...It is easy to see why Michael Sandel is a popular Harvard professor. He presents major ideas of ethics and political philosophy in a clear way, tied to important contemporary issues. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, based on a famous course that Sandel teaches, offers a discussion of what Sandel regards as the three main competing views of justice. The first of these takes welfare to be the criterion of justice. What counts as just is what leads to the best consequences. Thus, supporters of the free market such as Milton Friedman praise the market because it leads to prosperity, in contrast with other economic systems. Why do we care [about prosperity]… The most obvious answer is that we think prosperity makes us better off than we would otherwise be — as individuals and as a society. Prosperity matters, in other words, because it contributes to our welfare. (p. 19) Another approach, which many libertarians will find familiar, takes freedom and rights to be fundamental to justice. What is essential, according to this way of seeing things, is to give each person what is rightfully due to him, even if following this course does not lead to the best consequences. The approach to justice that begins with freedom is a capacious school… Leading the laissez-faire camp are free-market libertarians who believe that justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults. The fairness camp contains theorists of a more egalitarian bent...
Words: 328 - Pages: 2
...Justice- What’s the right thing to do?By: Michael J. Sandel | Chapter 2: Utilitarianism | Bentham's explanation of Utilitarianism is “the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility.” (Sandel p.g.34) which means that the right thing to is always whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent unhappiness. Suppose you are walking and someone stops you to take a poll; they ask you if you rather have an animal center where you can pet animals, or if you would have a school for special children. Which would you choose? Most people would choose the school because there are children involved, but according to Bentham and his theory, there should be an animal center because it is what makes people happy. In our scenario, what makes people happy are animals therefore he would say to build a pet center because the people would be the happiest, hence maximizing utility. There is an objection in Bentham’s theory in his example of “the city of happiness”. In this example there is a girl in which she is locked away, where she should stay forever. In the city just outside of her home everyone is living a happy, joyous and life. In this room, the little girl is sad and miserable all the time, but because of her misery, the city can be happy. Is it wrong to have the girl locked up to maximize happiness throughout the city? Sandel goes to say “It would be wrong to violate the rights of an innocent child, even for the sake of the happiness...
Words: 649 - Pages: 3
...The three stages of Justice Justice is where the good reap rewards, the bad reap punishment. Justice can be split into three major categories: political, personal, and supernatural. Social justice includes the legal system, personal justice is where a ones own ethics, and supernatural justice is like karma. Webster's dictionary describes justice as "The administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity." There are two influential people who argue opposite ideas and opinions on this. Sandel who believes justice is more “distributive” than punishing. While Immanuel Kant, proposed a different approach he stated that human beings should be respected because they can reason with others. Sandel does not believe there should be a political decision on justice because when there is free economic practice where both the buyer and the seller benefit this would allow for prostitution, buying of votes, and immigration. “First, individual rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the general good, and second, the principles of justice that specify these rights cannot be premised on any particular vision of the good life. What justifies the rights is not that they maximize the general welfare or otherwise promote the good, but rather that they comprise a fair framework within which individuals and groups can choose their own values and ends, consistent with a similar liberty for others.”(sandel) Kant concluded that...
Words: 574 - Pages: 3
...Throughout all of the various issues being explored and debated in today’s society, one that has become very prevalent in the past few years is the matter of slavery reparations in America. Advocates of this cause have begun to raise awareness in an effort to make reparations to African Americans affected by the crime of slavery in the United States. This is an extremely controversial subject, especially since there are so many different considerations and opinions surrounding the issue. Anthony Gifford’s article, “The Legal Basis of the Claim for Slavery Reparations”, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “The Case for Reparations”, and chapter nine of Michael Sandel’s book, Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? all dig deeper into this issue and take a look at the idea of slavery reparations from various different angles. One of the big questions to reflect on while considering the possibility of slavery reparations in America is: What can be done in order to begin resolving the issue of slavery reparations? The...
Words: 1493 - Pages: 6
...“Possession, Desert and Distributive Justice” is a chapter written by Michael J. Sandel that analyzes Rawls' theory of justice that attempts to compensate for inequality and unfairness. This theory advocates a system named as distributive justice and in this critical response, I will briefly summarize key elements of this justice system and delve into liberal equality, demonstrating how our current society has laws in place to advocate this form of equality. Rawls describes distributive justice as a duty that society owes to its citizens. We must acknowledge the social and cultural disadvantages that an individual has (race, gender, religion, etc) and assist these people in need. As a result of these disadvantages, there are unequal opportunities...
