canada or australia. each is a different price and you could find each cost. >> guest: you could spend time there and yes, one object -- the price is not inherit in the object. the price is in the transaction; right? it's the measure of the preferences of the people who are buying. ..

>> and now will go up a fairly soon i just don't know what it will look like but be a sophisticated range of prices. the pricing of ebooks has been very a a controversial $9.99 and with publishers publishers, business has not found a way to price the different variations.

>> host: maybe this is the topic of our next book. thank you very much. >> thank you to all of you for coming out this evening to my favorite bookstore in the whole wide world.

give it up for harvard bookstore. [applause] it is my pleasure to introduce kwame anthony appiah ehud has approached with the rigorous combination of humanity and find a bridge african-american intellectual history and political boss of the. appiah is a thinker and a writer and is warm and reflective and accessible and challenging and generous as he is as a friend. a premier scholar of contemporary philosophical thought, his work crosses discipline as it crosses national boundaries. and celebrates human-rights, ethnic and cultural pluralism, but identity, liberty, and a sublime mood of cosmopolitan. let me review just a few of

appiah accomplishments before talking about his new book "the honor code" how moral revolutions happen." educating gotta, england, we met 37 years ago at the university of cambridge he quickly rose to prominence as it philosopher of semantics at the intersection of the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind and now the rockefeller university professor of philosophy and prior to arriving at princeton he taught at yale and cornell and duke we collaborated realizing w. b. dubois a dream of encyclopedia africana that was brought in the second edition university oxford press in 2005. appiah textbook called the thinking it through

published in 2003 standard deduction for students of contemporary those of a plot his 1992 book in my father's house which is my favorite, is essential reading for anybody interested in contemporary african thought geographically specific and globally connected. cosmopolitan from the year 2006 describes the holy of the call philosophy of how we can get along when the globalize interconnected in the world is working could increase more entertaining mystery novels is discipline crossing and first and last deeply invested of human rights and individual liberty. "the honor code" brings appiah concern's zero moral progress happens it looks as successful campaigns against practices now considered foreign. foot binding in china for

example, lowered tools from aristocratic societies and most powerfully for me, slavery with the british empire and the united states. he helps us to understand the role plays a what he rightly calls moral revolution "the honor code" has received high praise from reviewers and giants from marvell angry that i will get to. paul berman from slate "reading the honor code is like attending a lecture buyer billion professor stumbling over his anecdotes but intent on making you think for yourself. the new year time celebrated him "of balance between argument and storytelling in which he stirs and spoonfuls of narrative money to make his medicinal tea go down."

think progress.com calls the book womack monstrously interesting and the exact reverse of all the stereotypes of academic overspecialization and who cares. [laughter] i like that. and now for the giants nobel laureate who has never shied away from more polis optical new ones cohmad cows stimulated is to have the remarkable research of the brilliant mind in to a concept of honor practice store not the book is essential for us and inescapable the relevance to the embattled human morality that we live within the codes of the president. edward paulson and walter isaacson and address the importance the annaly for current moral inquiry but also as a guide book for the future. wilson says "appiah always

out in a concept not only compelling in its own right to suggest a connection that it may in time help to collate biological and cultural exploration of human morality" that is a grand complement the. >> isaacson says sometimes honor is distorted as an with pakistan on the concept can be a lone star in guiding us to a better future." it is amazing insight and he concludes is an indispensable book for moral philosophers and honorable citizens. he just delivered two hours ago he completed the final of his three to be be the voice lectures and i am pleased to say those will be published soon by harvard university press.

kwame anthony appiah will read from his remarkable new book the latest contribution in a truly remarkable career ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my friend, kwame anthony appiah, clap. [applause] >> i am half english my mother was english. when people say nice things about you when you are english, you feel embarrassed. [laughter] but i am. [laughter] of but then you also thank them. life thank you very much. i am happy to read on the book if you like but i think i will talk about it. then by the end of yummy to read from that i will but

then i think you may want to ask questions. thank you for coming so to explain the book is a talk about the fire was thinking about a book that i wrote years ago looking for examples across societies of moral questions one of the most famous such conversations is a dialogue between christian missionaries elites with men were wise in business and chinese intellectuals talking about foot binding of girls in china i read some literature on that and regulate people say the reason why the chinese mandarins gave up what binding because it was on

stage a stain on the national honor of china. i can think of better reasons to not cause intense pain of two little girls. it is binding the feet so tight that they may develop an abscess, gangrene, and in the end in the ideal case, the foot is 3 inches long for the adult women then wrapped in a beautiful soap issue that she has made herself. i thought there were many reasons not to do it an honor was the weird one but in the back of my mind i was thinking about that later. ben at cambridge the history department one agreed to give a lecture. i have no idea why. of every kind of them.

