Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

I find thinking about basic concepts - those that form the essence of our society - can be very tough going. Basic concepts, when one thinks hard about them, become slippery. What, after all, is meant by the concept of "ethics" or "morality" or, for that matter, "justice"? These words are so frequently used that their precise meaning is assumed. They seem joined; their meaning seems a bit blurred. Are ethics the same concept as morals? Are ethics a way of living, a way of sorting out right from wrong, encompassing such concepts as fairness, honesty, compassion, a guidepost to finding the good life? Are morals something a bit more constrained? Are they concerned with doing the right thing, always with a view toward the impact of our actions on other human beings? If these distinctions are hard enough, "justice" is an even harder concept. We all know that a "just" society is vastly preferred over an "unjust" one. It offers a route to the diffusion of happiness throughout society. But is a just society compatible with gaping differences in the economic or social position of different people in the society? Does a just society require that most people enjoy similar benefits? Can a society be considered to be "just" if a few control the many? What exactly is "justice" and how is it measured? How is it created? How can we tell if a society is "just"? In the end, is a "just" society preferable to one that is less just? If so, how can we tell it is preferable? These are the tough concepts that Michael Sandel tackles in a very challenging, but ultimately deeply satisfying thought piece. His book, Justice, What's the Right Thing to Do?, takes three quite different cuts at surveying the field of justice. This is complicated stuff and I would advise any reader to take notes as the essay unfolds. It is easy to lose the thread, not because Sandel is not precise and not because he is boring. In fact, he is neither: he is very clear and demanding in his thinking and he illustrates different concepts of justice and fairness (not that these are necessarily identical concepts) with real-life examples that ask the reader to look at the same set of facts from different angles. Professor Sandel teaches at Harvard Law School and has the exemplary ability to argue two different points of view of an issue, each with great persuasive power. I thought I had a strong point of view about affirmative action, the sale of fresh human organs, the volunteer army, and the proper distribution of wealth in a society. These issues, and many more, are discussed in the context of some of the great thinkers about justice. More than anything, it leads this reader to a revised attitude towards the discussion of values, greater respect for the strength of different points of view. We first learn about Jeremy Bentham and his principle of utilitarianism. Is any particular solution to any problem just? His sole measuring stick is simple: determine what solution produces the highest level of happiness for the largest number of people. This seems simple, although the measurement of satisfaction is undoubtedly hard. But then, is this all there is to forming a "just" society? What about defending individual rights, which can be so easily ignored if the only measuring stick is the happiness of the community? Does utilitarianism weigh preferences with no judgment as to their worthiness? Ultimately, the respect for the individual becomes a more central idea in the pursuit of justice. John Stuart Mill, a generation younger than Bentham, erects a superb structure that argues the notion that respecting individual liberty is the essence of the just society. Character is what counts most to Mill. This is a seductive line of thought and, in fact, it was only short distance between Mill's thoughts and the idea that any interference with individual liberty is not only repugnant but leads eventually to an unjust society. This is the essence of libertarianism: reject all forms of restraint on the individual. Taxation is a form of theft. Free markets hold the answer to any tough issue. Why should there not be a market for human organs? What is wrong with consensual cannibalism? What is wrong with using economic inducements to citizens in order to persuade them to serve in the armed forces? The logic of this approach seems seductively attractive but somehow wrong. What about higher values? Is human life all about getting what we want? Is there a higher standard? This brings us to a discussion of Immanuel Kant, a philosopher who had always had a forbidding image to me. Kant's view is that one must look at the motive behind any action to determine its worth. He asks that all our actions be honest, all be held to the standard of a dedication to high morals. Is what I am doing fair and virtuous to myself? To society? What is the impact of my actions and behavior on others? So we travel and long, and sometimes hard, road in this book. But at the end, Professor Sandel asks us to think about the effects of what we do and the system that we create not only on ourselves but on the society as a whole. This is a very satisfying, if tough, book. It asks questions that are very hard to think about, let alone answer. But in asking the questions, it forces the reader to think about the logic and the eventual effect of all possible answers. It moves the debate from the talking heads of television and the extremism of today's political heat to a discussion of what really is a just society.

