Important Aspects Of Political Debate In Modern Society

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Response Paper
The issue of justice has become one of the most important aspects of political debate in modern society. In his book, Sandel tries to illustrate why justice is so crucial in contemporary politics by examining different views that have been put forth by different philosophers. First, he addresses the idea of justice from a utilitarianism point of view and then moves to the libertarianism point of view on the same. Eventually, Sandel examines Aristotle’s idea of justice, which basically forms the basis of Sandel’s idea of justice. In his book, Sandel reveals that there are three competing points of view on justice. These views are centered around “maximizing welfare, respecting freedom and promoting virtue (Sandel 9).” The first two points of view are popular and are often used to justify certain political and social ideas, such as free-markets and individualism. However, the last point of view is only shared by a small group of people, Sandel himself included. This paper provides a well-analyzed summary of Sandel’s philosophical point of view on justice and addresses the strength and weaknesses of his view.
To properly illustrate justice from each of the three competing points of view, Sandel first examines the concept of maximizing welfare from a utilitarianism view. Utilitarians believe that the right thing to do when faced with a moral dilemma is that which maximizes the benefits for the greatest number of people. Sandel starts off by giving an example of cannibalism in which a four-member crew ate one of them after being stranded on the sea for twenty-four days. The remaining three justified their action by claiming that it was “out of necessity” (30). From a utilitarianism point of view, this action was justified because one person died in order to sustain the lives of three people, thus maximizing the welfare of the greatest number of people. However, Sandel reveals the limitations of utilitarianism by positing that one, it would have dire consequences on the law of the land because it would encourage other vices such as mob justice (30). Two, he believes that even if the action benefited the greatest number of people, it is not always a simple decision to make because sacrificing an innocent person is wrong and does not sit well with many people. As such, Sandel believes that the utilitarian point of view on justice ignores some of the core concepts of humanity, that is, treating other human beings with the dignity they deserve, the same way we would want to be treated. Thus, utilitarianism is dismissed as a proper view of justice because it does not respect individual rights (36), which brings Sandel to examine the libertarianism concept.
Sandel examines the concept of freedom and rights from a Nozick’s and Kantian standpoint. Nozick’s standpoint is that the individual rights far much outweigh the need for state intervention, and ultimately, a state should only intervene to protect citizens and enforce the law, but on a limited capacity (54). In addition, Nozick’s point of view is that inequality is not injustice, something that Sandel seems to dispute. The question of redistributive taxation arises in this case because from Nozick’s standpoint, taxing the rich so as to provide services to the poor is a form of coercion, which is against individual freedoms and rights. Nozick believes in self-ownership and thus, no one has a right to interfere with another person’s decisions. Sandel posits that while Nozick actually believes that we own ourselves, the concept of self-ownership is far-fetched. To illustrate this, Sandel gives an example of selling kidneys, consensual cannibalism, and assisted suicide (62) among others. From the scenarios, it is evident that self-ownership is not as black and white as libertarians would want to believe. In fact, the scenarios illustrate that deep down, human beings understand that morality and justice are more than individual freedoms and right. It is also about dignity, which is one of the reasons why Sandel takes issue with this approach to justice. Consequently, Sandel examines libertarianism from a Kantian standpoint. Immanuel Kant believes that human beings are “rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect” (89), and as such, human rights cannot be violated, even if it is in pursuit of the greater good. Thus, every individual has universal duties that enable them to treat others with respect and dignity. Sandel, however, questions the origin of these universal duties by positing that they are based on an imaginary contract instead of a real one. In addition, the universal duties implied by Kant would require all of us to have a baseline of shared interests after removing all the individual interests that are specific to a person. Sandel posits that this would require neutrality, which would then erode the good life.
Sandel finally examines the work of ...