i said this is my moment and figuring out that it occurred to me, i learned a lot about how human knowledge works breeding the work of the great philosophers about scientific revolution. some of the great french students i thought had written things to help us understand knowledge. it occurred to me there are moral revolutions. maybe helping us to understand maybe the moral revolution helps us to surrender stand about moral life. i said i will do a historical project like the

revolution that ended foot binding and it looks like the puzzling thing about what binding to me was a question of water so i need to understand honor and i think myself as moderate leave admirable what went to college my father said to me over his glasses with a cigarette in his mouth reading the morning newspaper, remember the family honor. [laughter] it was kindly meant but scary to say. i was brought up to think not only my honor but the family honor to them but i did not feel that it understood that logic was now that i am talking to

historians one episode where clear involvement of honor where it is a form of water that is what led me to become inspired to think about the tools. i have been upon a particular duel in 1829 that struck me as absolutely amazing as fascinating as honor may have ended. good tool between the prime minister of england but this style was from nottingham.

but anyway. [laughter] of these two guys meeting with the house of lords the duke of wellington, they fought a famous duel. what was it about? in one sense i have no idea i know what they said but it makes no sense so i cannot tell you something that makes you think that was reasonable but here is what they said. there is a debate whether catholics should be given the vote very imprint -- important lower ireland because the majority were catholic and ireland was on the verge of civil war the british had to figure out. and in a letter to the

newspaper said the duke of wellington and who was in favor of the emancipation and was opposed in a fast duke ellington and now the leader in charge was covering up his papers the fact he was seek what they secretly a sympathizer he was pretending to new support the king's college of london founded as the anglican in university and competition with the secular university that was just founded earlier. this is help you understand the dual? i don't know. [laughter] day accuse each other also

with the church of england that was the big deal to except catholics to be allowed to vote only in favor because of the civil war in ireland. anyway you have to apologize he says i can and one very distinguished soldier he went on to be commander in chief of a very distinguished men asked him to talk and then they have the dual. what happens? the fact this they always

look this italy but even know was serious the prime minister could have been shot in the middle of a crisis it looks ridiculous too us. they have a fight and wellington is challenged he fires and mrs. not surprising because wellington was one of famous -- a famously bad shot but what is amazing is what happens next what does he do? he puts the gun in the air and fires in the year he did not have to have the dual. why? we don't know but then he takes the apology out of his pocket and apologizes. why? he fell one subdue kasten to

apologize people thought he was not fighting because he was afraid to do will so he had to have the dual to be shot at and ordered to apologize. this may make sense to you but not to be. [laughter] and by the way their earl of nottingham was the grandfather of -- . [laughter] you can ask me more if you like but of what happened here is what i learned about honor. you may not know this but to lead was a legal from the time of queen elizabeth if

you can't kill someone it is ordinary murder it is illegal. dealing with condemned interest on the night the century, the ninth century that was repeated at the end of the reformation and commonplace of the protestant churches as well as the catholic church. there is a serious argument dealing against that because for doing to make sense there has to be a connection between who is right and makes sense the only person who can do that, it is him. if you use the tool to force him to make a choice you are attempting god and not something god is something christ himself said not to

do he says you shall not attempt got so he is tempting god and is an restaged unacceptable. also for a jewish reason. it is illegal. this plainly it is immoral because one reason to have a dual is because somebody has accused to of being dishonest. that is bad but not a capital event. it is bill viggo and it is also crazy. [laughter] because there is no connection between who wins or who is right. you have this which it is irrational but yet to over

300 years and the gentleman said yes. the beginning of the resistance have been when we know with a new kind of morality he would have denied this because he thought it was wrong he thought that was a good enough reason and say i know it is not kristian but i have to defend my honor. so the first lesson of the dual is honor will make people do things that is immoral or crazy or not jewish or christian and does not make sense but nevertheless they will do it.

