Justice what s the right thing to do

Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel asks whether a volunteer army is morally different from an army built by conscription. Photograph: Matt Cardy/ Getty Images

Michael Sandel asks whether a volunteer army is morally different from an army built by conscription. Photograph: Matt Cardy/ Getty Images

H ard cases may make bad law, but in Michael Sandel’s hands they produce some cool philosophy. The course on justice that he’s been teaching at Harvard for the past 30 years has made him one of the most popular teachers in the world. But he does not go with the flow of fashion or common opinion. As a self-styled «communitarian», he sets himself at odds with one of the reigning assumptions of modern public life – that moral and religious notions are private matters that should be kept out of public political debate.

His communitarianism is too collectivist for kneejerk conservatives and too paternalistic for kneejerk radicals, but he matches his sharp and combative mind with a gentle and likable manner. If you heard his Reith Lectures earlier this year, you may have bridled at his appeals for «a new citizenship» founded on a «politics of the common good», but you can hardly have failed to be charmed by his patience, openness and intellectual generosity.

Life is, you might say, one damned dilemma after another. We are constantly trying to work out what to do for the best: to marry or not to marry, to persevere in a boring career or try something new, to save fools from their folly or let them learn from mistakes. Sandel’s routine is to present us with a problem, help us identify the principles we appeal to in assessing our options and then show us how hard it can be to get them to line up and point in the same direction.

But how much distance separates this system from the modern volunteer army of which we approve? Those of us in a position to indulge a preference can still stay out of the military if we want to and get others, poorer than us, to fight wars – «So what’s the difference,» Sandel asks, «morally speaking?» Neither of the two main currents of modern political philosophy has an answer. Free-market conservatives are so dazzled by the contrast between conscripts and soldiers who join by choice that they fail to see the social effect can be much the same. And utilitarian progressives – less interested in subjective intentions than objective results – prefer the voluntary system because it promises to deliver the best outcomes for the least overall pain.

The trouble with these answers, as Sandel says, is that they ignore the question of why a country should have a military wing at all. They treat the army as if it were a service industry; but perhaps it should be treated as a noble political institution, rather like jury service, to which all eligible citizens are obliged to contribute. If we are honest with ourselves, he says, we will see that our political judgments cannot be divorced from ideas of communal well-being.

Affirmative action is another of his hard cases. Poor, white Americans are understandably indignant if they are refused a university place when black applicants with worse grades are admitted. But it all depends, Sandel says, on what the purpose of higher education is. If it is about offering prizes for merit, then favouring members of disadvantaged groups is unacceptable. But universities are also social devices that funnel new workers into the professions and it may be irresponsible for them to turn a blind eye to the impact of their policies on the future profile of professional employment. Again, the attempt to discuss the options in terms of abstract principles rather than concrete conceptions of public good begins to look ambivalent.

The past few months have seen a revival of moralism in political debate and there has been good sport in calling for bankers to have their bonuses cut off, or politicians and BBC executives to come clean about their claims for expenses. But, whether you regard it as bold and refreshing or dangerously self-indulgent, the new moralism is not Sandel’s line. He is not asking us to give politics an infusion of saintly moral rectitude; he just wants us to recognise that it has had morality in its bloodstream all along.

Justice is a timely plea for us to desist from political bickering and see if we can have a sensible discussion about what sort of society we really want to live in.

Читать онлайн «Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?»

