A.C. Grayling | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
One of Britain’s leading philosophers, Professor A. C. Grayling founded the New College of the Humanities in London in 2011. His work focuses on epistemology, metaphysics, and, most pertinently, their practical applications. Additionally, he has written extensively on religion, war, and public policy.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@rabbit-nq7uh]

Every word that A C Greyling speaks should be recorded forever for posterity......the clarity of thought is breathtaking.

[@SvendBosanvovski]

A C Grayling is one of our great public intellectuals. Don't just watch him on KZbin. Read his wonderful library of books.

[@noiselesspatient]

Superb. Clearly and wittily articulated arguments. Thank you.

[@vesper8385]

I’m learning so much, so fast from listening to him! I should be taking notes lol

[@edwardrussell7168]

Good quality talk. He has looked at the issues of legislation critically and is pointing out the flaws which are now manifesting as problems and this is what happens when human beings work outside the domain of the permanent values. What we sow so shall we reap works...

[@The123rasputin]

The whole point of Oxford is peak high intellectual quality, rigour and agility which is what Prof Grayling reminds us of. The pea brain comments here beg the question of whether there's any point in having the real Oxford mix with the popular forum that the Union has become.

[@Ytremz]

This is one of the most obscenely elitist comments I've read thus far, haha

[@ZygimantasA]

@@Ytremz And the most correct one.

[@leonw2744]

K

[@leonw2744]

@@Ytremz k

[@grapegripe]

Perhaps if you’re going to write a snobby comment which presupposes your intellectual superiority, you should try to avoid falling foul of the common misuse of the phrase “begs the question”.

[@raulgracia9731]

Wonderfully clear and incisive.

[@ashnur]

am i hearing correctly, that Grayling here expressed thought that a referendum is the opposite of careful discussion?

[@3mepleasenow]

Thanks

[@trashygit]

The core of the problem, or just the reality, is the domination of institutions over people's lives. To be honest, if the population of this planet is jumped from 1.5 Billion to 7.5 Billion in 4 generations, we are all the results of institutions. "The servants" of these institutions are chosen from the same schools, same classes with a very similar culture, so it is not realistic to expect them to work for the population; they will simply make institutions stronger. "Institutions" are not only the insurers of the system, but they also define the system. European, British, American parliaments and political systems (elections, parties, etc.) are operating towards a same direction; leave or remain, Tories or Labour, Democrats or Republicans are the different buses taking us to the same destination.

[@FilipeBrasAlmeida]

Not a very insightful survey to the evident problems with direct democracy, specifically through the use of nation-wide referendums. His approach focuses mainly on the fact that they are vulnerable to influence, manipulation, whimsical voting, etc. But these are not necessarily an argument against referendums per se: all elections suffer from the same dilemmas. The problems with referendums are that: 1. They promote the idea of majoritarianism, where a significant portion of the 50% + 1 vote thinks it is entitled to run roughshod over the remaining (no pun intended) 50% - 1. 2. They suggest that complex problems have dichotomic solutions e.g., Yes/No. It just so happens that they don't. 3. They are not suitable for hammering out complex issues that require broad and detailed negotiations. 4. They are best suited for handling issues that have clear dichotomic alternatives, a limited geographic scope, and ideally, consequences that are either perfectly foreseeable or easily reversible. His points in favour of proportional representation are perfectly valid.

[@kronossonork6994]

Filipe Almeida He should cover postal vote fraud

[@nickhumphrey4833]

I am slightly conflicted about this. I watched the first 10 minutes thinking I hated this talk- he sounded like he was putting an argument forward in favour of paternalistic government. But my take home message really is; you should have a healthy skepticism about the political process. But I don't know what the solution is. I ended up thinking yes he is right and very knowlegable, about the first past the post system being very ineffective at being democratic and various other things. good talk made me think- made me think that what I would like to see in the UK is a stable majority government whom who do not necessarily have my consent but are effective and act in my interests

[@alexandersumer4295]

The process of putting ideas forward and engaging fairly with criticisms of those ideas is itself the solution. Creativity alternating with criticism. It is a process of error-correction. Central to that process are freedom and seeking mutual understanding.

[@SvendBosanvovski]

He is very knowledgeable, Nick. I discovered his writing many years ago and celebrate any new release. His latest (Philosophy and Life) reprises much of the territory covered in his earlier writing, but beautifully relates the legacy of Ancient Greek philosophy (what is the considered life) to the challenges of our times.

[@doyle6000]

I watched Professor Grayling on the Origins Podcast and immediately ordered three of his books! This was good too!

[@hayleyanna2625]

Same! 😊

[@lewisjohnson8297]

The comments, as with a few others recently, seem to have very little to do with the content. Has that recently become a general problem?