Words: 405 - Pages: 2
...“In a closed society where everybody is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Introduction In two lines, Hunter S. Thompson deftly captures the end of conscionable conduct and the utter neglect for the sanctity of fundamental facilities of society. But hope remains. Ouxtent to which morality can, if at all, be compromised for other competing ends. amples over individual rights in its aggregating of preferences and satisfaction. As Robert Nozick writes, unlike individuals, social entities cannot be made to make sacrifices for greater benefit or avoid harm by utilizing individuals for the benefit of others. This act disregards the fact that individuals are separate entities, and “his life is the only life he has.” The legislating of morality would be incompatible with the staunch libertarian stand that disallows such laws, which in their view are coercive and an affront to freedom and self-ownership. To the libertarian, only a minimal state – that enforces contracts and keeps the peace would be permissible. Legislating morality brings up another issue of whose morals do we take as the benchmark to be applied universally to the governed. Would such a law also inflict someone else’s moral will upon me? The Kantian doctrine answers this question. Kant depends on the idea that humans are rational beings, capable of acting freely. According to Kant, acting freely is to be autonomous, abiding by laws we give...
Words: 1707 - Pages: 7
...society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual. They had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed. From Thoreau’s point of view, he would tell you to break a law regardless of the consequences if the law is unjust to another person. Thoreau not only harbored runaway slaves in his home, but he also refused to pay taxes since the money was going towards supplies that were going to be used in a war in which he though was unjust. This shows the individual freedom and will to do what he wants, but he also has to pay for the crimes he commits. As Sandel states in his writing, libertarianism starts with the idea that each individual has a right to himself or herself. With this being said, you are able to do whatever you want with yourself as long as you are not causing...
Words: 710 - Pages: 3
...philosopher John Rawls claims that justice is to ask what principles we individuals would agree to in an initial situation of equality. His reason for that was because different people would favor different principles depending on their interests, religious views, backgrounds and social positions. He also reasoned that the two principles which we would not choose are going to be utilitarianism and libertarian. On the contrary, he believes the two principles of justice will be from the hypothetical contract which will firstly provide equality for all the citizens in terms of speech and other factors. The other principle involves social and economic equality. To understand Rawls principles of hypothetical contract, we should know that actual contract carry moral weight insofar as they realize two ideals which are autonomy and reciprocity. The author, Michael Sandel argues consent is not a sufficient condition of moral obligation as it does not guarantee fairness of an agreement and is not enough to create a binding moral claim. Sandel further states that “despite our tendency to read consent into every moral claim, it is hard to make sense of our moral lives without acknowledging the independent weight of reciprocity.” Rawls idea of hypothetical agreement as described by the author ensures equality. The veil of ignorance ensures equality of power and knowledge and that no one can take advantage. Rawls mentions that the several theories of justice are unfair as these systems such...
Words: 450 - Pages: 2
...Steve Xiong Dave Althausen POLS 365Z October 12, 2015 Police Shooting In many cases, a man was slaughtered subsequent to displaying some sort of toy firearm, notwithstanding directing it at officers, a beyond any doubt welcome toward gunfire. Many individuals, at any rate, passed on in the wake of being stunned with electric immobilizers, some from pressure or stifling, and some from reasons that stay baffling. However, most were shooting. The slaughtering of an outfitted individual prompts dissents and is called unjustified, or the executing of an unarmed individual is viewed as advocated. Whether regular citizens believe the organizations of justice is integral to the idea of procedural equity. That is, the place the general population believes the success of the justice framework, it will present authenticity on those institutions. A noteworthy group of examination illustrates "open perceptions of the justice’s reasonableness framework in the United States are more critical in molding its authenticity than observations that it is effective." Where people in general have trust, it will authorize law authorization with authenticity; and when it does as such, it is flagging that the general population's ethical estimations of good and bad are adjusted to those of its police organizations. On the other hand, authenticity disintegrates when regular people are dealt with unreasonably and general society is left with the conclusion that police offices are not accountable....
Words: 1270 - Pages: 6
...On Reasonable Accommodation INTRODUCTION Our modern society has long been governed by classic liberal notions advocated by thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and John Locke, Emmanuel Kant. A traditional conception of equality is generally prioritized in their work, outlining a highly formal approach premised on uniform treatment, colour-blindness and an emphasis on the Rule of Law. However, in the contemporary context of today, such an ideological hope tends to play the role of the ignorant fool, who disregards the complexity of our society. We are in need of a system that opens its eyes, stops hiding behind a “veil of ignorance” (Sandel, 1998:24) and adopts a more flexible approach. The Bouchard – Taylor Commission demonstrates exactly this notion. This essay will argue in favour of one of the major claims made by Gerard Bouchard & Charles Taylor, that reasonable accommodation, in essence a more substantive equality perspective is a necessary, if not mandatory approach that a multicultural society is in dire need of adopting, clarifying and deeply enforcing. I will discuss the logic and rational that underpins harmonization measures by exploring how social norms & ideologies have played an especially important role is systemic discrimination, then, how Canadian Law and legal institutions have played a role in constructing and maintaining racial stereotypes, and then, how the media plays an especially vital role in further denouncing minority groups. I will then provide...