Автор Michael J. Sandel

Liberalism and Its Critics, editor (1984)

Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (1996)

Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics (2005)

The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (2007)

Justice: A Reader, editor (2007)

Published by the Penguin Group

Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England

Penguin Group (Canada), 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4P 2Y3

(a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc. )

Penguin Ireland, 25 St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (a division of Penguin Books Ltd)

Penguin Group (Australia), 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia

(a division of Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd)

Penguin Books India Pvt Ltd, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi – 110 017, India

Penguin Group (NZ), 67 Apollo Drive, Rosedale, North Shore 0632, New Zealand (a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd)

Penguin Books (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, 24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa

Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, England

First published in the United States of America by Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2009

First published in Great Britain by Allen Lane 2009

Copyright © Michael J. Sandel, 2009

The moral right of the author has been asserted

All rights reserved

Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

For Kiku, with love

CONTENTS

1. DOING THE RIGHT THING

2. THE GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE / UTILITARIANISM

3. DO WE OWN OURSELVES? / LIBERTARIANISM

4. HIRED HELP / MARKETS AND MORALS

5. WHAT MATTERS IS THE MOTIVE / IMMANUEL KANT

6. THE CASE FOR EQUALITY / JOHN RAWLS

7. ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

8. WHO DESERVES WHAT? / ARISTOTLE

10. JUSTICE AND THE COMMON GOOD

1. DOING THE RIGHT THING

Michael J. Sandel

Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government

Justice

Introduction: «Justice with Michael Sandel»

Lectures 1 & 2

Lecture 1 – The Moral Side of Murder
Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others? Would it be the right thing to do? Inviting students to respond to some amusing hypothetical scenarios, Professor Michael Sandel launches his course on moral reasoning.

Lecture 2 – The Case for Cannibalism
Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.

The Lifeboat Case

Justice Dilemma 1

Lectures 3 & 4

Lecture 3 – Putting a Price Tag on Life
Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?

Lecture 4 – How to Measure Pleasure
Sandel introduces J. S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who argues that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

The Cost of Life & the EPA

The Cost of Life & the EPA: Utilitarianism (Lecture 3)

Opera & Dogfights

82cf0058474506c8f3fa2361d4c45e40

Lectures 5 & 6

Lecture 5 – Free to Choose
With humorous references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan, Sandel introduces the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation—taxing the rich to help the poor—is akin to forced labor.

Lecture 6 – Who Owns Me?
Are the successful morally entitled to the benefits that flow from the exercise of their talents? What about the fact that wealth is often due to good luck or fortunate family circumstances? A group of students dubbed “Team Libertarian” defend the libertarian philosophy against this objection.

Motorcycle Helmets

Motorcycle Helmets: Libertarianism (Lecture 5)

Sports Money & Taxes

Sports Money & Taxes: Libertarianism (Lecture 6)

Lectures 7 & 8

Lecture 7 – This Land is My Land
The philosopher John Locke argues that individuals have certain fundamental rights—to life, liberty, and property—that were given to us in “the state of nature,” a time before government and laws were created. How then can private property arise?

Lecture 8 – Consenting Adults
If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can government enact laws that tax or earnings or send us to war? Does this amount to taking our property or our lives without our consent?

Property Rights & Boston Parking

Property Rights & Boston Parking

Lectures 9 & 10

Lecture 9 – Hired Guns?
During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Many students say they find that policy unjust, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to pay less privileged citizens to fight in their place. Is today’s voluntary army open to the same objection?

Lecture 10 – For Sale: Motherhood
Sandel examines free-market exchange as it relates to reproductive rights. Examples include the business of egg and sperm donation and the case of “Baby M”—a famous law case that raised the unsettling question, “Who owns a baby?”

Military Service: Markets & Morals

Military Service: Markets & Morals

Surrogacy: Market & Morals

Surrogacy: Market & Morals (Lecture 10)

Lectures 11 & 12

Lecture 11: Mind Your Motive
Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher. For Kant morality means acting out of duty—doing something because it is right, not because it is prudent or convenient. Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out. According to Kant, the shopkeeper’s action lacks moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Lecture 12: The Supreme Principle of Morality
Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Using several real life examples, Sandel explains Kant’s test for determining whether an action is morally right: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could act on.