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Michael Sandel teaches a Harvard course on moral reasoning and justice, so popular that the university has produced it as online video (which you can preview for free). Upon reading Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do you will quickly understand why Sandel's course draws rave reviews. The book is marvelously instructional, even for readers already well-educated in political philosophy. Sandel explores each of the principal aims of justice: maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. He delivers clear expositions and critiques of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kantian ethics, and John Rawls' theory of justice, and then builds a case for the views of Aristotle. Sandel makes all of this easy to assimilate by framing the theoretical discussion in dozens of cases that lay out the issues. His typical approach is to describe a situation posing a moral dilemma, to ask (either explicitly or implicitly) for our reaction about what the right choice would be, and then to probe what moral principle might support that choice. A few of his cases are hypothetical (such as the notorious trolley cars headed toward people on the track) but most are drawn from history, the news, or popular culture, and many are quite contemporary. This may be the only book of serious political philosophy where some of the lessons appropriately rely on Winnie the Pooh, the Simpsons, Miss Manners, and Woody Allen. More typically, the illustrations resonate because they involve humans having to make tough decisions, choices that we ourselves would likely struggle with. No matter what your predispositions, you may find yourself thinking in new ways about such issues as immigration, affirmative action, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and voluntary cannibalism, for example. Sandel's principal criticism of modern theories of justice is that they try to separate questions of fairness and rights from arguments about honor, virtue, and moral desert, that they seek principles that are neutral among ends, enabling people to choose their own preferences. Following Aristotle, Sandel believes that separating arguments about justice from those about the good life is neither possible nor desirable, that the good is prior to the right. Our stance on same-sex marriage, for instance, requires us to take a position on the purpose of marriage, which is contested moral terrain. "A just society can't be achieved simply by maximizing utility or by securing freedom of choice. To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise," he declares. For Sandel, as for Aristotle, the purpose of politics is to form good citizens and cultivate good character. A good philosophy teacher does not necessarily seek total agreement and may leave his or her students with further questions. Here are just a few that occur to me. Is justice a matter of principles guiding behavior or of physiologically instilled moral sentiments helping to shape principles, or both (Sandel's position is not fully elaborated)? If our cultural identities inevitably and desirably inform our moral choices (as he advocates), what principles prevent those communal encumbrances from becoming oppressive (as he warns is possible)? Even if we cannot set aside our cultural identity, why would it be undesirable to try to do so, to be as impartial as possible in questions of justice (think of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings)? Justice is the sort of book that may make you wish you could take Sandel's follow-up class.

I think this book is an excellent introduction to the philosophy of justice. Sandel goes through the foundations in a very clear fashion. I found this overview of the theories of justice extremely readable, clear and illuminating. The order of introduction is, utilitarian scales of justice, then individual freedom based ideas and ending with Aristotilian ideas of underlying virtue and purpose. The book systematically goes through different forms of justice and examples that force the reader to confront the cognitive dissonance that arises from assumed results from high level justice and the fairly wrenching deductive results that follow in specific cases that appeal to our sense of humanity. These cases in the book are what make it most valuable as it forces us to reckon with the consequences of taking ideas too far, and that logical conclusions can take us from the spirit of the intention. This turns out to be a theme that eventually leads to the conclusion- using systematic rules of justice versus a vision of societal right and wrong, can lead us down unintended paths, and because of that we need to re-embrace that public discourse on matters of right and wrong is at the heart of the way we view justice, not prioritizing a system of measuring scales (whether the measuring be utility or personal freedom). Comparing this to Sen, who recently too published his views on justice, there are similarities of using public discourse as a means of judging what is in societies interest from justice, though the means of getting there are different with Sen taking all forms of input, both near and far vs Sandel looking for it to be systematically embedded in local and national discourse. I think Sandels approach is a lot more realistic given the constituent dependencies of democratic systems (whether this is effectively better, i doubt, but practically it is). The reason I dont think this book isnt quite five stars (though its pretty close) is that it often lacks practical reasoning and occasionally overfits cases to political philosophies vs focusing on the behavioural aspects of our personal scales of justice. It occasionally uses arguments and reasoning that is refuted in other cases to fit the books thesis. An example is the gay marriage, discussing the reality that it is about the virtue of the institution of marriage and a question of the qualities its members should have. He throws out criticisms of the personal freedoms defenses of gay marriage by using a polygamous marriage argument as another logical extension of marriage and personal freedoms. That is not like for like... especially on the premise that is a personal freedom. Most polygamous marriages are not done under what might consider personal choice (one can make this argument in a similar way to the surrogate mother not knowing what she is getting into). There might be a minority of people engaged in polygamy under free choice, but most of the issues with respect to polygamy dont fall under a well informed free will argument. So the original principle that requires moral attitute vs personal freedom (as overwhelming issue) is based on a poor extension of the expanse of personal freedoms and their consequences. The acting under free will is a specific argument used earlier in a surrogate pregnancy case. This was an excellent overview of justice and the philisophical battleground it sits on is second to none. The example and consequentialist methodology of the book is very illuminating and acted as an excellent mechanism for people to re-question some of their basic assumptions by taking them to some unpleasant logical conclusions. The only critique i have is this methology is also used inappropriately with biased examples. That being said, thats what makes justice a never ending subject that makes us look into our value systems and the origins of them, what one person sees as an inappropriate comparison, another sees as like for like, forcing us to take the next step deeper into where we differ and then why that difference emerges in the first place. I highly recommend reading this, at the least it causes us to rethink ones own set of underlying priorities and value systems and how it relates to societal interaction.

