Call number
172.2 SAN
Collection
Genres
Publication
Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2009), Edition: 1st, 320 pages
Description
Popular Harvard professor Michael Sandel offers a searching, lyrical exploration of the meaning of justice that considers familiar controversies such as affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, patriotism and dissent, and the moral limits of markets in fresh and illuminating ways.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Atomicmutant
A brisk overview of political and moral philosophies that really reads well and is consistently engaging. If you know your political philosophers (Mill, Locke, Kant, et al) this may be a bit redundant, but Sandel takes care to recapitulate their arguments with current day contextualization, citing
I am also grateful to this book for introducing me to the work of John Rawls, who, again, may be familiar if you've read a lot on this topic, but I had only cursory knowledge of his philosophy.
In the conclusion, Sandel points the way to a more civil and just form of public discourse, that didn't really have me jumping up yelling "yeah, that'll do it!", but the journey to his conclusion is one worth taking.
Great writing, great length (under 300 pages), and a great topic. Highly recommended.
Show More
examples from current politics and civil discourse. The use of current examples really brings the arguments to life.I am also grateful to this book for introducing me to the work of John Rawls, who, again, may be familiar if you've read a lot on this topic, but I had only cursory knowledge of his philosophy.
In the conclusion, Sandel points the way to a more civil and just form of public discourse, that didn't really have me jumping up yelling "yeah, that'll do it!", but the journey to his conclusion is one worth taking.
Great writing, great length (under 300 pages), and a great topic. Highly recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member spoko
I wasn't sure I'd get much out of this book, since I've already listened to the series of Dr. Sandel's lectures on which it's based. But I loved that series, and figured the book would be worth a shot. I'm so glad I did. Not only was the refresher worthwhile, but the final chapter (which is almost
Sandel uses more or less the same disquisitive approach to the question of justice here that he used in the aforementioned course, and it's a good technique. It allows him to address a pretty thorny topic from a position of relative neutrality, and to proceed through some of the most significant historical thinking about it in an accessible way.
I also appreciated the boldness of his final section, because a more typical means of wrapping up would have been to feign complete neutrality, and resist taking any kind of stand. I suppose it doesn't hurt, either, that I agree generally with the stand he does take.
Show More
entirely new from the course) is a really great finish.Sandel uses more or less the same disquisitive approach to the question of justice here that he used in the aforementioned course, and it's a good technique. It allows him to address a pretty thorny topic from a position of relative neutrality, and to proceed through some of the most significant historical thinking about it in an accessible way.
I also appreciated the boldness of his final section, because a more typical means of wrapping up would have been to feign complete neutrality, and resist taking any kind of stand. I suppose it doesn't hurt, either, that I agree generally with the stand he does take.
Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
An excellent overview of philosophical/ethical systems. If only I had this book earlier when I started reading philosophy, I'd have saved a lot of time. Go for the iTunes U version if you'd like!
Starts off with a brief overview of ethical systems - utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kant's categorial
Starts off with a brief overview of ethical systems - utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kant's categorial
Show More
imperative, Rawlsian justice, and then works through case examples - affirmative action, euthanasia, etc. Very clear and thorough arguments, for and against. If Sandel has a bias for one over the other, he hides it very well. Show Less
LibraryThing member drbrand
A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life. It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread.
Sandel builds his argument gradually, almost imperceptibly, across 220 pages before revealing
While I have few, if any, problems with the book as an instructive and thoughtful work of political philosophy, I am still somewhat unclear as to the details and specifics of Sandel's communitarian conclusions. I think he recognizes a huge problem with current liberal political philosophy, most especially the error of ceding the moral arena to those who are religiously minded. By essentially rendering moral value to one's private life, liberals avoid engaging moral arguments in the political arena. Instead, they hold a certain indifference to the moral dispositions of the citizenry — Rawl's "veil of ignorance," for example.
I found myself thinking of President Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech. I think Sandel might have appreciated Carter's urgent warning against the malaise afflicting those who've lost the "unity of purpose for our nation." Sandel similarly contends that a just society requires a strong sense of community and "must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good."