The Shopkeeper’s Action

The Shopkeeper’s Action: Immanuel Kant (Lecture 11)

Kant and Human Dignity: The Case of Torture

Kant and Human Dignity

Lectures 13 & 14

Lecture 13 – A Lesson in Lying
Immanuel Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of one’s own dignity. Sandel asks students to test Kant’s theory with this hypothetical case: if a friend were hiding inside your home, and a murderer came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to lie to him? This leads to a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Lecture 14 – A Deal is a Deal
Sandel introduces the modern philosopher, John Rawls, who argues that a just society is one governed by principles we would choose if we did not know what advantages we would possess or what role in society we would occupy.

Lying to a Murderer

Lying to a Murderer: Immanuel Kant (Lecture 12 & 13)

David Hume & the Contractor

David Hume & the Contractor: The Morality of Consent (Lecture 14)

Lectures 15 & 16

Lecture 15 – What’s a Fair Start?
Rawls argues that even a meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesn’t go far enough in leveling the playing field because the successful can’t claim to deserve the talents that enable them to get ahead. Success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawls’s point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.

Lecture 16 – What do We Deserve?
Sandel discusses the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair?

A Thought Experiment

A Thought Experiment: John Rawls (Lecture 15)

Inheritance Tax

Inheritance Tax: Who Deserve What? (Lecture 16)

Lectures 17 & 18

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action (Lecture 17)

The Violin

The Violin: The Good Citizen (Lecture 18 & 19)

Lectures 19 & 20

Casey Martin and the Telos of Golf

Casey Martin and the Telos of Golf: Aristotle (Lecture 20)

Lectures 21 & 22

Lecture 21 – The Claims of Community
Are all obligations based on consent, or are we also bound by unchosen obligations of membership and solidarity?

Lecture 22 – Where Our Loyalty Lies
Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for one’s own kind? Do I have a special responsibility for righting the wrongs of my great grandparents’ generation?

Justice, Community, and Membership

Citizen Responsibility: Justice, Community, and Membership (Lecture 21)

Honesty vs. Loyalty?

Friendship & Honesty: Dilemmas of Loyalty (Lecture 22)

Collective Responsibility?

Collective responsibility for past wrongs

Lectures 23 & 24

Lecture 23 – Debating Same-Sex Marriage
If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a debate about same-sex marriage. Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage?

Lecture 24 – The Good Life
In his final lecture, Sandel challenges the notion that government and law should be neutral on hard moral questions. He argues that engaging, rather than avoiding, the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.

Readings

«More than exhilarating; exciting in its ability to persuade this student/reader, time and again, that the principle now being invoked—on this page, in this chapter—is the one to deliver the sufficiently inclusive guide to the making of a decent life.» (Vivian Gornick, Boston Review)

“Sandel explains theories of justice…with clarity and immediacy; the ideas of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick and John Rawls have rarely, if ever, been set out as accessibly…. In terms we can all understand, ‘Justice’ confronts us with the concepts that lurk, so often unacknowledged, beneath our conflicts.” (Jonathan Rauch, New York Times)

“Sandel dazzles in this sweeping survey of hot topics…. Erudite, conversational and deeply humane, this is truly transformative reading.” (Publishers Weekly, starred review)

“A spellbinding philosopher…. For Michael Sandel, justice is not a spectator sport…. He is calling for nothing less than a reinvigoration of citizenship.” (Samuel Moyn, The Nation)

«Justice, the new volume from superstar Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel, showcases the thinking on public morality that has made him one of the most sought-after lecturers in the world.» (Richard Reeves, Democracy)

“Hard cases may make bad law, but in Michael Sandel’s hands they produce some cool philosophy…. Justice is a timely plea for us to desist from political bickering and see if we can have a sensible discussion about what sort of society we really want to live in.” (Jonathan Ree, The Observer (London))

“Every once in a while, a book comes along of such grace, power, and wit that it enthralls us with a yearning to know what justice is. This is such a book.” (Jeffrey Abramson, Texas Law Review)

“Using a compelling, entertaining mix of hypotheticals, news stories, episodes from history, pop-culture tidbits, literary examples, legal cases and teachings from the great philosophers—principally, Aristotle, Kant, Bentham, Mill and Rawls—Sandel takes on a variety of controversial issues—abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action—and forces us to confront our own assumptions, biases and lazy thought…. Sparkling commentary from the professor we all wish we had.” (Kirkus Reviews, starred review)

