Customer Reviews

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book will not satisfy the elite of hair-splitting moral philosophers, but to my mind it is the best book I have ever seen explaining moral philosophy to neophytes. The examples come mostly from contemporary American social life and many are well-known in the literature. But many were new to me, and included some of the most morally conflictual issues I have ever encountered. I just cannot imagine a better way to present the content of modern moral philosophy to the world.

Michael Sandel is a quite famous political philosopher with a reputation for extreme adherence to a particular brand of community-oriented virtue theory that is critical of the two major traditions in moral philosophy---utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer) and deontology (Immanuel Kant, John Rawls). However, the reader will likely not discover this fact until the very end of the book, so even-handed and appreciative is Sandel of the alternative approaches. Indeed, the book is filled with the tension of a World Cup match, where the top players in the world are paraded before us in all their splendor, and where it is difficult to call any one a looser. This attitude contrasts sharply with the standard behavior of professional philosophers, who have hissy-fits when confronted with arguments with which they disagree (Sandel is capable of this as well, of course, but not in this elegant volume).

The most important thing the student learns from this book is that morality is for real, and leading a moral life is the highest goal to which we can aspire. I learned moral philosophy in an era dominated by the sort of analytical philosophy according to which moral statements are meaningless utterances, and moral behavior is irrational and constricting. At its best, I was taught that moral principles were an individual's private property, and were about as important as one's musical or artistic taste. For Sandel, morality is not an accoutrement of the genteel life, but is the source of all meaning in life, and he conveys this message to the reader without an ounce of preachiness or self-righteousness.

In his previous writings, Sandel has been a major critic of John Rawls's theory of justice, which has been the centerpiece of liberal democratic political philosophy for almost forty years. Rawls' embraces a Kantian ethic that extends the Categorical Imperative (do unto others...) in a way relevant to social policy and political philosophy. According to Rawls, we must erect social institutions using principles that we would individually be willing to accept if we were behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevented us from knowing what position we would hold in the resulting social order. He suggests two major principles. The first is the lexical priority of liberty, meaning that no social order has the right to constrain freedom in the name of some type of social engineering. The second is the principle that society should be organized so that the well-being of least well off is maximized. This leads to a radical egalitarianism in which the question of the justice of the distribution of wealth and income is the major moral issue in society. In particular, it leads to a hyper-individualism in which the moral principles of individuals is of no importance in their claim to a "just share" of the material wealth of society, and individuals are worthy of respect whatever they happen to choose as a way of life, provided they leave room for others to pursue their individual goals. Sandel rightly rejects this political philosophy on the grounds that by favoring "rights" over "the good," we necessarily degrade political democracy and republican virtues.

Sandel's alternative is to embrace a form of virtue ethics according to which the moral is what would be enacted by the virtuous individual, and we can tell what is virtuous by inspecting the character of human nature and the embeddedness of individuals in a close fabric of social life. The virtuous individual will "flourish" through acting in according with his or her highest nature, and immorality is a form of self-destruction brought on through ignorance or laziness.

The main thing missing from this book is an appreciation for the science of human morality. Humans make morality in the same sense that they make food, babies, art, music, and war. Sandel does not appear to realize that theories of morality should explain moral behavior, much as linguistics attempts to explain human verbal communication. Philosophers appear to have the idea that the philosophical "experts" have no more reason to study people's actual moral beliefs than physicists have to study folk-physics. This is a serious error, which leads philosophers to seek the "one true theory" from which all moral truths can be deduced. There is no "one true theory." All of the major branches of moral philosophy are represented in the everyday moralizing of people. Obligation, consideration of consequences, a sense of virtue, and even visceral feelings of cleanliness and propriety are all involved in how people make moral choices.