Sandel builds his argument gradually, almost imperceptibly, across 220 pages before revealing
Show More
his political philosophy and how it fits into the discussion of Bentham, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle he delineates across the previous eight chapters. As an overview of major political philosophies, Justice is clear and erudite, sometimes even repetitious in its description of concepts like Rawls's "veil of ignorance" and Kant's "categorical imperative." Sandel illustrates many of the complications of particular political systems by applying them to problematic anecdotes and well-known political controversies in American society.While I have few, if any, problems with the book as an instructive and thoughtful work of political philosophy, I am still somewhat unclear as to the details and specifics of Sandel's communitarian conclusions. I think he recognizes a huge problem with current liberal political philosophy, most especially the error of ceding the moral arena to those who are religiously minded. By essentially rendering moral value to one's private life, liberals avoid engaging moral arguments in the political arena. Instead, they hold a certain indifference to the moral dispositions of the citizenry — Rawl's "veil of ignorance," for example.
I found myself thinking of President Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech. I think Sandel might have appreciated Carter's urgent warning against the malaise afflicting those who've lost the "unity of purpose for our nation." Sandel similarly contends that a just society requires a strong sense of community and "must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good."
Show Less
LibraryThing member the.ken.petersen
A bit too much like a school sociology project for my liking.
I suppose that one of the most frustrating things about this book is that one wishes to argue some of the conclusions that Mr Sandel draws. Sometimes, the point that one wishes to make is covered, a few pages hence but, often not
The author does make some good points, and it certainly made me look at some situations in a different light, and anything that has that ability cannot be bad, just a tad frustrating!
I suppose that one of the most frustrating things about this book is that one wishes to argue some of the conclusions that Mr Sandel draws. Sometimes, the point that one wishes to make is covered, a few pages hence but, often not
Show More
(although, I freely admit this may have more to do with my perverse logic than Mr Sandel's!) The author does make some good points, and it certainly made me look at some situations in a different light, and anything that has that ability cannot be bad, just a tad frustrating!
Show Less
LibraryThing member RavRita
Why do we make the choices that we make? Would we have stopped and been the good samaritan? The writer is very popular and extremely dynamic and that really comes across when you watch his videos. He is a very smart man and although his points eventually come out and you learn something - the first
Show More
half of the book ...is painful to read. The second half flows a lot better but you may just want to find his videos online and enjoy his thoughts that way. Show Less
LibraryThing member JBD1
An overview of basic political and moral philosophies (Bentham, Locke, Kant, Rawls), enhanced by relevant contemporary case studies. Probably too focused to be of interest to a wide audience, but useful as a primer for those beginning studies of political philosophy.
LibraryThing member Bonni208
Sandel takes us through each of the major political perspectives and describes the pros and cons of each. He seems much less interested in changing our minds, but rather to help us explore if we really believe what we think we do... and to help us be more articulate in describing our perspectives.
Show More
He does give us a glimpse into which of the many political perspectives he thinks is most beneficial in the long-term, but I suspect that individuals with many different views will still find this book a great read. Show Less
LibraryThing member amf0001
Excellent interesting essential book. Get a Harvard education for the cost of a book - Michael Sandel is a harvard professor and essentially boils down his first year course on ethics and justice into a short, easily read (okay, except for the bit on Kant, that got a bit dense!) book. Thought
Show More
provoking and enjoyable and you feel smarter afterwards. Show Less
LibraryThing member jontseng
Worthy reading, but never comes to life in the same way as the lecture series (perhaps understandable).
LibraryThing member mdubois
Excellent questions on how we determine what is just with basic philosophical summaries. Do you follow the freedom, utilitarian or libertarian definition of justice, and how do you defend it?
LibraryThing member IowaLawyer
This book is very strong in many ways. Brings several Mill, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle down to understandable level. Excellent stories to illustrate abstract points. Sandel models a civility in his discourse that is absent in today's discourse. There is also a very good video series of his lectures
Show More
at Harvard on You Tube. Show Less
LibraryThing member tjsjohanna
One of the best things about this book is that it got me thinking beyond the surface of what seems fair or good. I liked the logical examination of different philosophies of thought about what is fair or just.
LibraryThing member dagseoul
I participate in a book club with Koreans in Seoul. We're reading this right now. It's a difficult book for them to read in English. As I read it, it appears to be the kind of thing I could use (both excerpted and entirely) for one of my Business Ethics courses. The author frames popular ethical
As with most books written for Ethics courses and education, the material is engaged with the American market. In my opinion these books should encourage learning about what markets are and how they function. Most students/readers I know hold many uncritical assumptions about markets that hinder any positive discourse about markets action.
