Justice: Chapter Three

In this chapter, Sandel critiques the libertarian position.  Libertarianism might be of some interest since there is a libertarian seeking the republican nomination to the presidency, viz. Ron Paul.  The libertarian position is quite straight forward.  The government has a very minimal role to play in the affairs of individuals and markets.  Sandel presents five arguments against liberalism, but suggests that only the last one is difficult for the libertrian to defend.  This is the idea of luck and self-ownership.  To what extent is a person's sucess based on luck.  If it is based on luck, then an argument can be made that indiviudals are not necessarily deserving to everything they have earned.  The libertarian response relies on the notion of self-ownership.  Sandel then asks us how far we want to carry the notion of self-ownershipby considering cases ranging from selling kidneys to voluntary cannibalism.  So I would be interested to hear what you think about the role of luck in our successes.  Does self ownership mean we can have participate in activities such as selling our kidney or voluntary cannibalism?

Justice: Chapter 2

Sandel spends this chapter critiquing utilitarianism.  This is no surprise since he informs us in chapter one that theories of justice are grounded in ethical theories. Recall that utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states the right thing to do in a given situation is to maximize pleasure (or minimize pain) for the greatest number of people who are likely to be effected by the outcome.  As such utilitariamsim aplces the morality of act in the conequences that a given action brings about.  Sandel discusses two common objections to utilitarianism:  One: As an ethical theory it does not respect human dignity/individual rights.  Two: it presupposes a "common currency of values", but no such common currency exists.  Sandel uses a number of examples throughout the chapter to articualte these criticisms.  Some questions we might want to consdier discussing are 1) What do you make of utilitariaism as an ethical theory?  Should we always seek to maximize pelasure?  Are the criticims he levels against utilitarianism fair?  As always these are just suggestions.  Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the chapter or book to date.  

Tax Justice

This clip was featured on PBS' Religion and Ethics News Weekly last January.  It is short (10 mins.) and includes an interview with Michael Sandel (as well as others, offering opposing view points).  It is worth a watch (or a read, as the link includes the transcript).

Dilbert and Distributive Justice

I saw this Dilbert cartoon and thought I needed to post it here given its relevance to Sandel's chapter one discussion.  Enjoy.