Because Sandel does not treat moral behavior as worthy of scientific study, he misses one major point about human morality: the strong underlying unity of moral sensibility across all societies and covering most social issues. The motivating force of Sandel's book is moral conflict, either in the form of an individual having to make choices that necessarily involve opting for the lesser evil (for instance, should soldiers kill an innocent shepherd to save the lives of nineteen patriotic soldiers, or should a living fetus be sacrificed to satisfy the preferences of the importuned mother), when in fact most major moral choices concern good versus evil, and what is considered good and evil is pretty much the same the world over. Everywhere, people cherish honesty, loyalty, hard-work, bravery, considerateness, trustworthiness, and charity. Similarly, everywhere people prefer insiders to outsiders, and take pleasure in hurting those who violate personal integrity or social rules. It is these moral values that have made humanity the imposing presence it has upon the planet, and if we are to survive into the future, it is these basic moral values, which are universal from small tribes of hunter-gathers to the vast populations of advanced technological society, that will provide the energy for the tasks that lie ahead of us.

Some other reviews say it better, but the book, in my opinion, is an introduction and conversation-starter to the topics of Justice and Morality rather than a definitive work.

The big plus of the work is that his writing style is *very* easy to read and the issues he brings up are both current and relevant. It is easy to apply the issues in a practical way as he talks about them. some examples are military service, surrogate mothers, bailouts, and issues of religion in politics. Good stuff. Easy to get a reader engaged and discuss the underlying moral principles of the various points of view and how different principles result in different conclusions as to what to do in the various situations.

The down sides are his tendency to provide value judgments on everything he considers. "great thinker", "brilliant pilosophy"; each chapter comes across as a conclusion rather than a discussion. This may be intentional on the part of the author since it can be nice to be led to answer. However, in my opinion, that kind of hubris for any author, but particularly about a subject as difficult as this, just sends me through the roof.

If you are looking for a solid, engaging, introduction into the issues of morality, moral philosophy, and "justice" this may server as a fine work. It would also server as an excellent book as a seed for a book group, or any other group, that wants to discuss these issues. I do ask that the reader not take what is said as the final answer, but simply the authors introduction to the issues.

If you are looking for a more thorough analysis of the subject from a recent, and practical perspective, that is still readable, I would encourage you to look at works by Richard Posner.

As a college student I dabbled in political philosophy - something I ought to do (ask the big questions). The courses examined texts from key thinkers, and traced ideas over the generations. I found this approach difficult: though often interesting, I soon forgot most of the content.

Sandel's book is different. Although referring to key thinkers, he links their ideas to current political and social issues (affirmative action, laissez-faire economics, etc.). This not only drew my interest, but helped me retain content (related to the abstraction called "justice"). While I sometimes disagree with Sandel's conclusions, I found his material provocative, relevant, and interesting.

I admire the author's ability to make political philosophy more accessible. However, as evidenced particularly by the case of reparations, I think some of his conclusions are too ivory-tower. Let's say we give $20,000 to every African-American as compensation for "historical offenses." Where would that money go? WHAT GOOD would come of it? For too many beneficiaries I fear it would bolster an already troublesome sense of entitlement, linked to passivity; the funds might better be targeted to (e.g.) education and public health. Sandel does not move beyond abstract thinking to deal with this issue on-the-ground. (In my own defense, let it be known that I worked in government for an African-American congressman on community development issues.) In recent years I have changed my thinking on affirmative action: we need it for poor people of any color or ethnicity, and not for those with more adequate resources.

Although I liked this book, I greatly value the criticisms found in two other Amazon reviews, and highly recommend these for deeper understanding of this book: see 3-star reviews written by "Omer Belsky" and "Magic Man." Each probes to a deeper level than my own review, and together prompted me to reduce my rating for the book from 5 to 4 stars.

Michael Sandel is a political philosopher, Harvard professor and perhaps National Treasure. His concern is achieving a just society and introducing notions about virtue and moral reflection into political debates. His philosophy lectures merited a 12-part TV series on PBS, but something quite serious seems to be in the works. I listened to the audiobook and have linked it below.