it is a powerful discovery suddenly, duke of wellington fights the fight and asking to a duel people laugh because it is ridiculous. in 20 years it goes from being something the gentleman should do to something is not just recognize to be wrong but a source of dishonor it goes from being the honorable thing to the ridiculous nothing more desirable than being ridiculous but goes from honorable to ridiculous just in 20 years. that is a complicated story read the book. [laughter] but a lot of it has to do with the fact it was the aristocratic practice it

only works if aristocrats do it if anybody can do it does not distinguish to hobble butchers in barbers and others rude mechanicals that is what shakespeare calls the characters with the rude mechanicals already says one's regular people start doing that it will not work any more. he thought it would happen sooner but did did it could not do its job anymore bay

aristocratic not only wrong but ridiculous by 1850 your mocked in the "london times" and by the end of the 19th century and english officer from the background is asked what he would do if he would be a challenge to a dual? the one word answer is laugh. this story teaches another thing that of honor is reformed if you have new ideas to be a gentleman then you can turned in the right direction. those who will do no harm so you come from the model of a

gentleman from a noble to a respectable person with a stiff upper lip and not think it looks badly on new so i have much talk too long about one case there are three other cases maybe you can ask questions but i just want to make one final point* about how this applies to the present if you want to defend honor honor, there are some obvious objections the first about been democratize, second come i argue it could be turned against, the third is look when it is doing in the world today it is killing 1,000 women per year feliz

5,000 in the world the millions of women are terrorized so not only small portions because of our time and the situation today i should talk about muslim killings it is not a muslim practice to condemn the pakistani religious leaders also in south asia it is carried out by hindus and in the mediterranean world also by christians it is of muslim practice that has survived but that is

important to my argument to say there is an -- internal tension the notion of these other killings are met to what is sexual purity of their women voluntary or not. what they're not you are a good person but if you have been marked with a stigma of but those very same say they are responsible for the safety of their women. is already happening where those in pakistan to say there is no honor not any honor and honor killing. if you think a woman has

done something that is prohibited, then there is a mechanism prescribed which is to go to the court which is not to kill your daughter and mother and sister and wife. second, there is another huge argument to be made against honor killing pakistan is a muslim state by definition. that is the established religion. it brings dishonor to islam to allow the practice of the missile at -- muslim women of pakistan. pakistani honor and muslim honor are tied up i don't think anyone in pakistan

should take notice of me saying that but if you want to support somebody with honor killing support those that say lookout it makes us look and in order to seek what is bad come a half to understand that to it is wrong. honor is working to reinforce some collective honor could be mobilizing it is the conception of honor that could be reformed and i am hopeful will lead to the end of honor killing in the same amount of time of foot binding which is about 20 years if we do it right. a similar process of west africa led by the organization has led to the

abandonment of female genital cutting and thousands of villages. it can be made to work in the bodies of women so i reject the idea honor cannot be turned in this case and finally if you think it should be rejected, you have no chance. we have to not abandoned the reform and restructure so it is the purpose that we can applaud. thank you. [applause] >> i did not mean to end on the word applied. i am sorry. [laughter]

>> when we ran at cambridge hearing a story about the british soldier who gave his life by sacrificing himself the only way to save it was to sacrifice himself point to church of college men it is about how man's best friend chief noble and a court has to commit ritual suicide 30 days after the king dies so my question is first, where do we draw the line? with what is honorable and what is not?

how do we know how we're supposed to feel about defending fell homeland against invaders or killing someone in the name of the country that we love and value? second, i know you have written about and i thought you may share with your audience, it is easy to look back at foot binding now and see how ridiculous but maybe you share your list of things that the next generation will look back at us to say what were they thinking? >> on the first question, it is a question of how honor meets reform because is what they are demanding consistent? it is consistent with

morality but it is a different kind of value there yourself on a grenade but i don't believe prudence is the right way it is not honorable it is good in the context of four itself. we look at the practices of honor and ask how can we reform them to be consistent with morality not the same but consistent. in the case of honor killing egregiously immoral then that is the first point* but second, you may lose track

