kay1ap1ke's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
cameronpetrovich's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
alldaffer's review against another edition
3.0
Review in NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Rauch-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3
ceciletang's review against another edition
4.0
“The way things are does not determine the way they ought to be.” —Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, Michael J. Sandel
Rating: 4.5/5
I consider this book to be my introduction to moral and political philosophy, and the best and most comprehensive introduction to this topic that I could receive. Michael Sandel discusses the topic of justice and what is the right thing for humans to do in the clearest and most straightforward way, which helped me greatly in understanding his message and explanations when many other moral philosophers dip into convoluted discussions that are difficult to digest.
In a very basic sense, Michael Sandel discusses and reflects upon a number of different views on morality and justice that have been expressed by philosophers and writers throughout the years. Here is a basic breakdown of the ideas mentioned in the book:
1. The Utilitarian perspective: This line of thought emphasises the importance of maximising pleasure for the largest number of people in society. An apt analogy that Sandel used in his book is the following: imagine a perfect community in which there is no crime, violence, or inequality between people, where all citizens live in harmony and happiness. However, in a small basement of one of the houses resides a malnourished and melancholic child, who is, for an unknown reason, forced to remain in the cellar for the greater good of society. All citizens know of the child’s existence, and any one of the citizens have the possibility of opening the door to the basement and feeding the child, but at the cost of the city’s overall happiness. Hence, no one comes to the child’s rescue, for his suffering ensures the city’s stability and harmony. This example is the incarnation of the Utilitarian perspective: though individuals may be worse off, the best course of action is to make decisions in which the majority is better off.
2. The Libertarian perspective: This perspective advocates for individual freedom and an individual’s right to make decisions of their own. Two more specific divisions of this school of thought are discussed: Kant’s ideas and Rawl’s ideas. Kant maintains that individuals must be autonomous beings that make decisions based on their own moral compass, independent of the influences of society or of their community. Rawls most notably put forward a theory stating that we must set aside our particular aims, attachments, and conceptions of the best way to live in order to think about justice from the most neutral standpoint possible. In this part, Sandel uses very interesting examples such as Bill Clinton’s adultery scandal and hypothetical scenarios involving lying or telling the truth to discuss the way Kant and Rawls may have perceived this situation. Ultimately, Sandel is very successful in making the distinction between Kant and Rawls’ schools of thought and bringing out the subtleties and limitations of the two perspectives.
3. The Teleological perspective: An idea originating from Aristotle, this perspective focuses on ensuring the achievement of virtues or purpose. The core of this concept is understanding the telos, or purpose, of something and someone in order to determine what is just and moral to be done. One example used by Sandel that resonated with me deeply is the discussion of affirmative action in the college applicant selection process. While many schools now regulate the percentage of students of different ethnicities admitted to their school each year, this decision has been contested and debated numerous times. Sandel proposes that we examine the telos of a university: is it merely an educational center seeking to gather the most qualified individuals in various fields? If yes, then the case for affirmative action does not hold. However, Sandel, a professor at Harvard University, came to the conclusion that the telos of universities is not merely to reward scholarly excellence, but also to promote civic ideals such as diversity and inclusivity. Affirmative action can thus be discussed through Aristotle’s teleological assessment of things and individuals.
One of the main reasons why this book appealed to me is because of its clarity and the brevity of its explanations. Sandel wrote a book that truly caters to all audiences with the barest philosophical foundation, not only top-tier Harvard students majoring in political science and philosophy. Furthermore, his use of clear and relevant examples are incredibly vivid and helpful in illustrating certain concepts that he discusses, which made my reading experience all the more enjoyable and interesting.
The way Sandel closes his book is extremely insightful: he links all of his concepts back to modern-day politics by discussing both John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and the policies implemented by Obama to boost community service participation and improve income distribution. While it is extremely easy to slip into one side of the political spectrum or another, Sandel expertly maintains a neutral stance and discusses his ideas on those different political topics purely on the basis of moral philosophy and theories.
Rating: 4.5/5
I consider this book to be my introduction to moral and political philosophy, and the best and most comprehensive introduction to this topic that I could receive. Michael Sandel discusses the topic of justice and what is the right thing for humans to do in the clearest and most straightforward way, which helped me greatly in understanding his message and explanations when many other moral philosophers dip into convoluted discussions that are difficult to digest.
