Justice: What’s the Right Thing to

Do?
by Michael J. Sandel Penguin
Books, LONDON, 2010
(ISBN: 978-0-141-04133-9)
By - MAAZ AKHTAR HASHMI
(AMU)
 Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?

by Michael J. Sandel London:

Penguin Books, 2010 (ISBN: 978-0-
1410-4133-9) MAAZ AKHTAR
HASHMI (AMU)

Professor of Government at Harvard University, Michael Sandel’s course on

justice is one of the most highly subscribed classes in the university’s history. It
has since spawned an interactive version online and has been adapted into a
twelve-part factual TV series. In this book based on the ‘Justice’ lectures such
popularity is easy to understand. Sandel’s book uses vivid examples from the real
world to motivate the assessment of some of the key theories of justice
philosophers have advanced. This includes discussion of the theories attributed to
Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and others. Sandel then uses the
supposedly unsatisfactory responses these theories give in order to argue for his
own Aristotelian view of justice.

The topics and questions that follow are designed to enhance your reading of Justice. The first
part of this guide contains questions for those who are just starting to think in terms of what
the right thing to do is. The second part of this guide contains questions that are more
advanced. Some of the questions that hit our mind include 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? Justice is lively, thought-
provoking, and wise—an essential new addition to the small shelf of books that speak
convincingly to the big questions of our civic life.

Justice begins with a chapter of examples - cases which prompt you to take a stance
on whether or not an injustice has occurred. These cases include issues of price
gouging (increasing prices in the face of great need, e.g. after a natural disaster)
and of the recent bank bailouts. Having discussed the likely reactions that people
have to such cases, Sandel proposes three ways in which we could account for our
beliefs about justice: (1) the idea that justice involves maximising welfare, (2) that
it involves always respecting some aspect of personhood, and (3) that ideas of
justice involve ideas about promoting ‘the good life’.

The most valuable discussions in Sandel’s book are those where he assesses the
views of the major schools of thought that exist in political philosophy. In the
second chapter he explores utilitarianism (closely associated with John Stuart
Mill). The theory is explained in terms simple enough to be understood by
anyone unfamiliar with it, with examples provided to illustrate what position a
utilitarian might take on various issues. Utilitarianism talks about the ‘Greatest
Happiness Principle’. As Sandel explains, utilitarianism is the theory
 that consequences are what matter, and so the just action is that which promotes
the best outcome for the greatest number of people.
According to the principle of utility, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest
amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness.
But is that right? Should you always try to maximize happiness? Should you always do whatever
is necessary to minimize unhappiness? Consider the case here, there are times when the only
way to prevent harm to a large number of people is to harm a smaller number of people. Is it
always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number? John
Stuart Mill says that we should protect individual rights because in the long run it is going to be
the best way to increase the sum of happiness.

Sandel then discusses some major objections to utilitarian thought. These include
the claim that we all have rights that justice demands be protected, even in cases
where the violation of individual rights would reap better consequences overall.
Again, Sandel is able to provide many vivid cases from the real world that focus
the mind and make his objections to such a theory seem very plausible.
Examples are included that involve the use of torture against suspected terrorists
and cannibalism. These are used to great effect and lend a readable quality to
what is an informative discussion and dismissal of a utilitarian account of justice.
Sandel then goes on to cover other accounts of justice that differ from the theory
he wishes to support later in the book. The reader will find useful discussions
 and critiques of libertarianism, Kantianism and of the political theory of John
Rawls. Sandel’s view on liberalism is that the greatest threat to individual rights
comes from the government. The government has no business passing moralistic
legislation. It shouldn’t tell you how to live your life. The question arises
‘Do we own ourselves’ or is the government pressurizing us to remain under its harsh
influence.
th
In the 5 Chapter Immanuel Kant rejected the Utilitarianism theory and said that

it is freedom and not happiness which governs the people and this is the goal towards morality.
He emphasized that freedom is not something that consists of doing whatever one wants and
desires but includes those morals, rights & duties which have their basis in human reason and
existence. According to Kant, morality is doing the right thing just because you know it’s the
right thing. He thinks that morality is a kind of law, everyone has to obey it.

th
John Rawls in the 6 Chapter talks about Justice with Equality. According to him principles of
justice are whatever principles would be agreed to behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one
knows his or her age, sex, race, intelligence, strength, social platform, family wealth, religion, or
even life goals. No one should enjoy an unfair advantage over other. Therefore, according to
Rawls, the principles we would agree to behind a veil of ignorance would be fair and just.