of something else that it serves to support all kinds of values one of the under a decrease each year that the person can be decided is morally superior but the rest is no guarantee. win we given honorary degree not because we think they're a super terrific person but because they are a great scholar or write your. [laughter] so that is used to sustain values other than that and that is very important yawner great movie makers and documentary makers and excellence that is not all morally but in debt -- instead it seems to

me i think honor this involving rights to respect with a right to respect and to care about your honor is about the title of respective you care about that you want to be respected but is the title that comes first of somebody just wants to the respective first is somebody like bernie madoff. but he doesn't care if he deserves it the honorable person wants to be that because they are entitled to that respect and that means when you care about something with the respect that we have a great statistic achievements one way to manifest is by

honoring those who would achieve beyond the norm in that domain. i would not understand i respect them music but those who are a good at it? what does that mean? honoring great athletes nurses to go with the call of duty and honoring those people, soldiers, not just what they have to do, we ask soldiers to do things the possibly could not require them to do because offering your life is not something you can require someone to do.

but if soldiers are willing to risk their lives so we cannot but several not giving their lives you have to punish them for what they have to do. nor is it possible to get people to risk their lives over money. i suppose if we said to every soldier for a billion dollars or a medal of honor some would take the money but many would take the medal of honor. put to get soldiers to do what we cannot demand them to do but they will do it for honor if it is a good cause is it worth getting people to do with that we could not require them that

is not something you can require them to do so is goes beyond the call of duty to offer your life. >> and the ticket with pork or beef prepare you cannot endorse it. i think their grandchildren

will look back and say what the heck were they doing? fe will see and never mind the environmental disaster but just the suffering of the animals. there will also worry about the environment that is months example its there are environmental issues and they will say why can't they get their act together? but the other perhaps that may not be necessary is i think the fact of the home of the free with american citizenship us 25% of the incarcerated people is preposterous. never minder forget about the morality, it is immoral and cannot be right to with

the system that ends up with that results not to do anything about it. maybe we slumbered our way into it but we may get our way out of it. but just the waste of human lives in the things of the things they could be doing for the rest of us were contributing to the gdp. i think people will look back to say you have no idea how it could have been for society one who central values could have ended up being the largest incarcerate your on the planet. or the history of the planet. known but his ever locked of this large proportion of citizens we have lots of people who have been in

prison and lives are ruined because, i don't need to talk about this. fe will say what we would say about slavery chemists say shame on you for allowing this. there are others and disputed cases i did not include abortion i think i have a different view but many people think maybe they will disappear but not for this reason but technological reasons. >> quickly on incarceration there are some of birds to use electronic monitoring as the alternative that may have other problems. >> is an improvement ceramics some evidence people are better served to

be in the public but since honor is on a consensus where is the authority to change the consensus? >> >> but i think in the cases that i look at nobody was going to argue the other moral side. there was some propaganda to slavery in the 1840's and 50's but i don't think they believe what they were saying because they said things that no reasonable person could believe so there was a sense of the necessity of the practice to plantations the life of the

society but i don't think what happens when people realize it is wrong that they say things they don't believe. that is a kind of defense, the other thing is to try very hard not to think about it. they engage with strategic ignorance people just don't think what is going honor to think about the fact that in the presence of the vast industrial society are more likely to have tv when you come out the when you go win you're more likely to be diagnosed with aids and for men the most likely place to be raped but another thing going sentence them to prison are sentencing them to be raped.

they our -- are our responsibility and we have to except that. >> was something like doing this people sense of morality changeover time? because that was equally morally wrong. >> it was but this is a complicated question because the notion of morality as a technical motion but what i mean by morality is a set of norms about what we've '02 other people. doing is complicated from the point* of view to be understood that way because whatever you say about doing in the end is between consenting adults and normally what we think what

consenting adults do is crazy or wrong, we are inclined to think it is up too them. it is complicated from that point* of view but how do shift the norm? the answer is this the best example from the foot binding case. you have to have a social movement. they have looked binding societies they have to commit themselves to the new normal. people say i will not vote for somebody who increases the rate of incarceration for i will not eat food that is produced through this means of production. that is what happened with the binding fay got together and anti-plant binding

