First off, if you purchased the book and are participating in our blog discussion, I appreciate it a great deal. I am anxious to hear your insights on justice. As a discalimer, I should say I am not an expert in this area of philosophy by any means (in fact I am not really an expert in any area of philosophy -sigh). It is only relatively recently that I have become interested in political philosophy, particularly the issue of justice. It is my hope that by participating in this with all of you it will help me to sort out and clarify my own thoughts on justice. I hope you find these blogging discussions interesting and worthwhile.
Now, to the book. . .
Chapter one really serves as an introductory chapter where Sandel lays out the project for the book. It is helpful because he introduces the various traditions that he will be critiquing. Not at all convinced that there is a best way to approach this I have simply summarized what I take to be the highlights of the chapter.
Sandel points out that justice pertains to the distribution of a societies goods, including "income and wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honors" (p.19). The problem arises when we ask the question what is the best or most appropriate way to deliver these goods. Sandel identifies three traditions that have addressed this ques
tion, each one grounded in a particular ethical tradition. His exposition and critique of these three approaches to justice make up the remainder of the book. These three approaches are as follows:
tion, each one grounded in a particular ethical tradition. His exposition and critique of these three approaches to justice make up the remainder of the book. These three approaches are as follows:1. maximizing welfare, which is grounded in utilitarianism
2. freedom approach:
a. the laissez-faire camp (libertarian economic policy: think free markets, completely unregulated by government)b. the fairness camp (John Rawls' justice as fairness approach)
3. justice as an aspect of virtue ethics and what it means to lead the good life. (Plato and Aristotle)
It is this last theory that plays an important role for Sandel. According to Sandel the "great questions of political philosophy" (p.9) ask whether or not a just society should play a role in promoting the virture of its citizens, or rather should laws be neutral with regrad to competing conceptions of virtue. The implication of the latter is that each citizen in society would be free to choose for themselves and pursue their own conception of the good life.
Indeed we are told that the answers to these questions seperate modern theories of justice from ancient theories. Ancient theories such as Aristotle's argue that in order to detemrine the correct distribution of a societies goods we must know which virtues are worthy of honoring. That is, we need to have a conception of the good life that is worth pursuing.
More modern theories of justice place an emphasis on an individuals freedom to choose their own conception of the good life: a just society will be one in which it is possible for individuals to live their own lives in their own way. In other words the government is neutral as to what constitutes the good life.
One thread that runs throughout this chapter is the tension between our sense of virtue and our desire to pursue our own good in our own way. This may be the point of departure for our discussion: Should government play a role in promoting a version of the good life? That is, are there virtues or values that the government should seek to promote? Or should the government remain agnostic about which virtues to promote? I do not think I am giving anything away by revealing that Sandel will defend a view of justice grounded in the virtue tradition. I do not want to get too far ahead of this first chapter because his presentation and defense come later in the book. For now let me just add that he will argue that in thinking about justice we have to take into a consideration the virtues and conceptions of the good life that society feels are worth honoring. Given that we have not yet gotten to his arguments for this view, it might be a bit unfair to criticize it at this point, but for the sake of getting a discussion thread started we might want to consider the implications of such a theory keeping in mind that we can revise our positions one way or the other as he develops his argument in the latter part of the book.OK. Now that I have prattled on, I am hoping that there is enough here to start our discussion. Please feel free to comment on anything written in the post, or in chapter one, or on justice , or on anything else that you deem to be relevant. The questions posed in the prior paragraph are not meant to set a limit on the discussion but merely to suggest a starting point.
The biggest question that pops into my head on chapter one is that the constant battle we have in politics or within our own mind, the battle in trying to fit the judgements we make and the principles we affirm, will never stop. As we think we have found some common ground in our decisions and opinions, our thoughts balance, and then something influences our minds. We havea personal occurence, or we remember an old book we have read. These influence our current morality, and we change our internal or external arguments.
ReplyDeleteTo put it into political terms, these "influences" swing us to the left or the right. Plato wants us to rise above these prejudices and routines, but I would argue that they make for good arguments, and I agree with Sandel that it is these arguements that make for learning moments.
I love the way he puts this argument "A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the walls can only yeild a sterile utopia".
I might put that on my wall at school!
I guess that is not a question as much a thought.... I might still put that on my wall!!
ReplyDeleteSteve, thanks for providing the inaugural comments. What you take to be the biggest question of the chapter: "the constant battle we have in politics or within our own mind, the battle in trying to fit the judgements we make and the principles we affirm" is usually referred to as "reflective equilibrium." This is a term used much in political philosophy and refers to the deliberative process that rational agents use to help determine (and if need be revise) principles of justice.
ReplyDeleteI think you are correct that (a) this is tremendously important. And (b) that situations can arise that cause us to change our minds about issues pertaining to morality/justice. When political theorists and philosophers use the term reflective equilbrium it is often discussed as a tool to further hone or fine tune a conception of justice that has largely already been agreed upon. But, it is hard not to agree with you that there is nothing contradictory about such a principle causing our sense of justice to swing widely between extreme positions (i.e. left to right or vice versa).
This may sound stupid, but I didn’t realize that many other people struggle with these questions. The media profiles so many people who are die-hard Republicans or Democrats. (I know quite a few personally.) There seems to be more discussion about which of the potential candidates in a particular party a person will support in the primaries that which party to support in the election. I have often admired people who seem comfortable following a particular line of thought, be it Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or even a club, etc. I have never found any group that I could blindly follow. I have trouble ever deciding which issues are the most important. (Self-interest does play a role here –I support increased education spending because my job is on the line.) I guess I always assumed that I thought too much!
ReplyDeleteWendy,
DeleteThanks for your thoughts. I don't think what you wrote sounds stupid at all. There has been no shortage of thinkers who argue that the media is detrimental because it is so easily can control what we are suppose to think and feel. I think about these kinds of questions and issues all of the time, so I would say that no, you don't think too much, and if I had to choose between too much thought or too little I would err on the side of too much, or so I hope. I think it is a virtue that you never found yourself blindly following a group or individual. Think of how different the world would be if everyone could make such a claim.