Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

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.

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?Michael Sandel teaches a Harvard course on moral reasoning and justice, so popular that the university has produced it as online video (which you can preview for free). Upon reading Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do you will quickly understand why Sandel's course draws rave reviews.The book is marvelously instructional, even for readers already well-educated in political philosophy. Sandel explores each of the principal aims of justice: maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. He delivers clear expositions and critiques of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kantian ethics, and John Rawls' theory of justice, and then builds a case for the views of Aristotle.Sandel makes all of this easy to assimilate by framing the theoretical discussion in dozens of cases that lay out the issues. His typical approach is to describe a situation posing a moral dilemma, to ask (either explicitly or implicitly) for our reaction about what the right choice would be, and then to probe what moral principle might support that choice.A few of his cases are hypothetical (such as the notorious trolley cars headed toward people on the track) but most are drawn from history, the news, or popular culture, and many are quite contemporary. This may be the only book of serious political philosophy where some of the lessons appropriately rely on Winnie the Pooh, the Simpsons, Miss Manners, and Woody Allen. More typically, the illustrations resonate because they involve humans having to make tough decisions, choices that we ourselves would likely struggle with. No matter what your predispositions, you may find yourself thinking in new ways about such issues as immigration, affirmative action, abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and voluntary cannibalism, for example.Sandel's principal criticism of modern theories of justice is that they try to separate questions of fairness and rights from arguments about honor, virtue, and moral desert, that they seek principles that are neutral among ends, enabling people to choose their own preferences. Following Aristotle, Sandel believes that separating arguments about justice from those about the good life is neither possible nor desirable, that the good is prior to the right. Our stance on same-sex marriage, for instance, requires us to take a position on the purpose of marriage, which is contested moral terrain."A just society can't be achieved simply by maximizing utility or by securing freedom of choice. To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise," he declares. For Sandel, as for Aristotle, the purpose of politics is to form good citizens and cultivate good character.A good philosophy teacher does not necessarily seek total agreement and may leave his or her students with further questions. Here are just a few that occur to me. Is justice a matter of principles guiding behavior or of physiologically instilled moral sentiments helping to shape principles, or both (Sandel's position is not fully elaborated)? If our cultural identities inevitably and desirably inform our moral choices (as he advocates), what principles prevent those communal encumbrances from becoming oppressive (as he warns is possible)? Even if we cannot set aside our cultural identity, why would it be undesirable to try to do so, to be as impartial as possible in questions of justice (think of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings)?Justice is the sort of book that may make you wish you could take Sandel's follow-up class.