[@stegemme]

yes, I sense you're familiar with AC Grayling, who elsewhere has quoted Bertrand Russell. "most people would rather die than think, most people do"

[@thechadeuropeanfederalist893]

While referendums are not native to the british democracy, they are native to the democracy in Switzerland and in Switzerland it is common and not seen as undemocratic to hold a second referendum on an issue if there is enough support for a second referendum in the population.

[@SammyInnit]

Professor Feels

[@garrettnewell7685]

Grayling is legendary. Is there anything that he’s not well versed in?

[@fryliver4953]

Finally a good non-celeb non-hysterical extremist invited.

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

We should get Jacob Rees-Mogg on. Non-celeb, non-hysterical and not extremist either.

[@stegemme]

extremist, are you serious, or do I just think Grayling is a milksop. He does have some relevant points though. Alternatively we could all just chuck that bullshit and make it a free for all, why not. ...

[@williammanning1028]

I've always wondered what a "non-celeb non-hysterical extremist" was. Now I know.

[@zonianfjb]

If you think he's non-hysterical I suggest you look at his twitter feed. The man is utterly deranged.

[@migmadmarine]

danged if he doesnt look like general james clapper with hair😉

[@GeraldSmallbear]

It’s a clever act of persuasion to use good legal insights to then leverage ones own prejudice and start injecting vitriol once the patient is sedated. I dips me lid.

[@marcococito-monoc1818]

I wish that our host had taken the opportunity to follow the far more interesting paths that Dr. Grayling was suggesting rather than remaining so intent on pursuing a single, monotonous line of questioning motivated by an obviously Brexitist point of view.

[@bigfan1041]

This wasn't very informative.

[@michaelgodfrey336]

He doesn't convince me in anyway that he has an answer to the conundrum that he has made up. What he says amounts to that there's no way a democratic vote can give legitimacy to a proposal.

[@woodchuck003]

He opens up with the claim that the US and UK are suffering similar problems. Yet when he explains the problems in detail the US ones seem to contradict the UK ones. Maybe he shouldn't compare a democracy and a republic. It seems his biggest problem is that the public didn't do what he wanted. He is well spoken but a zealot.

[@bradleyshane162]

The host owned him with their questions. His arguments are crap.

[@jrashaadrichardson]

Twenty Faces What Bouldness meant to say was “I couldn’t really follow the content, but I’m sure I disagree with him and he got owned by the host...I think 🤔 “

[@xAKIMBOCURLYx]

The real shame for Grayling is that he completely fails to align his democratic theory with his epistocratic dismissal of the Brexit vote. It's jarring how the man is willing to renege on commitments to democracy as soon as he doubts the result. His worst point of all is about manifestos and legitimacy. According to him, neither party won a majority on a manifesto to introduce Brexit... And yet those two main parties won the highest proportion of total votes in 2017 than they had for decades. Or does he mean a plurality? Which means the 2015 government that introduced the referendum was legitimate, which was the same legislative that initiated Brexit. Or he can argue that you need a majority of the population .. In which case Britain hasn't had legitimate government in a very long time. Presumably, if a coalition SNP, Greens, Lib Dems and Tiggers and (now) Labour won a general election on a platform to remain... They would also lack legitimacy. The only actual majority, Mr Grayling, is the one achieved in 2016 by referendum.

[@Jack-xi8ji]

I found the professor's opinions disingenuous at best. To cut it short, all he was saying was that he disagreed with the way certain votes had gone recently. He announced in his opening that he was politically biased, and all he did after was provide evidence of that prejudice. It appears to be a common modern trend to denounce a democratic vote when it goes against a personal opinion. Grayling's attempts to patch together elements of an array of dissociated topics, out of proper context, as evidence of undemocratic activities were as laughable as they were insidious.

[@Ytremz]

The only disingenuous thing here, Jack, is your synopsis of the otherwise sound points made by the professor. This was a very eloquent critique of the dynamics and practice of representative democracy. Any political bias that you have derived from this video, in all likelihood, are consequent of your own projections.

[@Jack-xi8ji]

You do obviously realise that the same criticism can be levelled straight back at your opinion. The differences though are that, 1. I prefaced my comment as nothing more than my opinion, rather than claiming 'facts' as you have overstatedly done. 2. I didn't feel the need to denounce anyone else's comments.

[@stephenrochester6309]

The professor’s comments on tailored information to persuadable margins, that is to say “weaponised” information platforms, didn’t alarm you? If there is something that the professor has voted for that you believe has been undermined by an undemocratic process, please bring it forward. If not, you have made a presumptive comment.

[@KingEutony]

May Allah guide us all! Ameen.

[@doyle6000]

Professor Grayling is an atheist!