Source: Prof Michael Sandel, Justice: ..., Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
52:21: We grew up and and we’re talked out of this way thinking about the world. 52:30: But here's a question: Even if teleological explanations don't fit with modern science;
52:37: even if we've outgrown them in understanding nature;
52:42: isn't there something still intuitively and morally plausible, even powerful;
52:50: about Aristotle’s idea that the only way to think about justice,
is to reason from the purpose, the goal, the telos of the social practice?
And isn't that precisely what we were doing when we were disagreeing about affirmative action? 53:07: You can almost recast that disagreement as as [sic] one about what the proper appropriate purpose, or end 53:19: Of an university education consists in.
53:23: Reasoning from the purpose or from the telos or from the end,
Aristotle says: That’s indispensable to thinking about justice.
I know that the bolded is a protasis; so Prof Sandel isn't claiming it.
Yet how can the bolded possibly be true?
I'm unversed in science and philosophy, but does the following exemplify teleologic reasoning?: Math often requires working BACKWARDS from the desired result. For example, to prove an inequality, you may manipulate the desired inequality into something simpler first. Then reverse all backward implications ( 2 => 1), and justify each (now forward) implication (ie 2 <= 1).