Introduction
Justice is primarily concerned with the ideals that should support the state, politics, and the law relevant to Western pluralistic cultures. Sandel provides a three-way argument between utilitarian, liberal, and communitarian viewpoints, with the latter emerging victorious, aided by a healthy dose of neo-Aristotelianism. Reasonable explanations are provided, and they are based on the nuances of these perspectives and a forensic study of their limits. In determining how obligations, rights, riches, and power are distributed in a society, ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism influence various life scenarios.
Doing The Right Thing
There are various lessons to be learned from Hurricane in terms of how people should respect one another, what the law should be, and how society should be constituted. The discussion against price gouging revolves around three concepts: maximization of welfare, respect for freedom, and promotion of virtue. Markets foster societal well-being while respecting individual liberty. Outrage at price gougers is more than just irrational wrath. Outrage is a type of wrath that occurs when people believe that others receive benefits that they do not deserve. This type of outrage stems from a sense of unfairness. Greed is a horrible way of being, specifically when it renders individuals insensitive to the suffering of others. It contradicts civic morality, in times of crisis, a society wherein people exploit their neighbors for monetary benefit is not a civilized society.
Welfare, Freedom, and Virtue
The argument over regulations on price-gouging is approximately more than just liberty and welfare. It is also about virtue, fostering the dispositions and attitudes, the character attributes, that lead to the decency of society. On the contrary, the virtue argument is based on the belief that greed is a fault that the government should combat. When people examine their emotions toward price gouging, it is discovered that views are torn between two camps being indignant when people acquire goods they do not deserve and believing that selfishness that preys on human misery should be penalized, not commended. According to Immanuel Kant, a fair society respects every individual’s right to select the person’s definition of happiness, which is termed freedom.
What Wounds Deserve the Purple Heart?
The Purple Heart issue is about more than how to establish the reality of damage in medical terms. Rival ideas of moral character and military courage are at the center of the conflict. The debate over the Purple Heart exemplifies the moral logic of Aristotle, it is impossible to decide who gets a military award without first determining what qualities the medal is supposed to commemorate (Dimmock & Fisher, 2020). The bailout indignation was not primarily motivated by greed. What most angered Americans’ sense of fairness was using their tax money to reward failure.
Three Approaches to Justice
The scenarios are on the three approaches to justice, determining whether a society entail looking at how it allocates the things people value, such as money and riches, obligations and rights, opportunities, and power. A just society equitably distributes these commodities, ensuring that everyone receives their fair share (Rawls, 2020). When it comes to determining what individuals are owed and why the difficult questions arise. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of price gouging, vying for the Purple Heart, and bailout outrage (Sandel, 2010). Three distinct approaches to the distribution of commodities have been identified, virtue, welfare, and freedom (Pils & Schoenegger, 2021). Every one of these ideas indicates a distinct perspective on justice.
Case the Run-Away Trolley
This is a case of moral dilemma considering the situation that the driver on the troller is in, the is no other option to avert the fact that death has to result. Perhaps the moral distinction rests not in the impact on the victims (both of whom die), but in the purpose of those individuals who are decision-makers. Moral reasoning is sometimes thought of as a method of persuasion. However, it is also a means of sorting out our own moral convictions, of determining what humans believe and the reasons for that. Conflicting moral ideals can lead to moral difficulties, when faced with a circumstance in which saving a large number of lives necessitates the death of an innocent individual, then that is a situation of moral dilemma.
The best solution is that diverting the trolley onto another track with only one person on it is the only option to save the five workers’ lives. This one employee will perish if the trolley is redirected to the other track, while the other five employees will be rescued. According to Smart, (Ed). (2020) Utilitarianism favors the right that leads to the happiness of a great number of people in a given society. The approach of utilitarianism is, therefore, recommended, this is because it is acceptable to determine which concept has more weight or is more suitable in the given situation. Other moral difficulties occur as a result of our inability to predict how events will unfold.
Moral Dilemmas
According to this section of the chapter, one may recognize how to make sense of the complex issues of injustice and justice, equality and inequality, individual rights, and the collective good. One place to start is to observe how moral contemplation naturally arises from an encounter with a difficult moral matter (Faulhaber, 2019). People begin with an opinion or belief about what is the correct thing to do. Then it is considered why humans have this conviction and look for the principle that underpins it: It is preferable to sacrifice one life rather than many. One may come to a different conclusion about what is the correct thing to do. The urge to philosophy comes from the power of bewilderment and the temptation to figure things out. Moral contemplation is the process of shifting one’s thinking from the arena of action to the realm of reasoning and back again. It is a public undertaking that needs the presence of a buddy or two to debate it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism are among the significant philosophical views that influence the rights, obligations, power, and riches as described in the scenarios by Sandel. Consequently, his claim that the goal of justice is to assure the formation of the general welfare through political virtue nurturing looks to be compelling. In order to have a comprehensive view of the problem of justice in modern society, it is possible to confront more ideologies, particularly current ones, in a future study on the subject. Because of a straightforward style of expressing major ideas and concerns addressing the problems of affirmative action, just acts, and equality the book is vital to be evaluated by students and other types of readers.
References
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (Eds). (2020). Aristotelian virtue ethics. PHI220 Ethics. Web.
Faulhaber, A. K., Dittmer, A., Blind, F., Wächter, M. A., Timm, S., Sütfeld, L. R.,… & König, P. (2019). Human decisions in moral dilemmas are largely described by utilitarianism: Virtual car driving study provides guidelines for autonomous driving vehicles. Science and engineering ethics, 25(2). Web.
Pils, R., & Schoenegger, P. (2021). On the epistemological similarities of market liberalism and standpoint theory. Episteme. Web.
Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice. In A theory of justice. Harvard university press. Web.
Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Macmillan.
Smart, J. J. C. (Ed). (2020). Utilitarianism and its applications. In New Directions in Ethics. Routledge.