Forget about the tedium of philosophy classes - memorizing arguments of great philosophers and reproducing them in exams. This is different. If Sandel continues to gain access to the country through the national media, he might do for us what Socrates did for the ancient Greeks. He might succeed in making moral reflection a public endeavor, not a solitary activity. To him, a philosopher can be an interlocutor for the people. He and his students (disciples?) might shame our politicians into doing the right thing more often.

Justice starts out in a friendly manner with its first case being the price gouging for necessities in the aftermath of Hurricane Charlie. At the time, newspapers were filled with editorials on how price gouging is not wrong since there's no "just price" and supply and demand should be allowed free reign. Yet buyers in emergencies are under duress and thus not truly free. That's why we feel a sense of outrage. We learn that we share principles tracing back to famous dead philosophers.

By mid-book, Sandel cuts close to the bone and you can see now why politicians would want him confined to the lecture hall. He shows us that justice is inescapably judgmental and that today's political arguments are about anything but virtue. He wants philosophy to be used on economics, not just on matters of abortion and gay marriage. Sandel demonstrates that the growing inequality in the U.S. undermines the solidarity that a democracy requires.

Sandel points to the hollowing out of the public realm on which a democratic society depends. As public services decline and decline, as we let our common spaces for all but wealthy Americans deteriorate, we undermine our shared democratic citizenship.

Common spaces accessible by our democracy include public transportation, parks, schools, hospitals and health clinics, libraries, the news media and more. Much of public life has become overly market-based. We privatize prisons and contemplate a system of monetary rewards for teachers whose students achieve higher scores on state assessments. We've allowed a terrific gap in military service with a smaller percentage of our public officials having children in the military and serving in the wars than ever before. We load heavy burdens onto families of our troops without mercy. We gave tax cuts to the rich in time of war and were advised to go shopping. In all this, Sandel explains the schools of philosophical thought that provided the principles we adopted.

Sandel contrasts ancient theories of justice, concerned with virtue, with modern theories concerned with freedom. Yet we share beliefs about virtue. We just don't apply them to economics and politics as he advises. Our society has deep currents of moral convictions. Many of us were appalled that those on Wall Street didn't take responsibility or show some contrition for their actions that caused so much pain to Main Street. These are issues that Sandel discusses. While popular with students, he's a scourge to those vested in the status quo.

Link to audiobook which I listened to: Justice. I am partial to the audiobook because I would like to listen to it several more times over the next few years.

The author does an excellent job in demonstrating how dominant the act utilitarianism of Hobbes ,Locke,Bentham and the neoclassical economics of "modern" mainstream economists ( the goal of any and every society should be aimed at maximizing the pleasure(utility) of the greatest number) has become in modern societies.This dominance esentially leads to injustice.Hence ,the title of the book.Of course,justice is one of the four " pagan " virtues(the other three are courage,prudence and temperance).The author correctly shows how John Stuart Mill's rebellion against his father's Benthamite,act utilitarianism led to Mills' rule utilitarianism, which involves a complete rejection of the foundation of the Benthamite view that all pleasures and pains can be analyzed and calculated exactly .John Stuart Mills "Utilitarianism" ,in fact,completely rejects the foundation of utilitarianism by his emphasis,not on the quantity of pleasure ,but on the quality of pleasure .His belief that Jesus was the ultimate ,ideal "utilitarian" leads to what is missing in Mills approach-his failure to recognize the superiority of Virtue ethics ,since Jesus rejected the tenet that humans ought to pursue pleasure as their main goal in life.In fact,the correct goal is the pursuit of Justice for everyone.This leads invariably to an analysis of the economy , the distribution of wealth and how money ,credit and debt instruments are used ,as well as their main purpose in an economic system.



It is here that the author could have added two valuable chapters.The first chapter would have concentrated on Adam Smith and his complete rejection of the utilitarianism of Hobbes and Locke,as well as his complete rejection of Bentham's utilitarianism ,in favor of the Virtue ethics analyzed in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments(1759;sixth edition ,1790),upon which he based the Wealth of Nations(1776).

