We will be discussing Michael J. Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do at our meeting on Wednesday, January 11, at 4p.m. in the GAHS library. Please post questions, comments, concerns, criticism, and the like on this blog prior to, during, or after our meeting. All questions and responses should indicate an active reading of the text and function to move the conversation forward. (Note: surface-level or obvious questions and responses will not count as participation for grade replacement.)
Those of you unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts may particpate in the discussion below by posting a discussion question and offering a detailed response, or by responding to two questions already posted. The note above applies here as well, so heed it!
I like how Sandel shows both sides of the story. In the case where the shipwrecked crew kills the cabin boy (weakest link) in order to survive, is it ethical to murder this innocent orphan with no voice of his own and revert to canibalism? or would it be better just to watch the entire ship starve?
Its a humans life, but on the other hand its the life of mnay others, its ironic they left an area because they didn’t want to be eaten by cannibals, then instead become cannibals. In their situation their gut probably took over, how are we to say what it feels like to be on the verge of starving to death and then see a person die next to you and have the decision on whether or not to eat him. In order to answer the question truthfully you would have to be in the exact situation, and until then we can only think what we would hope we would do, but it isn’t the same as what we would actually do.
I meant to bring this up yesterday but forgot. Is the right of eminent domain just? My great-grandma’s farm was seized by the county some years ago soley because it occupied the prooperty on which they government wished to built a new courthouse. She had no say in the matter. They wanted her land, they were going to take it. While she was offered a meager compensation for her loss, it was nowhere near the intrinsic value of what that place had meant to her, or my entire family for that matter. When all was said and done, the government believed that the benifit to the local community had been more than the discontent is caused (a very utilitarian approach in my opinion). While I’m not railing the government here or trying to open up old wounds, I simply wanted to bring this light and see what others thought of it in the scheme of justice. I also heard of a case recently, on the news, in which a locality seized a man’s property (in the name of eminent domain), then turned around and sold it to a private contractor wishing to develop on the lot. Now, I can see the logic of the greater good brought about by the courthouse, but soley for the purpose of monetary gain? Is that justice?
In Justice Sandel defines the meaning of justice and wants to find out what the reader thinks about moral and political values in the U.S. Sandel is very interested in what the audience thinks. He ultimately wants the reader to choose what is the real meaning of politics and whether or not society is organized correctly or is just, and invites the reader to face many assumptions on a variety of controversial things like abortion or same sex marriage while making difficult aspects comprehensive.
After reading the book, how do you think people make the decisions like deciding to kill one person or a couple, or the idea of a 5 yr old accidently killing another little kid is different than when an adult kills a little child? What does that say about the human mind and people’s thought processes?
I think that he writes it soley to show readers some answers to the problems at hand, but once you read it Sandel wants everyone to decide for themselves, because it is not his decision to make, only the person who murdered a child could actually know why they did it and unless they tell people why they did it (they could be lying) people will just be left to ponder how such an outcome could have come about.
“Justice: What’s the right thing to do?” was a fascinating book about practical and political philosophies. It was a very thought-provoking book. Throughout the entire book he would go into so many details about so many different details involving morality and the right decisions that I was almost expecting him to say “…but the right things is…” which it frustrated me that he didn’t. The predicaments he puts his readers into are very difficult considering there can never really be “the right choice”. For example, the story about the train, where you can avoid one or five people just ends up resulting in killing people either way! Some of the decisions were based on the concept of utilitarianism and then it would switch to libertarianism, therfore the questions about morality the reader is faced with depends on their beliefs and way of thinking. I did enjoy the fact that he somewhat connected all his ideas together and made a statement at the end of the book.
I agree that it was very frustrating that he never established what the right choice in every situation is, but it explains how morals are different to each person. When it comes to death, Sandel’s question of morality is whether one should kill a person in order to save lives, or stand by and watch people die before your eyes, while you do nothing. Both of these options leaves the reader at a lose lose situation. They must choose between two unapealing options, so the question is: which one should they chose? Since Sandel does not provide a clear answer, it shows that he wants the reader to question their own morality and choose for thfemselves, in order to make their own “right choice”.
Check out Michael J. Sandel in action as he teaches the course that inspired our book selection:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/
Feel free to incorporate these videos into discussions on this blog.
tnt.