“Michael Sandel is…one of the world’s most interesting political philosophers. Politicians and commentators tend to ask two questions of policy: will it make voters better off, and will it affect their liberty? Sandel rightly points out the shallowness of that debate and adds a third criterion: how will it affect the common good?” (Guardian)

“Michael Sandel transforms moral philosophy by putting it at the heart of civic debate…. Sandel belongs to the tradition, dating back to ancient Greece, which sees moral philosophy as an outgrowth and refinement of civic debate. Like Aristotle, he seeks to systematize educated common sense, not to replace it with expert knowledge or abstract principles. This accounts for one of the most striking and attractive features of Justice—its use of examples drawn from real legal and political controversies…. Sandel’s insistence on the inescapably ethical character of political debate is enormously refreshing.” (Edward Skidelsky, New Statesman)

“His ability to find the broad issues at the heart of everyday concerns verges on the uncanny, and his lucid explanations of classic figures such as Mill, Kant, and Aristotle are worth the price of admission.” (William A. Galston, Commonweal)

“A remarkable educational achievement…. Generations of students and educated citizens will be very well served by Sandel’s introductory overviews.” (Amitai Etzioni, Hedgehog Review)

“Reading ‘Justice’ by Michael Sandel is an intoxicating invitation to take apart and examine how we arrive at our notions of right and wrong….This is enlivening stuff. Sandel is not looking to win an argument; he’s looking at how a citizen might best engage the public realm.” (Karen R. Long, Cleveland Plain Dealer)

“Sandel is a champion of a politics of the common good. He wants us to think of ourselves as citizens, not just consumers or isolated choosers. For him, justice demands that we ask what kind of people and society we want (or ought) to be.” (John A. Coleman, America)

“Michael Sandel, political philosopher and public intellectual, is a liberal, but not the annoying sort. His aim is not to boss people around but to bring them around to the pleasures of thinking clearly about large questions of social policy. Reading this lucid book is like taking his famous undergraduate course ‘Justice’ without the tiresome parts, such as term papers and exams.” (George F. Will, syndicated columnist)

“Justice is Sandel at his finest: no matter what your views are, his delightful style will draw you in, and he’ll then force you to rethink your assumptions and challenge you to question accepted ways of thinking. He calls us to a better way of doing politics, and a more enriching way of living our lives.” (E. J. Dionne, syndicated columnist)

“His is a new and authentic philosophical voice…. Michael Sandel’s elegantly argued book…describes what I take to be the reality of moral experience.” – Michael Walzer, The New Republic

“Sandel’s Liberalism and the Limits of Justice is a gracefully—even beautifully—written book that I would imagine is destined to be something of a classic on the subject.” – Chilton Williamson, Jr., National Review

“Sandel’s book is exemplary. It is passionate and unrelenting, and yet meticulous and scrupulous in its argumentation…. [A]lways fair to its target, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice develops the best and most constructive interpretations with which to disagree…. It is the great virtue of this book, of its justness and generosity of spirit, that…one can come away from this book moved to deepen and improve the vision he criticizes.” – Charles Fried, Harvard Law Review

“This brilliantly written critique of Rawls…can be read as an important contribution toward the reconstruction of liberal political theory.” – Steven M. DeLue, American Political Science Review

“Sandel’s remarkable work forces us to take seriously the question: what kind of subjects must we be for our talk of justice and rights to make sense? He uncovers the strains and contractions in much contemporary liberalism. This is political philosophy on the level it should be written, confronting our moral beliefs with our best understanding of human nature.” – Charles Taylor, McGill University

“A genuinely important and philosophical book…written with style and precision…. Sandel’s account of friendship and self-knowledge is luminous.” – Ronald Beiner, Times Higher Education Supplement

