Introduction
In the book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, professor Michael Sandel explores a range of political philosophies, which range from Aristotle to Kant to liberal traditions of John Rawls that have contributed to the modern understanding of justice. He then applies these philosophies as objectively as possible to many controversial and complicated social and moral issues to examine them from an academic theoretical perspective. My personal impression of these chapters was positive. Even if I do not fully agree with Sandel’s interpretation, his presentation and deeply developed discussion were interesting and enlightening. This book review will aim to consider Sandel’s arguments and present a critical evaluation of the chapters’ merits in the context of academia and social perspectives.
Background Information
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? was written as an accompanying guide to a well-known Harvard course on political philosophy that Michael Sandel has been teaching for more than two decades. It is one of the most popular courses both at Harvard and online as Sandel made it publicly available. Sandel himself is passionate about justice and the politics of common good, seeking to explain the theories of justice that are fundamental to modern conflicts and moral dilemmas with clarity and in layman’s terms. In this book review, the focus will be specifically on chapters 5-10. A summary will be presented followed by an evaluation. Some criteria which could be useful in evaluating a book are objectivity, use of evidence and accuracy, logic and organization, coherence, relevance, and purposefulness on the topic.
Summary
Chapter 5
In chapter 5, Sandel discusses the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant and his idea of categorical imperative. Kant argued that to act freely is to choose the best method to achieve a particular outcome, the emphasis on the outcome for its own sake. He suggested that when humans act out of desire or avoidance of negative feelings such as pain, these are not acts are freedom as the person is a ‘slave’ to their appetites. When taking action, one weighs the decision whether an outcome is ‘good’ or ‘right,’ with the ‘right’ being the superior outcome over ‘good,’ which can be interpreted to be self-serving in some circumstances. The moral worth of an action is not the consequences, but the intention.
Regarding the topic of justice, Kant had very few thoughts in political theory. He had taken Locke’s idea of social contract. Instead of it being a real agreement translated into something like a national constitution because a group of people agreed to a contract to establish a legitimate government, does not make that constitution just. Kant proposed an idea of an imaginary contract, an idea of reason with practical reality with legislation being framed in way that has the support of a whole nation with collective consent (Sandel, 2010).
Chapter 6
In this chapter, the discussion continues regarding the social contract and the political philosophy of John Rawls. Most societies are based on a social contract, but the question arises if an individual does not agree or did not consent to it, would it still apply. Rawls approaches justice as principles that a community would agree upon in a hypothetical origin scenario where everyone is equal. Rawls suggests that in a situation of initial equality, people in the preservation of self-interest would choose utilitarianism or pure libertarian principles, as in both cases, they could end up on the losing end.
After comparing various social systems through history, Rawls suggests that two principles of justice become relevant – basic individual liberties for everyone, and social and economic equality with distribution of wealth based on need to the best extent possible. Notably, it is not an egalitarian society, which limits or handicaps individuals, it simply seeks to level the playing field. Sandel highly respects Rawls’ theoretical approach to justice, ending the chapter with “Whether or not his theory of justice ultimately succeeds, it represents the most compelling case for a more equal society that American political philosophy has yet produced” (Sandel, 2010, p. 87).
Chapter 7
This chapter is aimed at discussing one of the most controversial topics in society when it comes to equality and justice – affirmative action. The concept is characterized by taking individuals from marginalized communities (most often based on race/ethnicity) and providing them admissions to colleges or employment not based on merit, but rather because they are minority. There are two primary reasons behind this, to partially remedy historical racial segregation, often placing the communities of color far behind from a socioeconomic perspective. Second reason is the promotion of diversity, as a social good, where people can benefit from multiracial and multicultural interactions. The main counterargument to affirmative action is that it violates rights of other applicants, who may be eligible for the position but not selected as the organization has to give the spot to a student of color (Sandel, 2010). Sandel highlights that affirmative action is a form of discrimination, but its motivations are correct.
Chapter 8
In this chapter, Sandel (2010) discusses Aristotle’s view of justice. Aristotle first viewed justice as teleological, from the word telos or purpose and essential nature. To define what is right, the telos of a social practice must be examined. Second, the very concept of judging telos is essentially contemplating which virtues and values it should honor. Aristotle emphasized that justice is providing people with what they need and deserve, but it is unclear what methods to use. Aristotle would argue on evaluating what is being distributed through the telos of a good by determining its justice. Since every distribution of justice is discriminatory, so we must determine what discriminations are just and moral. In a hypothetical situation, a community center distributing pianos based on telos, the best candidates would be excellent players who will use the instruments to create entertainment value or beautiful music. Similarly, with affirmative action, the telos of the organization should be identified to determine if it is just, unfortunately, a very contentious topic.
Chapter 9
In chapter 9, the interesting topic comes to light regarding responsibility for the past and loyalty. In society, this is often brought up in the form of apologies or reparations by the federal government. The biggest objection is that the current generation should not apologize for acts centuries-old if one is not responsible for the actions of oneself and others, known as moral individualism. Based on two liberal conceptions of obligations, natural duties (i.e., respecting others) and voluntary obligations (to incur consent), Rawls would agree with the objection. Meanwhile, Sandel (2010) suggests otherwise, that there is a collective responsibility to people when there is a certain shared history or culture. The rationale behind this stems from a ‘moral reflection’ where one recognizes that people live in a deeply intertwined society, with obligations arising in social contexts such as families and communities. This obligation of solidarity is criticized for being a form of collective selfishness and prejudice. However, Sandel argues that the obligations flow both inwards and outwards, among communities, creating moral responsibility inside them and going further.
