Justice

Justice, a 2009 nonfiction book written by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel, grew out of a popular course of the same name that Sandel teaches, in which he “exposes students to some of the great philosophical writings about justice, and also takes up contemporary legal and political controversies that raise philosophical questions” (293). In this book, Sandel does the same, comparing and contrasting several important approaches to justice and applying them to contemporary legal and political issues.

The approaches to justice presented in the book fall into three categories: theories based on (1) “maximizing welfare,” (2) “respecting freedom,” and (3) “promoting virtue” (5-6, 18). Sandel ultimately reveals himself to be in the third category.

Sandel elaborates on the strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories in each chapter of the book. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss two of the primary approaches to justice covered in the book: utilitarianism and libertarianism. Chapter 4 then offers a chance to compare and contrast utilitarianism and libertarianism on the topic of the morality of markets. Sandel frequently returns to previously-discussed theories when he raises a new hypothetical or an additional example based on current or historical events.

Throughout the book, Sandel also identifies the primary philosophers who hold each of the views discussed. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss two of those major philosophers, Kant and Rawls. Both have views falling in the same overall category as libertarianism: the freedom-based approaches to justice. Like Chapter 4, which focuses on the morality of markets, Chapter 7 then applies the theories previously discussed to the question whether affirmative action is just.

The remaining three chapters of the book discuss approaches to justice that incorporate a particular view of virtue. Chapter 8 is devoted to the last of the important philosophers examined in the book: Aristotle. Like Chapters 4 and 7, Chapter 9 primarily takes on a particular issue: whether current generations should apologize or offer reparations for the actions of past generations. Reviewing the answers that the previously-discussed philosophies would provide, Sandel offers an alternative based on “obligations of solidarity” (225). Sandel then expands on these “communitarian” views in the final chapter, arguing for tackling moral issues along with questions of justice–an approach Sandel views as both inspiring and promising.