“[S]ometimes soaring to exhilarating eloquence and flashes of insight…Liberalism and the Limits of Justice offers fresh and plausible readings of what politics is and might be.” – Stephen Whitfield, Worldview

“Sandel [goes to] the heart of the epistemological confusions inherent in modern philosophical liberalism…. The real consequence of Sandel’s argument is…to reassert [the] fundamental lesson…that at the heart of all philosophy is political philosophy. – Mark Lilla, The Public Interest

“Sandel’s outstanding book is a significant and fascinating contribution…. Sandel’s point about the liberal conception of the self is exciting and significant in several ways.” – Richard Fentiman, Cambridge Law Journal

“Sandel offers an extended, very penetrating critique of what he calls the ‘deep individualism’ embedded in the premises of Rawlsian theory—and, more generally, in the foundations of liberal political theories which are influenced by Kantian moral philosophy. This is fresh work of major importance to the ongoing discussion of justice and individualism….” – Norman Care, Noûs

“This clear and forceful book provides very elegant and cogent arguments against the attempt to use a certain conception of the self, a certain metaphysical view of what human beings are like, to legitimate liberal politics.” – Richard Rorty, in “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy,” in Rorty, Objectivism, Relativism, and Truth

“[John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice] is widely viewed as the most important work of political philosophy to be written in our time. It certainly has been the most widely discussed. Of all the commentary it has spawned, none has been more important than the critique offered by Michael Sandel in a book published in 1982 called Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, which succeeded in calling into question some of Rawls’s more fundamental premises.” – R. Bruce Douglass, Commonwealth

“Sandel’s work builds very strongly on A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, taking its place as the next voice in the running conversation of political theory…. Where critiques are often used by their author as a means to build their own name up by tearing down someone else’s name, Sandel’s is such a careful study that it ends up enhancing the stature of the work it builds upon.” – Chistopher Budd, The Philosophers’ Magazine

“Even though Sandel is critical of Rawls, he is scrupulously fair and respectful…. One cannot read Liberalism and the Limits of Justice without acquiring a deeper and clearer understanding of Rawls’ theory…. Sandel’s impressive work…illuminates not only Rawls’ theory but also the nature of moral argument…. It is an outstanding achievement.” – William Powers, Texas Law Review

Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?

Michael J. Sandel

Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? invites readers of all ages and political persuasions on a journey of moral reflection, and shows how reasoned debate can illuminate our lives.

— Is it always wrong to lie?-
Should there be limits to personal freedom?-
Can killing sometimes be justified?-
Is the free market fair?

What is the right thing to do?-

Лучшая рецензия на книгу

21 апреля 2019 г. 21:31

Это еще одна книжка, о которой я мечтал и о существовании которой узнал чисто случайно. Здесь речь о философии морали. Майкл Сэндел разбирает все основные варианты метаэтики, простыми и понятными словами описывает плюсы и минусы каждого из них, потенциальные противоречия, все это сопровождая наглядными примерами и реальными кейсами.

Это, наверно, книжка не для всех, а только для тех, кто по тем или иным причинам упарывается по философии, но она действительно классная. Из нее вы вряд ли получите ответы на вопросы, как поступать правильно (не зря же об этом умные люди спорят веками), но зато сможете лучше понять сами эти вопросы, понять, почему они так сложны, и, возможно, получше понять свою собственную позицию.

Год издания: 2010

Рецензии

21 апреля 2019 г. 21:31

Это еще одна книжка, о которой я мечтал и о существовании которой узнал чисто случайно. Здесь речь о философии морали. Майкл Сэндел разбирает все основные варианты метаэтики, простыми и понятными словами описывает плюсы и минусы каждого из них, потенциальные противоречия, все это сопровождая наглядными примерами и реальными кейсами.

Это, наверно, книжка не для всех, а только для тех, кто по тем или иным причинам упарывается по философии, но она действительно классная. Из нее вы вряд ли получите ответы на вопросы, как поступать правильно (не зря же об этом умные люди спорят веками), но зато сможете лучше понять сами эти вопросы, понять, почему они так сложны, и, возможно, получше понять свою собственную позицию.