societies were anti-opium societies and made a double promise and will not find the feet of my daughters and will not marry my son to a woman whose feet are bound that way where it was a condition you create a husband at the same time as changing the practice which was a brilliant. i don't know who thought of this because i cannot read chinese sources but it was a brilliant design. it is similar to what they have done in west africa when these women and men to commit themselves to female genital cutting first of all, they only do it at the same time in a village from which the has been scum. they have the conversation together then they say we will not do it and will not marry into families that do

it it is a tipping point* when there is a new abnormal all the social presser -- pressure on dueling for bookbinding or slavery, flips suddenly you feel bad and this is a book about honor but if you want to make the changes there are other things you have to do which it is real social organization those that commit themselves to a new norm and one cnf people do what you can stop talking about it because nobody will do it anymore.

>> talk about the paradigm shift what do you think of the prospects of the movement? asking those questions what were they thinking? >> using a finite resource that is infinitely available causing no harm it will destabilize the enterprise what were they thinking? we decide elections the last 48 hours what was the public thinking? to reject any self restraint? to read about honor and shame than just as the

revolution occurs things can flip very quickly. so what do we need to do do to remove the carbon to have the most diverse of the suv to said it will drive it to kingdom come but in the process hastening kingdom come. how do get them to flip? what was i thinking? >> the question is what will make the club have been in relation to a post card been the economy where we are not essentially making it much harder for erred the biological survival of our own kind which is the sort of thing our grandchildren in particular, if there are

any, should be inclined to say what were they thinking? this is i think a little different from some of the others in the following cents, it has a collective action problem the way that others don't. it is true negative suvs not doing it. if everybody else stops everything would be fine. when you have to listen to the sound of your daughter weeping for see the slave at your table or watch and being whipped there is a direct feedback to you if you are wounded or lose a friend in a duel there is a direct feedback. there is the extra dimension

of difficulty in this case which we have to solve of course, we have to figure out but what was doing about? but you did not have to maintain stability among the aristocracy all those people that were prickly you would end up for this sort why should i risk my life and order for my friend? once i am concerned about my honor i forget about the side effect if we can make

it dishonorable or shame the people in the suv time they drive around, that is one case but all of us are doing something we are ashamed of that is just one visible example but none of us can excuse ourselves. we're all a part of the problem. but if we can get ourselves to have the feeling as i drive down, people are thinking what kind of a schmuck is that? [laughter] but good driver of the suvs not thinking that and also does not care. [laughter] because the driver has not yet been converted to the norm of which there is a problem.

but the point* of the neglected vaxgen, it is not just a matter of telling people, you do have to produce with a social cost and we can do that but only a collectively. not one added time but creates a movement which is willing to say to people, you are poisoning the human nest. >> but the flip that occurs there, but today it is the free labor division and the slave trade and moving out of the need of the plantation mercantile cap and then palm oil why bring the west indies to grow sugar? >> it is crucial. the question is isn't important in the slave case

there was an alternative? slave labor was an alternative. yes. that is the other thing. telling people what they're doing is bad or shameful unless you tell them there is something else. that it is honorable and it is not enough if you are right. i should have said this is a very important part of the argument at the end of the book "cosmopolitanism" you cannot just tell them they are bad. they will ignore you, dislike you, but they will not change. you have to say you are doing a bad thing here is a good thing instead and satisfy the same interest but do so that is morally preferable. when we think about these things we have succeeded we

have made them more environmentally slightly more what you can feel proud about driving at least if you're thinking of the environment but then rehab to work hard to say why that is not a good frame of mind. a few more questions. i will not decide. [laughter] >> i saw your piece in "the new york times" magazine about a couple components of social change from our people from the next year for binding and wrote one of the key components for the campaign with a significant involvement of people from the outside so that the

missionaries to work money anti-if what binding campaign immerse themselves in to the chinese culture and tried to come in from a position of eric cantor superiority is how i understand it. how can that be done? that seems like a delicate balance culturally sensitive issues setter argue about in the framework that we are the human rights crusaders then people get defense of. >> just to repeat that could just of the question, she is talking about having read a piece that i wrote in "the new york times" magazine in which one of the things i stress of the role of outsiders to bring about change is in the chinese case at least the reason i believe it worked because

the relevant outsiders could be seen to have a deep respect for the chinese civilization. . .