Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Paperback – August 17, 2010

Somewhat feels like playing devils advocate while not really committing to either. The examples drove the point home though that there is no right answer so it’s not really being an advocate for either. Even we think there is others may disagree on what that right answer might. The one example that really made me think about why it is 2 people can even think different about something was a cheerleader in a wheelchair. What is the purpose of cheer and does a girl unable to do the usual flips involved meet that purpose. There were so many great examples that were more intense and maybe seemed more important but this “simpler” one really made me about how people can have different ideas of what the purpose of something is. Good read and worthwhile for the ideas and perspectives it opens up.

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.

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.

Great book, got it for school and wasn’t displeased while reading it