In a very basic sense, Michael Sandel discusses and reflects upon a number of different views on morality and justice that have been expressed by philosophers and writers throughout the years. Here is a basic breakdown of the ideas mentioned in the book:
1. The Utilitarian perspective: This line of thought emphasises the importance of maximising pleasure for the largest number of people in society. An apt analogy that Sandel used in his book is the following: imagine a perfect community in which there is no crime, violence, or inequality between people, where all citizens live in harmony and happiness. However, in a small basement of one of the houses resides a malnourished and melancholic child, who is, for an unknown reason, forced to remain in the cellar for the greater good of society. All citizens know of the child’s existence, and any one of the citizens have the possibility of opening the door to the basement and feeding the child, but at the cost of the city’s overall happiness. Hence, no one comes to the child’s rescue, for his suffering ensures the city’s stability and harmony. This example is the incarnation of the Utilitarian perspective: though individuals may be worse off, the best course of action is to make decisions in which the majority is better off.
2. The Libertarian perspective: This perspective advocates for individual freedom and an individual’s right to make decisions of their own. Two more specific divisions of this school of thought are discussed: Kant’s ideas and Rawl’s ideas. Kant maintains that individuals must be autonomous beings that make decisions based on their own moral compass, independent of the influences of society or of their community. Rawls most notably put forward a theory stating that we must set aside our particular aims, attachments, and conceptions of the best way to live in order to think about justice from the most neutral standpoint possible. In this part, Sandel uses very interesting examples such as Bill Clinton’s adultery scandal and hypothetical scenarios involving lying or telling the truth to discuss the way Kant and Rawls may have perceived this situation. Ultimately, Sandel is very successful in making the distinction between Kant and Rawls’ schools of thought and bringing out the subtleties and limitations of the two perspectives.
3. The Teleological perspective: An idea originating from Aristotle, this perspective focuses on ensuring the achievement of virtues or purpose. The core of this concept is understanding the telos, or purpose, of something and someone in order to determine what is just and moral to be done. One example used by Sandel that resonated with me deeply is the discussion of affirmative action in the college applicant selection process. While many schools now regulate the percentage of students of different ethnicities admitted to their school each year, this decision has been contested and debated numerous times. Sandel proposes that we examine the telos of a university: is it merely an educational center seeking to gather the most qualified individuals in various fields? If yes, then the case for affirmative action does not hold. However, Sandel, a professor at Harvard University, came to the conclusion that the telos of universities is not merely to reward scholarly excellence, but also to promote civic ideals such as diversity and inclusivity. Affirmative action can thus be discussed through Aristotle’s teleological assessment of things and individuals.
One of the main reasons why this book appealed to me is because of its clarity and the brevity of its explanations. Sandel wrote a book that truly caters to all audiences with the barest philosophical foundation, not only top-tier Harvard students majoring in political science and philosophy. Furthermore, his use of clear and relevant examples are incredibly vivid and helpful in illustrating certain concepts that he discusses, which made my reading experience all the more enjoyable and interesting.
The way Sandel closes his book is extremely insightful: he links all of his concepts back to modern-day politics by discussing both John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and the policies implemented by Obama to boost community service participation and improve income distribution. While it is extremely easy to slip into one side of the political spectrum or another, Sandel expertly maintains a neutral stance and discusses his ideas on those different political topics purely on the basis of moral philosophy and theories.
sfletcher26's review against another edition
3.0
I want to give it 3.5 out of 5.
Well written but at times hard going. Makes a great introductory text to ethical thinking.
Well written but at times hard going. Makes a great introductory text to ethical thinking.
randomprogrammer's review against another edition
5.0
This book rocked my world when I first read it fresh out of high school, still trying to figure out what I thought was right and wrong. And when I read it a decade later, several years into my working life, it still had things to teach me.
mike_brough's review against another edition
4.0
A clear guide to the philosophy of justice. Great examples, clear writing and an easy-to-follow overall argument.
I suspect this book will repay repeated readings.
I suspect this book will repay repeated readings.