BOOK REVIEW

Justice: What is the right thing to do?

By- Michael J. Sandel

Should government tax the rich to help the poor? Is free market just? Is it always wrong to
lie? Is killing sometimes morally allowed? These are few of the many question Michael J.
Sandel tries to answer in his book. Michael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher
who teaches political philosophy at Harvard University.
“Justice: What is the right thing to do?” is a book based on a course taught by Michael J.
Sandel teaches at Harvard. Sandel discusses before us a multitude of moral and ethical
dilemmas, many based on real life events, and helps us to arrive at our own conclusions about
“what is the right thing to do”. Sandel tries to offer a definition of right and wrong, fair and
unfair, and just and unjust based on the different competing philosophies of liberty, equality
and fairness. What makes Sandel great in this book is that he presents arguments both for and
against the position under consideration, which places the burden solely on the reader to draw
his own views with Sandel acting as our guide.
Sandel discusses theories of justice based on the Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Robert
Nozick’s Libertarianism, Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative , John Rawls’ Theory
of justice and Aristotle’s Virtue ethics.

Sandel talk about Bentham’s utilitarianism first, the principle of the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. It is based on the hedonistic school of thought that pleasure is
good and pain is bad, in his discussion of utilitarianism he starts of with the case of
R v. Dudley & Stephens in which crew of four people get shipwrecked and the three crew
members decide to kill and eat the sick cabin boy to survive. Sandel points out the problem
with utilitarianism is that, when it is applied in its purest form, it suggests that a minority can
be made to suffer so that a majority may enjoy pleasure and that is acceptable morally right
even.
Then Sandel talks about libertarianism which is based upon the principle that individual
freedom is something that matters the most. This was directly in contradiction of the
utilitarian principle according to Sandel
 “…millions [were] kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain
lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture…”
Would be immoral since we are violating the freedom of the one “lost soul” which is wrong
under libertarian principles. Now Sandel uses the Libertarian principle to make a case for
selling kidneys, assisted suicide and consensual cannibalism as a way to disqualify
libertarianism principles by rendering absurd the results of its application.

Then Sandel introduces us to Immanuel Kant and his “categorical Imperative”. Sandel writes
that Kant bases his idea of self ownership, unlike libertarians, in the principle that human
beings. Kant rejected the idea of utilitarianism according to him if you base you moral actions
on the consequences of the action rather than the intent behind that action then you are not
acting morally, for him a “good will” was supreme while determining a moral action. Sandel
then discusses at length about the moral philosophy of Kant’s the categorical imperative
which states that “ we should act only on those maxims on which at the same time we can
will that became a universal law”, for Kant to be free and to be moral , one must act in a way
that if everyone acting in the same way in accordance with your morals, the moral would not
contradict with reality, if they do they are not moral. However, Sandel writes that Kant’s
moral philosophy is hard philosophy to practice as it demands too much from the
practitioner. For example according to Kant we cannot ever lie even if that lie is supposed to
save someone’s life.
For the major part of his book Sandel talks about philosophy of John Rawls. He starts with
the discussion of his famous thought experiment called the “veil of ignorance” in the thought
experiment, Sandel writes, imagine that you are writing the rules of the society without
knowing your place in it. You don’t know whether you are rich or poor, black or Caucasian
,male or female ,born in Africa or Europe , smart or stupid, and so on. Rawls believe that
under these conditions most people will choose a society where those who are the least well
off will be taken care of. Then Sandel goes on to discuss about Rawl’s Difference principle
which says that inequalities in society is allowed insofar they better the condition of the least
well off of the society than in any other arrangement of the rules of the society. Having talked
about Rawls Sandel goes on to discuss the specific case of affirmative action, the role of
universities in defining their mission and the justification of affirmative action.
Finally Sandel talks about Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which makes the case that people should
get what they deserve for example who deserves the best flutes? Well , Sandel writes,
according to Aristotle it’s the best flute player.
Sandel succeeds in engaging the reader in a moral debate, he isn’t just trying to teach us the
meaning of justice he provides us with arguments both for and against a particular philosophy
principles. He forces us to engage in the moral debate with ourselves and our normal sense of
justice making us question every moral principle we thought were inherent to human nature.
Also, Sandel’s methods of using real life case studies to illuminate underlying political and
ethical principles generally succeeds in clarifying and challenging those ethical principles.

Justice is thus best read as the work of a public intellectual addressing the intelligent and
politically engaged general reader.I would suggest this book to anyone who has a interest in
political and ethical philosophy, or anyone who wants to subject their own view of justice to
a critical analysis.