Author: Narváez, C.

Date: July, 2011

Introduction

This written commentary is about the video and the book «Justice», whose author is Michael Sandel, and here we discuss the approaches, cases, and moral dilemas in order for justice to be made.

Justice 1

Sandel questions what is the right thing to do when people’s life are at stake, in different situations but it’s inevitable kill either of them, and a decision has to be made. He states that the right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences of your moral action. Consequentialist moral reasoning- locates morality in the consequences of an act. Bentham states utilitarism as a philosophy that teaches us and settles uf for what we already know. Utilitarism is also about maximizing utility in terms of pleasure over pain.

Justice 2

In this video, Sandel analyzes the cost benefit analysis, and asks whether we should put a tag on human life; and so, he states utilitarism as an argument of the price of the grater good. However he mentions several objections to utilitarians: the philosophy fails to respect individual rights, there is no measure for pleasure, it is not possible to aggregate all values and preferences and ther isn’t a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. John Stuart Mill answers to objections of utilitarism, and ends up affirming Bentham.

Justice 3

Bentham’s utilitarianism, it shows that it is possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, within this philosophy. Individual rights are worthy of special respect, and justice is the most sacred part and the most binding part of morality. In the long run if we do justice, and respect rights, society as a whole will be better. Many of the functions that we take for granted are probably governmental, like social security, however it could be seen as a violation to people’s rights and freedom. So, who owns us? Ourselves.

Justice 4

Libertarian: concept, certain fundamental individual rights that no gob even a democratic government cant override. Not only that, those fundamental rights are rights of life, liberty and property, the right to property is not just a creation of gob, the right of prop, is a natural right in the sense that it attaches to individual as human beings are equal beings, there is no natural hierarchy, were free and equal in the scale of nature, but there is a diff in liberty and license. Law of nature constrains even were free in the scale of nature. Constraints: the natural rights we have we cannot give up, nor can we take them from somebody else. Locke’s view a democratic view has to tax people, but it doesn’t require the consent of each individual.

Justice 5

Government can condemn to death for the greater good. Rightful authority, consent is very powerful, even a limited government, is only limited gob by applicable rules of law. Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument. The case of military constraint: Ways to increase recruitment: increase pay and benefits, shift to military conscription, outsource hire mercenaries.

Justice 6

Sandel says that there is a categorical duty to respect the dignity of persons. Why? Because we are rational beings, and that capacity for reason is undifferentiated, and it’s the same capacity in all of us. It delivers a moral law and we give ourselves an exercise of particular values, and practical reason which legislate. How can duty and autonomy can go together. It would seem that the 2 ideas are apart. Acting on duty is following moral law, that’s why they go together, but how many moral laws are there, if dignity consists on a law, what’s the guarantee that one’s conscience will be other person’s conscience.

Justice 7

When I choose, who chooses really? The reason, pure reason, it is not subjected to any external conditions, that is the same reason that operates the moral law for oneself. Even if you accept a decision, how is a categorical imperative possible, it has to be done a distinction two stand points from which we can choose from experience. If I were purely an empirical being, only subject to the deliverance of my senses, we wouldn be capable of freedom, because every exercise of will. When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will.

Justice 8.

Distributive justice, how it should be distributed. Principles of justice are best drived from a hypothetical contract in an original position of equality. Major alternatives: utilitarianism,  (no because everyone knows that we want to be respected with dignity) and so we would agree on: fundamental rights: freedom of conscience, religion, speech, dignity…. Utilitarianism would be rejected. Social and economic inequalities. Mistake to think that distributive justice is a matter of rewarding people according to virtue. Moral desert.

Justice 9

Minority groups. Statistics confirms that afroamericans and Mexican students  that were admitted in texas univ were not admitted due to racial issues. Is it fair or unfair? Legitimate complaint. Were their rights violated? Most of the time, schooling of minorities are not as well financed as other schools. Areguments for affirmative action: corrective: for differences in educational backgrounds, compensatory for past wrongs, diversity for educational experience and for society as a whole.

Justice 10

Aristotle disagrees with content roles, argues that justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, in reason about just and rights, we have to analyze the social impact of institutions. A way of rewarding the virtue. How should political ruling be distributed. The end of the state is not economic exchange is not secure is realizing good life, that’s what politics is for. This shows us why modern theories are right. Kant moral politics is not to make us good, but to choose what is good for us. Aristotle disagrees “Any polis which is truly so called and is not merely one in name, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise political association sinks into a mere alliance”.

Justice 11

Kant says: support a fair framework of lies for ppl to pursue their good. The whole point of law, the polis is to cultivate the virtue in citizens. For kant purpose of law is not what Aristotle said, but to set up a framework, so citizens can pursue their own conception of good. There are voluntary obligations (promises, deals, contracts). All obligations as our natural duties fails to capture our obligations. Loyalty is to our country, family? Obligations are collective selfishness.

The idea of membership, loyalty. Whether are obligations of this type. The idea of loyalty, solidarity and membership.

Justice 12

Argument of the person, solidarity and membership. There are such obligations, where arguments about justice cannot be detached from questions from the good. Treating persons as persons without prejudice without differences. This chapter is based on the discussion of the cases of the debate of same – sex marriage, and the concept of the good life. We live in a pluralist society, and we should try to make law in the framework of rights neutral in respect of all religion views.

Conclusion

In conclusion it can be said that Sandel gives us the tools, such as definitions, examples, ethical dilemas, meaning of theories; however leaves many dilemas open to personal judgement. Because, acknowledging those tools, personal reasoning is therefore created. Sandel is an amazing writer and academic who makes the reader and viewer re-think and re-order the construction of the meaning of «justice».

Bibliography

Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 «The moral side or murder». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 02 «Putting a price tag on life». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2Rq4HJBxw

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 03 «Free to choose». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw4l1w0rkjs

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 04 «This land is my land». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyygiXMzRk

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 05 «Hired Guns». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yT4RZy1t3s&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=5

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 06 «Mind your motive». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv-4aUbZxQ&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=6

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 07 » A lesson in lying». Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzW0eHzDSQ&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=7

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 08 «What’s a fair start?». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=8

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 09 «Arguing affirmative action». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUhReMT5uqA&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=9

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 10 «The Good Citizen». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuiazbyOSqQ&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=10

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 11 «The claims of community». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOotE9_OGGs&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=11

Harvard University. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Episode 12 «Debating same-sex marriage». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzD9P-9sj4M&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=12

cn.