I’m big into books heavy on Theory, so this was unusual for me, read in part because it was required reading for my into to ethics class. Although I at first assumed the book would be very surface level and provide little if any substance, I was pleasantly surprised by a work which succeeded in conveying basic ethical reasoning in accessible prose as well as providing detailed and modern examples to highlight the limitations of various forms of ethical thinking. This is a very useful book for realizing that one’s ethical approaches often blend a number of roughly divided ways of understanding ethics, namely Rights-based Ethics (Libertarianism), Goal-Based ethics (Utilitarianism), and Duty-based ethics (Deontological ethics). By doing so, we get a very detailed and enlightening view of the philosophical reasoning behind why we think what we do. Sandel is careful to provide us with as unbiased of an understanding of these ideas as possible, stretching them to their limits, whilst also showing how ethics can be equally about self-discovery as it is about being right. Very accessible, thorough, and engaging, I’d recommend this as an ideal book for anyone, but especially those who know nothing of philosophy and want nothing to do with it, maybe because they claim it’s too abstract and has no real-world application.

Michael Sandel does the remarkable in this book, he makes some of the most difficult political philosophy comprehensible. This review will focus on one of the hardest nuts to crack, Kant. Utilitarianism is an extreme thought path which believes that consequencesa are all. Kant's thought path is an exact reversal of the utilitarian notion, this leads to many conundrums but also many profound insights, insights that, as Sandel writes, "actually informs much contemporary thinking about morality and politics, even if we are unaware of it." Why did Kant reject utilitarianism: to pursue pleasure and avoid pain as the ultimate goal seemed to him merely an animal's way of life. Men are more than sentient creatures (responding to our senses, our desires) they also possess reason. It is reason that allows men to rise up and be more than mere creatures of appetite. Appetites are biologically determined or socially conditioned, therefore, they are not, in Kant's view, truly free. When we pursue pleasure, we are acting like "a billiard ball, it falls by the law of gravity, there is no autonomy, there can be no moral responsibility. We are instruments, not authors, of the purposes we pursue." Now let's define the terms freedom, moral worth, and duty. Kantian freedom is to act by laws I give myself (autonomously). What does this mean? Sandel describes it thus, "When we act heteronomously, we act for the sake of ends outside us, like the billiard ball...When we act autonomously, we do something for its own sake, as an end in itself. We cease to be instruments of purposes given outside us." Thus, what many take to be freedom, market freedom, has, according to Kant's pristine view, no more autonomy than a billiad ball, it is no better than an animal's way of life. Moral worth for Kant does not derive from the consequences that flow from an action but "in the intention from which the act is done." The motive must not be instrumental but in doing the right thing because it's right. Kant defines duty as doing the right thing for the right reason. Thus, duty is the motive that confers moral worth. To act out of self-interest is an attempt to satisfy appetites and this possesses no moral worth. We have now arrived at the core: Where do these "laws I give myself" come from? For Kant they come from our reason. Reason is not the slave of the passions, as it was for Hume. Kant's notion of reason is not instrumental reason but "pure practical reason," that is, the categorical reason (imperative). According to Kant, the categorical imperative abstracts from our particular interests, therefore, everyone who is able to do this will reach the same conclusion, "will arrive at a single universal categorical inperative." The doctrine of the categorical imperative leads to enormous difficulties into which Sandel does not delve. If we do not possess such knowledge, and it would seem we do not, then we are compelled to live with an awareness of our ignorance, as Arendt would say "a life without banisters." One of the glories of Kant is that he sets aside consequences and all its associated difficulties. Of course, he avoids Scylla only to run afoul of the Charybdis.