Words: 2940 - Pages: 12
...Kant believes that lying, in any shape or form, is completely wrong and immoral. In the book Justice, by Michael J. Sandel, a certain scenario was shown to display Kant’s view on lying. The scenario talks about a situation in which you are faced with the decision on whether or not to lie to a murderer in order to save your friends life. In most cases, the answer would be an obvious yes to people. According to Kant’s views on lying, however, he says that you should tell the murderer the truth even if you are risking the life of your friend. Kant offers an alternative to lying, which he says are true yet misleading statements. Kant is okay with these misleading statements because he says that these follow the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative says, according to Sandel, “act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time that it should become universal law.” (120) Kant believes that the only good way of acting or thinking is by this technique. This applies to the murder scenario because Kant believes that you should tell the truth because it’s the right thing to do, not because of the consequences or...
Words: 673 - Pages: 3
...Let’s Debate? One of the greatest value this country holds is freedom of speech. It’s the first Amendment of the United States, making it one of the most sacred law. As citizens, being able to exercise this freedom is important because it let’s the government know if it’s been doing it’s job. But, should citizens be able to argue with one another like politicians do? In his book Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do, Michael J. Sandel argues that citizens should openly address moral disagreements on matter of public policy. I agree with his statement because historically, change has been accomplished by citizens addressing issues. Back in the early 1900’s, the status quo in the south was segregation. Both blacks and whites accepted this system....
Words: 350 - Pages: 2
...QUALITY HEALTHCARE 2 Introduction My approach in this analysis is one of a personal matter. I feel very adamant about our country’s healthcare provisions and the lack thereof. Insurance companies are making it virtually impossible for the poor and/or middle class to afford to receive quality healthcare. In that, the politicians and the wealthy are the only citizens that can afford to take care of themselves, or their loves ones when it comes down to “the BEST care that money can buy” concept. Topic Money Talks: To Be Uninsured or Underinsured… That is the question. The price of a procedure dictates the quality of care, (lower, price less quality). Should the markets for the uninsured or the underinsured dictate quality healthcare? Especially, when faced with a catastrophic illness or event and cannot afford to have better healthcare. What sparked this topic was when a discussion that came up in class pertaining to the Professor’s father who life to me was not held as valuable when the hospital doctors made the determination that the cost of keeping him alive was no longer in the hospital’s best interest. Likewise, my mother went through a situation where she fell very ill and was taken to a major medical center for emergency to determine the cause of her serve abdominal pain. A diagnosis was rendered and she was stabilized and released. The medical...
Words: 1249 - Pages: 5
...Selling Human Organ A farmer in an Indian village wants more than anything else in the world to send his child to college. To raise money, he sells his spare kidney to an American in need of a transplant. A few years later, as the farmer’s second child approaches college age, another buyer comes to his village and offers a handsome price for his second kidney. Should he be free to sell that one, too, even if going without a kidney would kill him (Sandel 72)? Some might object that, regardless of whether the practice already exists, it is clear that legalizing it would make it worse. Not only that, but it seems like the person would become like a marketplace selling his organs. If someone had mentioned that they want to donate their kidney to someone and dies, then it is fine. Then suppose that the person starts selling his kidney or any other organ of his body. Basically he or she is doing it for money, but what if the person's other kidney got damaged? Then what would the person do? Besides it will be a stronger cause of corruption because many people are poor and need money to feed their families so they sell their kidneys; however, this may cause future health problems to that person. Selling organs is wrong and it should not be allowed. Selling an organ is menacing, even for those organs which can be removed without killing the donor. Murphy say,“isn’s it more dangerous to have black market organ transactions?”(1). This is normally the first protestation embossed after...
Words: 1047 - Pages: 5
...Abstract Moral dilemma is a situation where people have to choose between two equally unpleasant alternatives. Moral dilemma is worse than anything, because whichever option people choose, someone or something will suffer. In a moral dilemma, people have to decide on the morally correct course of action, not just the one they would prefer. In the video Harvard University’s Justice with Michael Sandel, he discusses a lot of situations that deal with moral dilemmas. However, he focuses more on the first scenario which involves the choice between the death of 1 person and the deaths of 5 people. The second scenario involves pushing a man off a bridge to save 5 people below. A result in both scenarios would be that a person would be conflicted about taking a life to save five others. People always think about their own personal gain first whether it involves money, property or something else. Therefore, these dilemmas were not easy to solve, somebody has to sacrifice something. If we were to ask any number of people the question: “What is the right thing for me to do?” they would have different answer according to their own beliefs. The beliefs that people value are the structures in which they live by. “Morals are personal beliefs, and ethics are those beliefs and rules, which are set by a larger group of people for the greater good” (Butts & Karen, 2013). Ethics are in place to prevent endangerment of others wellbeing. Although one person can hold their own personal...
Words: 1022 - Pages: 5