7 февраля 2016 г. 17:21

Прекрасное введение в философские теории справедливости. В отличие от первоисточников (доступные в сборнике под редакцией этого же автора) книга легко читается, понятна и относительно нейтральна. Профессор Сэндел излагает основные положения философских течений, не примыкая явно к определенному лагерю, а давая доводы как сторонников, так и противников той или иной теории. К недостаткам книги следует отнести ее «западность»: восточная философия полностью отсутствует. Это характерная черта западных писателей, как было показано еще Гертом Хофстеде в его «Cultures and Organizations». Книга написана как вспомогательный материал к курсу «Justice», который автор читает первокурсникам в Гарварде, и практически полностью повторяет содержимое лекций.

Подборки

BTS Book Recommendation

21 ноября 2020 г.

English books

10 января 2020 г.

Похожие книги

Вы можете посоветовать похожие книги по сюжету, жанру, стилю или настроению. Предложенные вами книги другие пользователи увидят здесь, в блоке «Похожие книги». Посоветовать книгу

Justice: What’s The Right Thing to Do? 12×53

Justice is one of the most popular courses in Harvard University’s history. Nearly one thousand students pack Harvard’s historic Sanders Theatre to hear Professor Michael Sandel talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship. This course aims to help viewers become more critically minded thinkers about the moral decisions we all face in our everyday lives. PBS International opens the door to this classroom that has captivated more than 14,000 students.

In this 12-part series, Sandel challenges us with difficult moral dilemmas and asks our opinion about the right thing to do. He then asks us to examine our answers in the light of new scenarios. The result is often surprising, revealing that important moral questions are never black and white. Sorting out these contradictions sharpens our own moral convictions and gives us the moral clarity to better understand the opposing views we confront in a democracy.

Episode 01: The Moral Side of Murder / The Case for Cannibalism
Lecture One:
If you had to choose between killing one person or five, what would you do? What’s the right thing to do? Professor Michael Sandel launches into his lecture series by presenting students with a hypothetical scenario that has the majority of students voting for killing one person in order to save the lives of five others. But then Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision increasingly complex. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, Sandel’s point is made. The assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

Lecture Two:
Sandel introduces the principles of Utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous 19th century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After 19 days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case leads to a debate among students about the moral validity of the Utilitarian theory of maximizing overall happiness—often summed up with the slogan “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Episode 02: Putting a Price Tag on Life / How to Measure Pleasure
Lecture Three:
Jeremy Bentham’s late 18th century Utilitarian theory—summed up as “the greatest good for the greatest number”—is often used today under the name of “cost-benefit analysis.” Sandel presents some contemporary examples where corporations used this theory—which required assigning a dollar value on human lives—to make important business decisions. This leads to a discussion about the objections to Utilitarianism: is it fair to give more weight to the values of a majority, even when the values of the majority may be ignoble or inhumane?

Lecture Four:
Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, another Utilitarian philosopher, who argues that all human experience can be quantifiable, and that some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others. Mill argues that if society values the higher pleasures, and values justice, then society as a whole will be better off in the long run. Sandel tests this theory by showing the class three video clips—from The Simpsons, the reality show Fear Factor and Shakespeare’s Hamlet—then asks students to debate which of the three experiences qualifies as the “highest” pleasure.

Episode 03: Freedom to Choose / Who Owns Me?
Lecture Five:
Libertarians believe the ideal state is a society with minimal governmental interference. Sandel introduces Robert Nozick, a libertarian philosopher, who argues that individuals have the fundamental right to choose how they want to live their own lives. Government shouldn’t have the power to enact laws that protect people from themselves (seat belt laws), to enact laws that force a moral value on society, or enact laws that redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel uses the examples of Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to explain Nozick’s theory that redistributive taxation is a form of forced labor.

