I'm going to be able to get through many more of the questions. Am I getting a nod here? But I have a couple, and by the way, they're really amazing. So thank you. I'm going to read through a couple of them. Alex and Luara, have you experienced consequences for simply expressing your views? Yes?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Not yet.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>Not yet?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yes.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay. So we're going to have a drink afterwards, and maybe it's a good opportunity to ask them directly. Thank you for the question, Alex. You're building a framework for happiness by examining different values and approaches across cultures. Will you also be judging their effectiveness, and how will you judge their effectiveness?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah, it's a great question. Can't close on that. I think,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I've got another one. Don't worry.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Short version is this is this is my, me Alex. It is most misanthropic, so I think most of our lives, most of us spend most of our time trying to flee from the moral demand that is most important to us. So most of the time, we're trying to avoid the moral system that's pressing hardest on us. So I think all of these different cultures have a big top line moral value that they're trying to push. I think liberals, it's generosity and fairness. That's what we do. But how much of us, how many of us are just crappy individualists most of the time? That's how we avoid our morality. In China, Confucianism, harmony is the value, but that bends towards authoritarianism because it's much easier. So I think all of us try to avoid the main moral calling by differently. So there's it's like all good people. It's like it's Anna Karenina. All good people are the same, but all bad people are bad in distinctive ways, or whatever that was the saying was.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Great. And the conversation for afterwards is a what role does the media have in this as well?</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah. So I think you know when I when I discuss the role the university plays in the broader ecosystem, the pursuit of truth, the dissemination of knowledge. The media also has I think people who are in the media need to do the same thing. They need to take a step back and ask, what what game are we playing? You know, what role do we play in a in a liberal democracy? And there's some parallels between the media and academia. You know, like they describe fact. We also describe describe reality. There's some description of reality going on. I think one thing they are more you know it's more important for their, it's more part of their mission is holding power accountable. I mean we we do that to some extent in academia with the pursuit of truth, right? But that is a big part of their work. So there are some similarities, there's some differences, and also there is some overlap, and also some mutual support. If the media is doing their work really well, that helps us academics to identify social issues that we might want to, you know, better understand. If we're doing our job well, we're giving them the resources to describe reality. So we're friends. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>We're friends. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>It could well be another conversation for Sydney Ideas. You never know. Okay. So again, thank you for your questions. I'm going to finish with two very quick ones. Thank you, Glenda. Do you both have unconditional positive regard for each other?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>It's definitely conditional, but yeah, it's highly positive, but definitely conditional. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, good. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre</strong> </p> <p>Conditional, unconditional love's for, is nuts. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Yeah, we both have problems with conditional love. Unconditional,</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Love, unconditional love, right? So I think even a parent shouldn't love their child unconditionally. I mean, if they're a moral monster, you should move. No, no, seriously, right? This idea of unconditional love. I mean, really, if your child is a moral monster, you should love them. So I think.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>When's the dinner party? I am coming. I want to have this conversation. We're going to have this afterwards with a glass of champagne. </p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Just quickly, parents should love their children robustly and deeply, but even parents should put some conditions on their love.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay. I love this.</p> <p><strong>Luara Ferracioli </strong></p> <p>Close your ears, Mum. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>This is so great. All right, so much to discuss and unpack, but it's another show, and this is the final one for you, Alex. I'm really keen to hear that fourth rule for disagreeing well. Thank you for that question, because I was going to go there too.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Never go to bed angry. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Was that it?</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>I don't remember. No, I don't remember. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I tell you what. If you subscribe to the Sydney Ideas mailing list, we'll, we'll get Alex to pop that framework down and get it sent out to you because I think it might be a really good way to, to, to, to get a bit of a take home after this. This has been absolutely fascinating. There's drinks, there's wine, there's some food, there's you. We're going to hang back and have a conversation. My name is Fenella, Alex, and Luara. Please give them a big round of applause.</p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Thank you. Thank you, Fenella.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And I will just wrap up by saying this is the second part in the Conversations For Good series. So please do subscribe to the mailing list if you haven't. Tell your friends and come along. Thank you to Andy and the rest of the 爆料王's team for their incredible work tonight. You guys have been amazing. And see you later. Thank you. </p> <p><strong>Alexandre Lefebvre </strong></p> <p>Thank you.</p>
What can we say about the common good in a world marked by deep moral, philosophical, and religious disagreement? Join political philosophers聽Luara Ferracioli and Alexandre Lefebvre for a spirited discussion, hosted by Fenella Kernebone.
This conversation explores the fundamental beliefs that shape us, from our sense of self to our national identity and political systems. What values should we hold in common? What divides us? And how can we engage openly, listen generously, and argue critically in pursuit of a better society?
This event was held on Thursday 16 July at the 爆料王, presented by Sydney Ideas as part of our Conversations for Good series. You might also be interested in our other event, 'Conversations for Good: Across platforms'.
聽works on the philosophy of immigration and the philosophy of the family. Her聽most聽recent book聽is聽Parenting and the Goods of Childhood聽(OUP, 2023).聽She is currently working on the ethics of demographic renewal and聽finishing her聽book,聽The Future of Gestation: A Normative Inquiry,聽where she聽engages with聽difficult ethical questions聽around聽abortion, maternal addiction,聽surrogacy, and聽artificial wombs.
Alexandre聽is Professor of Political Philosophy at the 爆料王. His most recent book is Liberalism as a Way of Life (Princeton, 2024). He is currently working on a new book, The Good Life State, about how governments around the world are increasingly willing to tell their citizens what makes for a flourishing life.
聽is a cultural curator, speaker and presenter. As Head of Programming for SXSW Sydney, she helmed the largest conference in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region, working with world-class speakers and partners to create unforgettable experiences.
She's previously curated TEDxSydney and Sydney Ideas. An accomplished TV and radio presenter, podcast host, and MC, she has hosted hundreds of events spanning tech, arts, business, design, and culture. She serves on the board of Performance Space.