Philosophy Political Science Ethics

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Summary)

by Michael J. Sandel

In the 19th century, four English sailors were shipwrecked. After 19 days adrift with no food, the captain made a horrifying decision: kill the weakest among them, the 17-year-old cabin boy, so the other three could survive by eating his body. They were rescued a few days later and tried for murder. Is this an appalling crime, or a tragic but necessary act to save three lives at the cost of one? Your answer reveals your entire theory of justice.

The Greatest Good Isn't Always Good

The utilitarian principle of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' sounds logical, but it can justify horrifying acts and trample individual rights if it leads to a net increase in happiness.

In the 1970s, Ford knew its Pinto model had a faulty fuel tank that could explode in a rear-end collision. The company did a cost-benefit analysis and calculated that paying for the resulting deaths and injuries (at $200,000 per life) would be cheaper than fixing the defect (at $11 per car). They chose the 'greater good' for their bottom line, putting a price tag on human life.

Justice Is Not Neutral

Many believe the law should be neutral on moral and religious questions. Sandel argues this is impossible. To decide what's just, we are forced to debate our competing visions of virtue and the good life.

The debate over same-sex marriage isn't just about individual rights. It's a debate about the purpose, or telos, of marriage. To decide who should be allowed to marry, we must first decide what marriage is for. Is it for procreation, or is it for public recognition of a loving commitment? The state cannot be neutral on this question.

You Don't Own Yourself Completely

The libertarian idea of absolute self-ownership seems appealing, but Sandel pushes it to its logical extremes to question if we truly have unlimited rights over our own bodies, free from any obligation to the community.

If you are the sole owner of your body, what's wrong with selling one of your kidneys to the highest bidder? Or engaging in consensual cannibalism? Sandel presents the real-life case of a man who advertised online for a willing victim to be killed and eaten. Someone answered. This extreme example forces us to question the moral limits of consent and self-ownership.

We Have Obligations We Didn't Choose

Contrary to the idea that all our obligations come from consent, Sandel argues we inherit moral responsibilities from our families, communities, and nations that we did not choose.

Should contemporary Germans be held responsible for atoning for the Holocaust? Should present-day Americans apologize for slavery? Many people feel a sense of collective responsibility for their nation's past injustices, suggesting we have powerful moral ties of solidarity that extend beyond individual consent.

Go deeper into these insights in the full book:
Buy on Amazon
Listen to the full audio book with an Audible Free Trial.
As an Amazon Associate, qualifying purchases help support this site.