Show More
debates well and offers engaging claims in response that would be sure to create good classroom discourse.As with most books written for Ethics courses and education, the material is engaged with the American market. In my opinion these books should encourage learning about what markets are and how they function. Most students/readers I know hold many uncritical assumptions about markets that hinder any positive discourse about markets action.
Show Less
LibraryThing member heike6
Audiobook = bad idea. Sure, it is based on lectures, but I'm pretty sure the students had something in print to help them along. It takes a lot more concentration than I'm used to giving an audiobook.
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Well-reasoned, compelling, and argued persuasively, this is a book I felt obliged to read slowly and deliberately from a perceived obligation to be able to internalize its lessons. If I were charged with teaching civics to students, I can't imagine not including it in my required reading. As a
Show More
parent, I plan to reread it and make use of its examples and arguments when discussing politics with my kids. Show Less
LibraryThing member cdogzilla
Trying to suss out how to understand justice and the path to a just society without reference to Marxist analysis strikes me as roughly equivalent to trying to understand the diversity of life on Earth with reference to Darwinian evolution. Aristotle, Mill, Kant, & Rawls are tremendously useful,
Show More
and I don't mean to argue Marx & Engels have the only useful analysis for how to promote human flourishing, but Sandel has huge gaps and some weird underlying assumptions that spotlight where the holes in his framework are. Show Less
LibraryThing member tongabob
Reading this book was painful. It was like taking philosophy 101. It is very superficial. I can not imagine why he wrote it. Nothing of value here.
LibraryThing member raschneid
Four stars because it was an engaging read that reintroduced me to philosophers I had all but forgotten (mostly Kant, who is wrong in such interesting and productive ways). Sandel helped me to clarify my own muddled and contradictory political / ethical beliefs - he's a great storyteller who brings
However, I was ambivalent about Sandel's arguments at the end of the book and wish he had contextualized his argument by questioning his own methods. Is it intellectually honest or efficacious to apply philosophical methods to politics? (Read: rationalist though I am, shouldn't I be suspicious of the opinions of a bunch of old white guys who, for the most part, thought they lived in an orderly clockwork universe?) Some of my lingering questions:
(a) What gives modern nation-states the right or duty to enact justice? Is the political system of the United States designed to enact justice? How much does the duty of government to create a just society converge with the duties of government as formally enshrined in the U.S. Constitution?
(b) Are political debates about justice best understood as rational dialogues, or can they be better understood as expressions of power, emotion, and/or ideology?
(c) To what extent do the rational methods of Western philosophy actually help us enact justice? Could it be that those methods actually obscure the role of emotion and culture in our ethical lives?
(d) What is the relationship between biology, culture, and justice? If something is almost universally valued by human beings (like caring for children) or universally valued by a culture (like monogamous marriage), is enshrining it in law an ethical decision or a pragmatic one?
So, yeah, I thought about this book a lot, and I would like to read more on this subject. But I find it difficult to be satisfied by any philosophical discussion so embedded in a specific political context.
Show More
very dense works of philosophy to life with engaging thought experiments and clear discussions.However, I was ambivalent about Sandel's arguments at the end of the book and wish he had contextualized his argument by questioning his own methods. Is it intellectually honest or efficacious to apply philosophical methods to politics? (Read: rationalist though I am, shouldn't I be suspicious of the opinions of a bunch of old white guys who, for the most part, thought they lived in an orderly clockwork universe?) Some of my lingering questions:
(a) What gives modern nation-states the right or duty to enact justice? Is the political system of the United States designed to enact justice? How much does the duty of government to create a just society converge with the duties of government as formally enshrined in the U.S. Constitution?
(b) Are political debates about justice best understood as rational dialogues, or can they be better understood as expressions of power, emotion, and/or ideology?
(c) To what extent do the rational methods of Western philosophy actually help us enact justice? Could it be that those methods actually obscure the role of emotion and culture in our ethical lives?
(d) What is the relationship between biology, culture, and justice? If something is almost universally valued by human beings (like caring for children) or universally valued by a culture (like monogamous marriage), is enshrining it in law an ethical decision or a pragmatic one?
So, yeah, I thought about this book a lot, and I would like to read more on this subject. But I find it difficult to be satisfied by any philosophical discussion so embedded in a specific political context.
Show Less
Pages
320
ISBN
0374180652 / 9780374180652