essay
JUSTICE 5
Linting Bing
10/9/19
BUS 102
Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What's the right thing to do?. Macmillan.
In this article, Michael Sandel bases on what is the right thing to attempt. According to him, it is clearly supremely and instructive it will enhance genuine idea in any serious audience, and it’s a single volume antidote to regular accusation that philosophy is immaterial and incomprehensible. It’s by man who is clearly striving for a truthful and aggressive engagement with some famous hard issues.
Justice is mainly about the value that is supposed to underpin the state, the law and politics with certain references to Western Pluralistic communities. Sandel grants three dimensioned debate between liberal, utilitarian and communitarian perspective in which latter deeply reinforced through a dose of neo-ristotelianism arises the winner. Along the way, we are preserved to a delightful explanation of the delicacies of these chances likewise to their forensic assessments of their limit. On the other hand, Utilitarianism arises just like a lame duck of ethical philosophy, widely since it appears to secure the indefensible, like sacrificing the innocent for the better good. Basing on justice, Sandel argues that he has something cross to desert which implies what people deserves. That idea is at the core of the heart of his next step, his conversation of tolerance.
Liberal justice
Sandel begins this section by looking at libertarian philosophies and mostly the research of the late Robert from the State of Utopia. Basing on what is pleasing about the Nozick’s chance is that it attributes to everyone us the standard of personal ownership and with this originates an absolute rejection of the opinion that can ethically be employed into usage through someone as a convenient revenues to a termination. Since we belong to ourselves we can then be held responsible for our actions but we cannot be used to achieve other people’s goals. This implies that we cannot be held in charge of other people’s issues.
Things does not proceed effectively when we investigate the further allegation of this libertarian situation. According to Sandel, the kind of service we renders to the society are the kind of things always taken to undermine our claims to personal ownership. Also, Sandel takes matters with the view that offered original fair issues with succeeding delivery of material products brought about through charitable contacts would not defensibly be matter to any sort of adjustment.
According to the writing of Sandel, both naturalism and humians in particular requires keen analysis and critique. The writing of this article by Sandel needs more praises than critiques. This is because his style is clear, engaging and energetic. So is its individual delivery you can view his coaching on justice where he uses Socratic approaches that maintains him from appearing as if he is conforming freedom to fight with the matters instead of the author. His article has various case studies and I will list some like price gouging, capitalist, redistribution and loyalty. These case helps in motivating to sympathize with incoming perspective on the existence of justice which is the focus of this article.
Basing on different chapters of Sandel arguments, he uses these case studies to light the antiquity in the Western traditional justice and historical experts. This book is a spirited call particularly to Americans to have a second thought of justice and exercise in the ethical and faithfully charged society sphere. Sandel wants to operate with religions and non- western viewpoints but not at any point within them. He says that our connection with duties, rights, justice and religions is positioned in the storied world which we live and we are born in and where we get these standings relevant. The moral life is the one acts and thinks in harmony with the effective terminals of our certain which is the western cultural stories. Excluding non- westerns and Christians greatly simplifies Sandel’s work allowing him to confine justice to three key alternatives which are liberal egalitarianism, utilitarianism and libertarianism. These kind of argument from Sandel in the article gives him a magnetic appeal though they indicate a conspicuous weakness. The cultural and philosophical traditions gives a nuanced and debatably sustaining concepts to acknowledge justice which the core of this article. His justice stays bound to a disenchanted view of the world with humanism and an epistemology which moves around gaining understanding via naturalism (Sandel, 2010).
Handling complex cases sometimes may imply the use of bad law, but according to Sandel, these cases are a source of refreshing philosophy. In his book “Justice: What’s the right thing to do?” Sandel touches on the moral theories of the modern civilization including libertarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, utilitarianism, Rawls’ theory of veil of ignorance and Aristotle’s Virtues. He also offers case studies in his work which relates to the affirmative actions and patriotism. In chapter 6 of the book, Sandel discusses the Rawls views on justice that is freedom-based while in chapter 7, he uses the theories he had previously discussed in the book to ascertain whether affirmative action is fair or not. Chapter 8 to 10 of the book discusses various approaches to justice that integrate a specific aspect of virtue. Moreover, Sandel discusses deeply on his communitarian views by pointing that the quest for justice should be tackled with moral issues as these approaches are promising and inspiring. This essay aims at evaluating chapter 6 to 10 of Sandel’s book and examines how the theories put forward by the author is relevant in contemporary settings.
