Michael Sandel's Justice

Economic writer Stephen Moore claimed that the original and traditional American concept of equality as "equality under the law” means that the same rules apply to all, not the same results (29). He states that it isn’t possible to have a classless society because it hinders the economic prosperity of the nation. “Equality of rules ensures that all enjoy the same freedom of contract, which empowers them to maximize value and production, and plan investment knowing they can rely on their agreed contractual rights.” (Moore 29). He basically states that competition encourages the advancement of a nation and the equality under law allows for all to have the opportunity to contribute. He clearly understood Vonnegut’s work to be an attack against communism as he uses it in his argument against equalizing legislature

In our text book, Ethics Theory and Issues, We have read numerous of philosophers that talk about the moral code of humans. This moral code is the bases of what humans should do to happy. Each phosphor has their own reasoning for why certain actions are moral and immoral. One philosopher in particular, John Stuart Mill, who deems an action’s moral worthiness by the happiness it creates. Mill’s theory is broken down into two aspects; act utilitarian’s that believe that each action should have its own review to see if it's moral or not based on the individual situation.

Consequentialist believe that morality is about producing the right overall consequences, and that the action brings about either happiness, freedom or survival of species. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialism that maximizes utility (happiness). The difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that a utilitarian overlooks justice, as long as an utilitarian can maximize pleasure they would do whatever it takes. Consequentialist enjoy maximizing pleasure like a utilitarian, but they also take into account autonomy and justice. A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good.

Exercising Autonomy: people have a right to control their lives and choose their own means of dying. The idea of autonomy, which literally means self-rule, is a foundational component of a free society. So long as my actions don’t harm others. A criticism of this argument is that, while autonomy is an important moral ideal, no one has full autonomy. Our actions are always restricted by competing interests of society.

The book Anthem depicts a society where it is forbidden to think for one's self, but one-character breaks free from this dictatorship and lives a life thinking only for himself, and the author, Ayn Rand, shows that that is the purpose of life, and according to her, our morality will teach us to do so, and this is the key to happiness. The society depicted in Anthem defined morality as a system of conformity to ideals of right human conduct. This society believed that things done in in groups prevails over things done individually. At the beginning of the book Anthem, Equality 7-2521 states that, “… there is no transgression blacker than to do it alone” (Rand 17). These beliefs are what collectivists believe, along with that being alone “…is the great transgression and the root of all evil” (Rand 17).

In my opinion, greater happiness helps society more, than great suffering, because I think it is just human nature to favor greater happiness instead of great suffering. As a result, I think it is morally permissible to torture if it results in greater happiness. This view is called utilitarianism where the main principle is to maximize utility, which is happiness or the prevention of pain. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was founded by moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham. According to him, happiness and pain govern human actions, and so morality’s main principle is to “maximize happiness” and minimize pain (Sandel, pg.

Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property – as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same.” (theadvocates.org). Libertarians believe in three policies, no paternalism, no morals legislation, and no redistribution of income or wealth (Sandel,59). No paternalism, is against the laws that protect individuals from harm, so essentially it’s saying that if an individual decides to partake in reckless behavior and no one but the individual performing the risky behavior is harmed or affected, there should be no laws preventing the individual from performing that behavior (for example, not wearing a seatbelt). No

He also believed that the government should help to preserve this right. Locke thought that a government that was created by free people would have the best chance at keeping a free society. Through this, both the individual and the society would prosper. Another philosopher named Adam Smith, thought of ways to improve the economy. He believed that the government should not control what people produced or how much they sold their product for.

The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government. This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole.

Rawls affirms that “there are two basic principles that define a “just” society” (p. 117). These two concepts are the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle states that “we should all be willing to agree to a system of rules which guarantees each person the free exercise of basic liberties” (p. 117). On the other hand, the difference principle states that there should be a “fair equality of opportunity” (p. 117). Nonetheless, our criminal justice system should have both of these principles, instead it is inequitable.