The author could also have considered examining John Maynard Keynes's complete rejection of the Benthamite Utilitarian goal of maximizing subjective expected utility(SEU theory), which is what modern economists substitute for Bentham's maximizing utility principle,in a second chapter.Keynes's theoretical structure proved mathematically that ,at best,utilitarianism is a very special case that rarely,if ever,has any applicable content in a world of ignorance and uncertainty.

Since I discovered Sandel's youtube channel, I've been watching his videos every time I could. I liked it and decided to buy his book, based on the real examples showed in his speeches.
The book starts really well, with good examples, but in the middle 'til the end, it completely lacks of practical situations. I got bored and only had the strength to read until the final pages due to the money I paid for it. It's good, but it's not perfect;

Not many books can hope to have a big impact on the reader - not merely a book that changes how we think about a particular subject or sheds light into an issue we previously did not know about, but a book to shift our value system and how we look at political and economic life. Few such books exist begin with, and fewer still have been written recently. Michael Sandel's "Justice" is such a book.

Mr. Sandel, a Harvard philosophy professor, presents the case for three alternative views towards justice: maximizing welfare (utilitarianism), respecting freedom (libertarianism) and promoting virtue (communitarians for lack of better word). He then contrasts the teachings of Bentham, Mill, Kant, Rawls and Aristotle with hypothetical or real-life examples to highlight, deconstruct and distill the philosophers' teachings into something tangible.

"Justice" alternates between formal philosophy and "gut" philosophy, and this is what makes the book so attractive: Mr. Sandel masterly makes case for a philosophical point of view and then introduces an example that is based on that view but which doesn't quite sit right with the reader. Just as you've read three pages you agree with comes an example where you can't endorse the philosophical principle you just agreed with.

In that way, Mr. Sandel adds nuance and complexity to the reader's philosophical view, and he makes, at the same time, a strong case for his own view. It is almost as if having seen the limitations of utilitarianism and liberalism, you are left wanting more - which Mr. Sandel provides with great force to make you go back and think some of your most basics assumptions about justice.

This book is a rather meandering and inconclusive look at some different conceptions of justice and connections with freedom, rights, and morality. In his study, the author examines some basic, well-known paradigms, both modern and ancient, the ideas of a few noted political philosophers, and any number of real and hypothetical example situations where the just, or right thing to do, is not necessarily easily determinable. There is a lack of connection to actual legal processes.

The two most prevalent, contemporary ideas concerning justice are based on utility and maximizing freedom of choice. Utilitarianism, based on Jeremy Bentham's works, sees justice occurring when an outcome is consistent with the greatest happiness for the most people or results in benefits exceeding costs. Individuals who are on the losing side of utilitarian decisions, essentially, have their rights sacrificed to the greater good. Judgments of outcomes are not permitted outside the "currency of valuation." If happiness is the standard, justice may be served by entertaining a majority of spectators by throwing Christians to the lions. If maximizing profits is of interest, paying damages for deaths due to gas tanks exploding may be more cost-effective than recalling autos and preserving lives. On the other hand, libertarianism emphasizes the primacy of choice for every person as being the basis of justice. Any form of exterior control or coercion on anyone to effect a greater good, whether based on utility, morality, public good, or otherwise, is a perversion of justice. Individual rights cannot be sacrificed to majority will. Self-ownership is also a part of libertarianism. Assuming no adverse consequences to others, most any behavior is tolerated, be it drug usage, selling one's body parts, etc.

As the author indicates, so-called free-markets are regarded as being compatible with both utility and freedom concerns. For one, the sum of free exchanges increases happiness. Second, by definition, free-markets are the locus of free exchanges. In fact, some libertarians assume that most any good or service that could be for sale, should be for sale, even to the point of paying others to take one's place in the military - a widespread practice in the Civil War. However, for libertarian justice to be realized, choices must really be free. Equal opportunity undergirds free choice. Without it, disadvantaged people may well be coerced in their choices. Another question is the relevance of civic obligations under libertarianism. Is libertarian justice consistent with any possible tearing of the social fabric due to eschewing civic duties or with "free-riding" on the backs of those who choose to serve society?