Sandel goes through the different theories of justice in ancient and modern politics, which are broadly categorised into justice as utility, freedom and virtue, and challenges your idea of what justice is. He highlights the inconsistencies in our logic of justice and how we apply different theories of justice to different situations. A highly interesting read i’d recommend to understand your own personal beliefs on justice and the good life.

The good to great part of the book: "Justice" runs chapter by chapter across schools of thought on what is "right" (moral philosophy). It highlights a particular standout, like Kant or Aristotle, as the narrative goes from chapter to chapter, and then segueing into how to make judgements and thereby systems of law or government. The book does well in its walk from Utilitarianism to Libertarianism and so on, and uses examples from modern life to illustrate the point of view of a particular philosophy and the struggles you might have in adopting that view. The bad of the book: The book really falls apart toward the last couple of chapters in two ways: (1) his particular political leanings become the focus vs. the former focus of schools of thought being applied to relevant challenges, and (2) the author's tone deafness, hypocrisy, and inability to relate to modern relevant challenges becomes increasingly apparent. For example, the author references Laredo, Texas and Juarez, Mexico as "adjacent cities where a child could be born on one side of the river vs. the other” and he explores the implications. However, Laredo is over 600 miles away from Juarez. This is an example of how the book's scholarship is centered on lofty ideals, whereas the research and application to modern challenges (the hard part) are missing. When you are a Harvard professor, perhaps all west Texas vs. south Texas towns are all the same. Similarly, the author writes on open immigration: "For affluent nations, however, restrictive immigration policies also serve to protect privilege. Many Americans fear that allowing large numbers of Mexicans to immigrate to the United States... for the sake of argument, that open immigration would reduce the American standard of living. Would that be sufficient grounds for restricting it? Only if you believe that those born on the affluent side of the Rio Grande are entitled to their good fortune. Since the accident of birth is no basis for entitlement, however, it is hard to see how restrictions on immigration can be justified in the name of preserving affluence." At this point, we should be reminded that this is a Harvard professor. He belongs, supports, and advances an institution with a $2.3 Billion endowment that charges ghastly sums to those admitted and rejects roughly 97% of hopeful applicants. This is done to protect the prestige and subsequent affluence of the institution. Earlier in the book, the author makes reference to obligations children have to their parents, even if the parent was not particularly good to the child. Again, presumably, the author did not come from an abusive and neglectful home, so these are examples from the book where the author chooses to place himself in places of "easy for him to say". Further, the author writes on reparations: "With belonging comes responsibility. You can't really take pride in your country and its past if you're unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility for carrying its story into the present, and discharging the moral burdens that may come with it." Perhaps the author is missing the position in which what you take pride in is the collective effort to improve, to refine ourselves in the light of greater understandings of humanity and equity, rather than pride in various individual events and actions in a procession of evolutions. This is the tone deaf collapse of the book as the author moves from introducing philosophical schools of thought to advocating for his particular politics. In the author's support of reparations, for example, one then wonders whether Harvard owes a collective apology and reparations to those the school has rejected and harmed over it's centuries of existence and efforts to maintain it's affluence.

