 |
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? by Michael J. Sandel
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Michael J. Sandel Brand: PBS Edition: Hardcover Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2009-09-15 ISBN: 0374180652 Number of pages: 320 Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Book Reviews of Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?Book Review: Basic concepts, but vague, disconnected, and scattershot (3.6 *s) Summary: 4 Stars
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.
Summary of Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?What are our obligations to others as people in a free society? Should government tax the rich to help the poor? Is the free market fair? Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth? Is killing sometimes morally required? Is it possible, or desirable, to legislate morality? Do individual rights and the common good conflict? Michael J. Sandel?s ?Justice? course is one of the most popular and influential at Harvard. Up to a thousand students pack the campus theater to hear Sandel relate the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of the day, and this fall, public television will air a series based on the course. Justice offers readers the same exhilarating journey that captivates Harvard students. This book is a searching, lyrical exploration of the meaning of justice, one that invites readers of all political persuasions to consider familiar controversies in fresh and illuminating ways. Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, patriotism and dissent, the moral limits of markets?Sandel dramatizes the challenge of thinking through these con?icts, and shows how a surer grasp of philosophy can help us make sense of politics, morality, and our own convictions as well. Justice is lively, thought-provoking, and wise?an essential new addition to the small shelf of books that speak convincingly to the hard questions of our civic life.
Philosophy Books
|
 |