Lecture Six:
Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick makes the case that taxing the wealthy—to pay for housing, health care, and education for the poor—is a form of coercion. Students first discuss the arguments in favor of redistributive taxation. If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, aren’t you obligated to pay your taxes? Don’t the poor need and deserve the social services they receive? And isn’t wealth often achieved through sheer luck or family fortune? In this lecture, a group of students (“Team Libertarianism”) are asked to defend the objections against Libertarianism.

Episode 04: This Land is My Land / Consenting Adults
Lecture Seven:
John Locke is both a supporter and detractor from the theory of Libertarianism. Locke argues that in the “state of nature”, before any political structure has been established, every human has certain natural rights to life, liberty—and property. However, once we agree to enter into society, we are consenting to being governed by a system of laws. And so, Locke argues, even though government is charged with looking after one’s individual rights, it is the majority that defines those rights.

Lecture Eight:
John Locke on the issue of taxation and consent. How does John Locke square away the conflict between 1) his belief that individuals have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property and 2) that government—through majority rule—can tax individuals without their consent? Doesn’t that amount to taking an individual’s property without his/her consent? Locke’s answer to that is that we are giving our “implied consent” to taxation laws, by living in society, therefore taxation is legitimate. And, as long as government doesn’t target a particular group for taxation—if it isn’t arbitrary—then taxation isn’t a violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.

Episode 05: Hired Guns? / For Sale: Motherhood
Lecture Nine:
During the Civil War, men were conscripted to fight in the war—but draftees were allowed to pay hired substitutes to fight in their place. Professor Sandel asks students—was this policy an example of free-market exchange? Or was it a form of coercion, because the lower class surely had more of a financial incentive to serve? This leads to a classroom debate about the contemporary questions surrounding war and conscription. Is today’s voluntary army really voluntary, given that many recruits come from a disproportionately lower economic background? What role does patriotism play? And what are the obligations of citizenship? Is there a civic duty to serve one’s country?

Lecture Ten:
Professor Sandel applies the issue of free-market exchange to a contemporary and controversial new area: reproductive rights. Sandel describes bizarre presents examples of the modern-day “business” of sperm and egg donation. Sandel then takes the debate a step further, using the famous legal case of “Baby M”, which raised the question of “who owns a baby”? Mary Beth Whitehead signed a contract with a New Jersey couple in the mid-eighties, agreeing to be their surrogate mother, in exchange for a large fee. But 24 hours after giving birth, Whitehead decided she wanted to keep the child and the case went to court. Students discuss the morality of selling human life, the legal issues surrounding consent and contracts, and the power of maternal rights.

Episode 06: Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality
Lecture Eleven:
Professor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant—one of the most challenging and difficult thinkers in his course. Kant believes we, as individuals, are sacred and the bearer of rights, but not because we own ourselves. Rather, it is our capacity to reason and choose freely that makes us unique, that sets us apart from mere animals. And when we act out of duty (doing something because it is right) only then do our actions have moral worth. Sandel uses the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because he worries it would hurt his business. That wouldn’t be considered a moral action, according to Kant, because he wasn’t doing the right thing …for the right reason.

Lecture Twelve:
Immanuel Kant says that in so far as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is precisely our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Sandel tells the true story of a 13-year old boy who won a spelling bee contest, but then admitted to the judges that he had, in fact, misspelled the final word. Using this story and others, Sandel explains Kant’s test for determining whether an action is morally right: when making a decision, imagine if the moral principle behind your actions became a universal law that everyone had to live by. Would that principle, as a universal law, benefit everyone?

Episode 07: A Lesson in Lying / A Deal is a Deal
Lecture Thirteen:
Immanuel Kant’s stringent theory of morality allows for no exceptions; he believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of one’s own dignity. His theory is put to the test with a hypothetical case. If your friend was hiding inside your home, and a killer knocked on your door asking where he was, what could you say to him–without lying–that would also save the life of your friend? This leads to a discussion of “misleading truths”–and the example of how President Clinton used precise language to deny having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, without outright lying to the public.