The author largely rejects the extreme positions of utilitarianism and libertarianism, which either minimize the rights and well-being of sacrificial citizens for overall happiness or adopt the pretense that maximizing free choice, including the placing of social practices not usually for sale in the marketplace, will automatically produce a robust and just community. In contrast to those concepts, Aristotle has a decidedly different notion on what is important in establishing justice. That people are socially situated cannot be ignored. There is a social necessity of "cultivating the virtue of citizens," and of teaching "how to live a good life." Political association is required for people to fully exercise their "distinctly human capacity for language" and "realize their nature" by "deliberating with others about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice." Of course, such state involvement is anathema to libertarians who raise the specter of state coercion. As the author notes, American political thinking is predominated by the view that the state should be "neutral" regarding moral ends and should at the least permit individuals to pursue their own ends. Theoretical rights theorists, such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, hold that liberty must be achieved before any conceptions of the good can be considered.

The author, following on the heels of Aristotle, addresses the dilemma of being embedded in communities with attendant "obligations of solidarity and loyalty, historic memory and religious,..., while still giving scope to human freedom." Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that we are "storytelling beings." Our storylines provide direction and coherency to our lives. Social identities bear directly on our morality and justice decisions and cannot be simply set aside. MacIntyre would suggest that libertarian choice carries little meaning in the shared communities that most of us inhabit. It goes without saying that belonging to a shared community carries with it a far greater sense of obligation and responsibility than libertarian unencumbered selves. Furthermore, determining justice is far more difficult than simply aggregating preferences or claiming that one's choices are unburdened by social concerns. Those embedded in communities bring moral and religious convictions that have to be accommodated in debates about justice.

The book is interesting, yet it is a bit vague and disorganized. Who is the target audience? Digressions into the obscure philosophies of hypothetical rights theorists like Kant and Rawls are too sketchy to be of much use to the general public or students. The justice of such situations as pregnancy for pay, affirmative action, apologies and reparations for wronged social groups is discussed, but rather hazily. The abortion and stem-cell debates and those on same-sex marriage are tinged with religious considerations. The author seems to down play the difficulties that religious perspectives bring to open debates about social issues.

The question that begs to be asked, "is what does all of this have to do with legal rulings?" Is the author suggesting that one law or one judge can relate to one of several justice paradigms? Is the legal process thereby mostly ad hoc? Much clarification is needed.

Another question that is not well addressed is the state of justice in the US. Though the author touches on the ascendance of the free-market paradigm and the huge growth in inequality over the last thirty years, he neglects to explore the ramifications. The fact is that the rich control the media, which are propaganda mills for their interests, including matters related to justice. The educational system simply reflects the status quo; few counter-culture activists will be produced. The latest Wall St financial fiasco, where a group of rich people nearly brought the economy to its knees and then were propped up with taxpayer money with not one investment house CEO being led to jail in handcuffs, probably says more about the prospects for justice in the US than anything. The contention that "virtuous society" versus libertarian conceptions justice were somehow competing is disingenuous. It's more accurate to say that justice has simply been overthrown with a patina of free-market philosophy applied.

The book is really meant to accompany an introductory, non-technical survey course on justice. A this-and-that approach that dances along the surface is probably to be expected. It is rated at four stars only because it may stimulate some thinking and questioning about justice.

Michael Sandel's is a fine book on a fundamental subject. Engaging, full of basic ideas and practical examples, and very well-written, 'Justice: What's the right thing to do?' is probably the best popular or general introduction to the main ethical, political and legal aspects concerning justice as the human virtue par excellence. I recommend it with enthusiasm.

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.