Political philosophy agitates for the social contract, an agreement where citizens of a country exchange some of their freedoms and rights with the promise of protection of their other rights. In democratic countries, this agreement is questionable as most of the citizens have never signed a social contract. According to John Locke, consent is said to be provided when the benefits of the government are enjoyed by the citizens (Grant, 2010). He further argues on how a theoretical contract can play the moral role of a real contract. In chapter 6 “The Case for Equality,” Sandel embraces John Rawls argument on the provision of justice. Rawls argues that justice can be understood by examining the principles embraced by the society as they seek for equality. Rawls questions on the moral principles that a community can collectively agree on while writing a social contract. He states that it is difficult for a society to agree on a universal moral principle because individuals hold different positions, have different religious and political values, and are of various economic statuses. Due to these inequalities, it would be challenging to ascertain if the final agreement is unprejudiced or not.
It is unimaginable what kind of contract could emerge in a society covered by avail of ignorance since no one has superior bargaining powers. According to Rawls, rationally self-interested individuals would neither prefer libertarian nor utilitarian principles in such a situation because they question their safety needs. Therefore, two justice principles would emerge that is basic liberties and socio-economic equality principles. These principles will promote equality by creating a system that gives benefits to the less fortunate in society. Contrary to the Friedman thought that “life is not fair,” Rawls points out that natural distribution should not be used to measure what is or unjust because these natural aspects are what man should try to remedy in the society. It is true that what is or unjust lies in the role of institutions in dealing with natural differences. In this chapter, Rawls argument presented by Sandel gives a compelling case that promotes equality in the contemporary philosophical society.
In the current racial American politics, the most heated debate is on the affirmative action. The American society’s core values in providing equality are questioned in the way they provide employment and enroll marginalized individuals in colleges not basing on their merit but the color of their skin. In chapter 7 “Arguing Affirmative Action,” Sandel argues that affirmative action is based on two underlying principles. The first rationale is compensation for the past injustice and wrongs where it states that a student from a minority group should be given preference as a remedy to the historical injustice that disadvantaged him or her. This rationale places affirmative action on the line of the race and not the class. The second rationale is on the promotion of diversity. It states that affirmative action should not be taken to remedy the minority but to seek social good in diversity. According to Banks (2015), diversity promotes the process of learning in society as it helps individuals to obtain knowledge on cultural perspectives from one another. The libertarian principles argue against the affirmative action because the preferences based on race infringes the rights of the eligible applicants who are not chosen. Sandel, however, clarifies that affirmative action is not meant to stigmatize or insult anyone as the discriminatory policies and anti-Jew quotas do in colleges.
The process of enrollment of students to colleges considers many factors apart from academics. For instance, enrollment committees look at the race, alumni relation of the parents, athletic potentials, and voluntary work, where the student lives, and musical talent among other factors. Sandel inquires if this process is fair or not. In my point of view, it is not anyone’s fault not to be born into a family that fits the criteria of the college admission; with alumni relations and well-off. Neither, extra-curricular activities should not limit someone to go to college because it is not their fault not to play. Some students may not be good academically, but they can boost the school through their various talents. It is understandable to admit a student with good merit over the other with average skills but admitting a student due to alumni connection is wrong. Colleges using these rationales for admissions are not fair because these factors are out of control. Nevertheless, our races are also out of our control, but definitely, the minorities experience challenges in admissions. However, not all individuals in the minor race are disadvantaged as some are wealthier and better than others. Fairness will be achieved by the colleges if they take into consideration family incomes as this would promote diversity in the learning institutions.
In chapter 8 “Who Deserves What?” Sandel discusses the ideas from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. He narrates the story of a physically disabled student, Callie Smartt, who had cerebral palsy. The members of Callie’s society did not give her special attention as they expected her to behave just like others. This reasoning is wrong because the disabled in the community should be helped and accommodated accordingly. Callie’s squad thinks that they are fair by excluding her from performing some moves, but they will be unjust if she feels left out because of her situation despite her ability to function. According to Aristotle, justice is given when people are guaranteed what they deserve (Winthrop, 1978). However, the distribution of justice sometimes discriminates some individuals. Therefore, telos (purpose) of what is being distributed should be determined to evaluate which discriminations are fair.
In the political realm, Aristotle points out that the purpose of politics is to promote a good life. Thus political leaders should be geared towards attaining the common good. He argues that communities can achieve good character and life through social norms and laws. Aristotle viewed human beings as political creatures in nature who use speech as a tool to relate to one another. Through the use of rational speech, politics not only safeguard the community from external powers but also control the internal forces that may cause violence. Provision of justice, therefore, lies at the political level because people can debate on the common good they want in society. Justice would then be promoted through law enforcement that restraints people to the common good. This way of thinking is rejected by Rawls and Kant because it leaves a small space for freedom. For example, a constitution that gives a particular understanding of a good life imposes other people’s values. Justice is not achieved through laws or settling disputes fairly. Instead, it involves the effort of the government to cultivate habits that promote good character in the community. Justice relies more on education rather than the use of laws.
References
Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education. Routledge.
Grant, R. W. (2010). John Locke's liberalism. University of Chicago Press.