Lecture Fourteen:
Sandel introduces the modern philosopher John Rawls and his theory of a “hypothetical contract”. Rawls argues that the only way to achieve the most just and fair principles of governance is if all legislators came to the bargaining table in a position of equality. Imagine if they were all behind a “veil of ignorance”–if their individual identities were temporary unknown to them (their race, class, personal interests) and they had to agree on a set of laws together. Then and only then, Rawls argues, could a governing body agree upon truly fair principles of justice.

Episode 08: What’s a Fair Start? / What Do We Deserve?
Lecture Fifteen:
John Rawls applied his “veil of ignorance” theory to social and economic equality issues, as well as fair governance. He asks, if every citizen had to weigh in on the issue of redistributive taxation—without knowing whether they would end up as one of the poor or one of the wealthy members of society—wouldn’t most of us prefer to eliminate our financial risks and agree to an equal distribution of wealth?

Lecture Sixteen:
Professor Sandel recaps the three different theories raised so far, concerning how income, wealth, and opportunities in life should be distributed. He summarizes libertarianism, the meritocratic system, and the egalitarian theory. This leads to a discussion of the fairness of pay differentials in today’s society. Sandel compares the salary of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? And if not, why not? Sandel explains how John Rawls believes that personal “success” is more often a function of arbitrary issues for which we can claim no credit:luck, genetic good fortune, positive family circumstances. But what of effort—the individual who strives harder and longer to succeed—how should his/her “effort” be valued?

Episode 09: Arguing Affirmative Action / What’s the Purpose?
Lecture Seventeen:
Students discuss the issue of affirmative action and college admissions. Is it “just” for schools to consider race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions? Does it violate individual rights? Or is it as equal, and as arbitrary, as favoring a star athlete? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a student’s efforts and achievements should carry more weight?

Lecture Eighteen:
Sandel introduces Aristotle’s theory of justice which, simply put, is giving people what they are due, what they deserve. Aristotle argues that when considering issues of distribution, one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. For him, it’s a matter of fitting a person’s virtues with their appropriate roles.

Episode 10: The Good Citizen / Freedom vs. Fit
Lecture Nineteen:
Aristotle’s theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf, specifically “the purpose” of golf. Students debate whether the PGA was wrong in not allowing a disabled golfer, Casey Martin, to use a golf cart during professional tournaments.

Lecture Twenty:
Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotle’s views on freedom—his defense of slavery. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle’s theories and debate whether his philosophy limits the freedom of individuals.

Episode 11: The Claims of Community / Where Our Loyalty Lies
Lecture Twenty-One:
Professor Sandel presents Immanuel Kant’s and John Rawl’s objections to Aristotle who believe that individuals should be free and capable of choosing his or her ends. This leads to an introduction to the communitarian view. As individuals, how do we weigh our obligations to family against our obligations to community and to our country?

Lecture Twenty-Two:
Professor Sandel leads a discussion about the arguments for and against our obligations of solidarity and membership in the smaller community of family and the larger community of the society at large. Using various scenarios, students debate whether and when loyalty outweighs duty.

Episode 12: Debating Same-sex Marriage / The Good Life
Lecture Twenty-Two:
If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how does society deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Using the example of same-sex marriage, students debate whether it is possible to detach moral permissibility of sexuality from the end or purpose of marriage.

Lecture Twenty-Three:
Professor Sandel raises two questions. Is it necessary to reason about the good life in order to decide what is just and what rights people have? And if that’s the case, is it possible to argue or to reason about the nature of the good life? Students debate these questions with a further discussion about government’s role in deciding the purpose of marriage. Michael Sandel concludes his lecture series by making the point that we, as individuals, may never agree on many moral philosophical issues. However, he argues, on the one hand the debate about these issues is unavoidable. And on the other hand, it is a worthwhile opportunity for all of us to better appreciate the values of others.