This review primarily covers my purchasing experience of a used book I recently acquired via Amazon marketplace. I bought the used book ( Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? ) by Prof. Michael J. Sandel off the Amazon marketplace from the seller "heavytail" (Susan at [email protected]), and I was exceedingly pleased with the entire experience for several reasons: (1) The product arrived promptly (over 10 days faster than projected), was packaged appropriately, and --most important of all-- the book's physical condition actually EXCEEDED its description in its marketplace ad. The book was in fantastic shape with very crisp pages (it felt almost new), absolutely no marks and with the hardcover and associated dust jacket in excellent condition. I would judge the condition of the book as being closer to "Like New" or at least "Excellent" rather than the much more conservative "Good" condition that was used in the marketplace ad. What a pleasant bonus for me as a consumer! (2) Furthermore, the customer service was very considerate and thorough. I appreciated the careful packaging, the thorough packing list note that accompanied the product and the seller's obvious desire to provide the best possible customer experience as she strives for 100% satisfaction. Based on my experience, she's certainly achieving that goal as I've ordered well over 100 used books from Amazon marketplace (and other large, online used book sites) over the years, and this was one of the 10 to 20 percent or so where the delivery experience and the product as received perfectly matched and/or exceeded the listing. (3) Finally, the book by Prof. Sandel is a very entertaining and informative read and I've enjoyed it thoroughly thus far! I can see why it was a NY Times bestseller, and has generally received such a high rating on Amazon and glowing reviews elsewhere. Although not groundbreaking, it certainly is far easier to read and enjoy than Kant's "Groundwork For The Metaphysics of Morals" or even Rawls' "A Theory Of Justice" (of which I happen to be a fan, although I like Nozick's critique just as much -- believe it or not). Accessibility to a general readership should never be underestimated or derisively dismissed by intellectual elitists on whatever side of the "Justice Fence" they happen to operate. Based on my experience, I will likely be using heavytail's service in the future any time she happens to be carrying a book that I am interested in purchasing. Sincerely, A Very Satisfied Customer

O Professor Michael Sandel escreveu um clássico, de linguagem simples, direta, objetiva. O que dizer de um clássico? Bem, basta dizê-lo clássico, simples assim. De qualquer modo destaco uma passagem do livro. Diz ele: "A ganância é um vício, um mau jeito de ser, principalmente quando deixa as pessoas alheias ao sofrimento dos outros.. Mais do que um vício pessoal, está em desacordo com a virtude cívica. Em tempos de dificuldade, uma boa sociedade se une. Em vez de pressionar pela vantagem máxima, as pessoas cuidam umas das outras." Adiante ele acrescenta: "Uma sociedade em que as pessoas exploram seus vizinhos para obter ganhos financeiros em tempos de crise não é uma boa sociedade. A ganância excessiva é, portanto, um vício que uma boa sociedade deve desencorajar, se puder." De imediato me veio à memória um país de grande extensão e grande população localizado na Ásia. Um país em que não há respeito a Direitos Humanos, não há eleição, divisão de Poder e liberdade religiosa. Direitos trabalhistas nem pensar, e justamente porque eles não existem esse país se transformou na grande fábrica de tudo. Uma grande fábrica em que se pratica trabalho escravo ou similar à escravidão. É exemplo para o mundo? o que tem a ensinar? Reflexão que todos deveriam fazer. Quanto ao livro do ilustre Professor de Harvard ele é muito mais do que essa passagem reproduzida acima, sobre ganância e falta de virtude. Recomendo o livro. Boa leitura.

Exceptionally written by a leading intellectual on the matters of political philosophy and applied ethics. Everything is laid out well and real cases used to give practical examples of concepts discussed. One of those books you are disappointed to finish because it's just so good.

Fácil lectura para todo público aunque no se esté familiarizado con el tema, ejemplos claros, buena explicación, buen desarrollo de los temas, incluye ejemplos de autores importantes de cada corriente.

Great! I love the way the different theories are presented.

Dr. Sandel's excellent philosophy textbook explains three great moral philosophers, Bentham, Kant, and Rawls. Like his lecture for college students, readers are involved in discussions of controversial problems such as the Wall Street bailout, surrogate mothers, selling organs, Bill Clinton and Monica, affirmative actions, and so on. Utilitarianism is simple but problematic in ethics, defined categorically and imperatively according to Kant. Rawls emphasizes civic virtue and the common good to solve the matter of ethics. Audible was not suited for me because of the sophisticated sentences; Give me a little time to think.