Chapter 10
The last chapter is Sandel’s ‘call to action’ where he encourages to challenge the notion of neutrality in order to pursue “the good life.” Sandel suggests that first, justice and rights sometimes cannot be established without resolving complex moral dilemmas. Second, if that is possible, it may not be fully desirable. Sandel argues that justice is highly judgmental, and no matter the topic, it leads to competing notions of honor.
Although Sandel does not have the answers, he proposes four realistic themes for a just society and the politics for the common good which can potentially address some of the inequalities and unjust situations. First, citizenship and civic engagement, he argues “a just society needs a strong sense of community” and people “dedicated to common good” (Sandel, 2010, p. 136). Second, establishing “moral limits of markets,” which have gained tremendous influence over social institutions, and while being a useful instrument, should not be a governing force (p. 137). Third, attempting to reduce inequality, and striving towards civic virtue and solidarity that democratic citizenship requires. Finally, he calls upon for moral public engagement, essentially rational discussions on the difficult topics which bring people closer and establish mutual respect. Sandel (2010) ends the book with some very insightful words, “A politics of moral engagement is not only a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance. It is also a more promising basis for a just society” (p. 139).
Evaluation
The purpose of the book was aimed at presenting and analyzing various political and philosophical theories of justice by explaining their development, presenting an analysis via potential counterarguments, and demonstrating the theories in play through hypothetical and historic real-world scenarios. Sandel seems to have achieved the goal, offering a detailed insight into key theories with the support of evidence-based logic, analysis of counterarguments, and applications of the theories. The book is aimed at the everyday reader, and although at times the chapters did have complex political theory, the text makes it as accessible as possible. Most people with at least a secondary education should be able to understand the concepts more or less clearly and apply them, which is a given strength of this text. A weakness that could be potentially identified is the notion that Sandel is biased towards liberal and Democratic ideals, lacking the understanding of conservative principles on many of these issues, and dismissing the counterarguments with relative ease. Given the popular demand and arguably cultural impact of the book, Sandel was able to educate and enlighten thousands of individuals, which is contributing heavily to his underlying beliefs of driving civic engagement and moral political discourse.
The central lesson of the book as established by Sandel (2010) is that justice in society consists of cultivating virtues that are able to achieve the politics of common good. An approach to governance and social issues that benefits the most, not utilitarianism or egalitarianism, but a more nuanced perspective that considers the concepts of justice in terms of social promotion of those who are struggling, social support, and creating some elements of a level playing field. Therefore, Sandel calls upon both regular people and politicians to focus on these important societal issues of equality, affirmative action, abortions, reparations, and others. By addressing them, society can heal and at the same time establish principles of a just society leading people to a common good.
The personal experience that I associate with these chapters stems from my own political disagreements with peers and within the community. After the 2020 election, the country is divided more than ever, not just along the political lines of Democrat and Republican, liberal or conservative. The schism is reaching down into the very principles of democracy based in our Constitution. Suddenly many issues that seemed to have been long resolved such as abortion with Roe v. Wade establishing the legality of the procedure. Now, several states are challenging this notion to drive forward their conservative ideology. Similarly, private conversations with peers have turned more often illogical and disheartening. Perhaps some of the lessons I took away from this book are that morality is based on motive and justice is discriminatory. In a society where one half of the population and political spectrum is actively forcing out of control the other half, slowly but surely subverting norms of democracy, change and balance are necessary for a just society. It is at this crucial time that I find myself more committed than ever to civic engagement, to promote the values of justice and equality that I believe in, supported by evidence and theoretical foundations established in these chapters.
Conclusion
Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? provides a unique exploration of philosophy and political theory in regard to the topics of morality, equality, and justice. The chapters explored in this review provided detailed background on the ideas of philosophers Kant, Rawles, and Aristotle, as well as Sandel’s own perspectives. Sandel argues that the main purpose of justice is creating the politics of common good, where legislators consider the morality of justice while citizens actively participate in the civic process to ensure that justice prevails. Some additional research would be to examine modern political and economic theories, particularly a closer examination of the market and economic principles which are overwhelmingly influential in modern governance and society. This book is important as it allows readers and society as a whole to re-examine values and morality in the context of modern politics. Some of the most contentious social issues of modern days such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, affirmative action and others are examined objectively in these chapters, forcing readers to confront that their opinions are highly biased and often illogical.
The theoretical examination of these issues and the morality of justice to them, provides a fresh perspective. It was likely Sandel’s hope that after reading the book, people will use the information learned to drive enlightened civic debate and potentially promote change in the ethics of contemporary politics which has taken a turn for the worse. At the very least, Sandel emphasizes that even if people cannot come to an agreement, public engagement and a civil conversation provides a stronger basis for mutual respect and potential understanding for compromise.
Reference
Sandel, M.J. (2019). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.