Having set out some theories about justice, Sandel discusses one final example
(in chapter 7) before going on to give his own view. This is an in-depth
discussion on affirmative action, exploring the arguments that have been given
for and against, and questioning
 whether the discussion of justice up to this point in the book can clear up the issue.
Sandel believes that it cannot, and spends the remainder of the book (chapters 8-
10) arguing for a different position.
Before stating his own idea of justice, Michael Sandel for the final time agreed with Aristotle’s
notion of Justice. According to Aristotle justice was giving each his due, whatever he/she
deserves. The government or the authority should distribute equally the needs and demands of
each and every being living in the society according to his/her requirements. The desires of each
should be fulfilled.

Sandel argues that many of the problems that afflict Western society stem from
the belief that public debate and politics should be neutral when it comes to
conceptions of ‘the good life’. The liberal tradition is to accept that different
people can have legitimately different conceptions of what the good consists of,
often depending on religious, cultural or historical factors. Given this, it has been
thought that the just thing to do in the political sphere is to remain neutral,
allowing for different people to pursue their different projects as much as
possible. Sandel believes that this is a mistake. It leads to a fracturing of society, a
breakdown of civic feeling and to citizens ignoring or avoiding discussion of their
differences rather than attempting to resolve them. To give an example from the
book, Sandel believes that allowing vast inequalities of wealth in society is unjust,
not because redistribution would increase utility or because it is what people
would agree to if they were properly unbiased, but because inequality breaks
down the feeling of civic solidarity.
Citizens lead increasingly separate lives and a lack of interaction causes a lack of
identification as members of the same polity. Sandel’s proposal is that we ought to
engage publicly and politically in proper moral discussion about what the good is
for a society and then start enacting those policies that will bring about both the
good, and a feeling of solidarity within the community. That is how to achieve
justice.

That some of the practical applications of Sandel’s own proposal seem plausible
may be due to the number of interesting and thought provoking examples that he
uses throughout the book to motivate his position. However, there are many
reasons for people to feel uneasy about the proposal that Sandel makes in these
chapters. The idea that the state should be able to decide what constitutes ‘the
good life’ and then implement policy that will encourage people to pursue that
conception has worryingly dictatorial overtones.
Certainly, it would remove equality of opportunity for those wishing to pursue
different conceptions. Furthermore, even if we agree that it would be ‘good’ for
the state to do this, it remains an open question whether or not this is what ‘justice’
amounts to. Simply equating the just state with the state that we think will bring
about the best outcome is a questionable move. So we have reason to reject
Sandel’s proposed account of justice - either because we dislike the idea of the
society it suggests or because we think it is describing some feature other than
justice.
 And yet, even if Sandel’s own view is not one that should be
accepted, the book does contain much that is of value. The discussions of rival
theories are clear enough for a beginner without being overly simplistic.
Furthermore, the examples given throughout will be of use to even the most
experienced philosopher. They provide an impressive resource of cases on which
to test out whatever theory of justice you want to advance. Therefore, this
book is to be recommended regardless of how much thought you have given to
these issues previously. Justice is a thoroughly readable book and, perhaps more
importantly, it will make you think.

Michael J. Sandel has been able to capture and present the most important ideas in political
philosophy with tremendous clarity. His presentation reflects that best of academic populism by
tackling some of the most complex and controversial moral issues, and breaking them down, not
by party or partisan lines, but through the theoretical traditions that remain the foundations or our
current political arrangements. His defense of the “politics of the common good” is unequivocal
and he provides readers with a clear path forward. All voters, politicians, bureaucrats and
citizens would do well to read this book and be forced to rethink their assumptions of civic and
political life.
 Conclusion

The book covers the usual curriculum of moral philosophy: utilitarianism versus duty, liberty,
free markets, inequality, virtue, and human welfare. Interestingly (and very much in the tradition
of Aristotle) Sandel also covers issues such as friendship and loyalty. Morality exists within a
social space and within human relationships. We are also reminded that few problems are
genuinely new. Sandel is a lawyer and political philosopher, not a medical ethicist. It is refreshing
to talk about morals in the wider world rather than just our own well-rehearsed problems. From
whether it would be justified for a soldier to kill three enemy sympathiser civilians to save the
lives of 19 of his comrades, to whether Clinton lied to the American people or merely ‘misled’
them, this book will give you plenty to think about. And you will find that you have received a
pretty good education in moral theory without really noticing. This book is easy, fun, erudite, and
genuinely worthwhile. I suggest it as introductory reading to ethics students. If combined with
some notes on one’s own ‘ordinary’ cases it would be a brilliant starting place for self-certified
CPD. And as what THE NEWYORK TIMES writes that “Sandel explains theories of justice with
clarity and immediately, the ideas of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart
Mill, Robert Nozick and John Rawls have rarely, if ever, been set out accessibly. In terms we can
all understand, Justice confronts us with the concepts that lurk, so often unacknowledged,
beneath our conflicts”