Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (urspr publ 2009; utgåvan 2010)

“Este libro no es una historia de las ideas, sino un viaje por la reflexión moral y política. Su meta no consiste en mostrar quién ha influido en quién en la historia del pensamiento político, sino invitar a los lectores a que sometan sus propios puntos de vista sobre la justicia a examen crítico, a que determinen qué piensan y por qué lo piensan”
En Justicia, Sandel examina su papel en nuestras vidas y en la sociedad. Según él, la filosofía ayuda a entender la política, la religión, la moral y nuestras propias convicciones, y muestra que las cuestiones más importantes que afrontamos como ciudadanos pueden someterse a un debate racional. Justicia repasa los conceptos que subyacen en las controversias políticas y morales de la actualidad.
Índice del libro
1. Hacer lo que es debido
2. El principio de la máxima felicidad. El utilitarismo
3. ¿Somos nuestros propios dueños? El libertarismo
4. Ayuda de pago. Mercado y moral
5. Lo que cuenta es el motivo. Immanuel Kant
6. En defensa de la igualdad. John Rawls
7. Argumentos sobre la acción afirmativa
8. ¿Qué se merece cada cual? Aristóteles
9. ¿Qué nos debemos los unos a los otros? Los dilemas de la lealtad
10. La justicia y el bien común
https://www.nuevarevista.net/justicia-social/michael-j-sandel-justicia-hacemos-l... ( )

Moral Philosophy 101, in book form, with motivating examples, and capped off with the author's own carefully corralled-off opinions. I'm not sure whether it's the quality of writing or my maturity or the review or all three, but I got a lot out of this book in terms of understanding the more-complicated-than-utilitarianism-or-libertarianism philosophies and how they interrelate.

New-to-me ideas include the concept of a narrative or contingent-and-situated identity that has moral weight, some interesting arguments against contractual obligations being the sole source of moral work, and most especially the "of course!" connection that the reason philosophers developed moral philosophy was to build out an ethical framework that could inform secular law and politics -- that is, the ideas that undergird American society were developed more or less explicitly as an alternative to religious formulations of what it means to be a good person. With that connection, it seems more reasonable to me that the idea of "liberty as the shared American religion" might now diverge from the parallel secular reconstruction of previously shared religious belief and take on a life of its own, and that as a society we would ensure future elites are conversant with these ideas. Sandel does a lot of balancing between specific ideas and general themes, and he does it well.

This is nonfiction that will reward rereads. ( )

Did not agree with the author on the last 2 chapters. Justice based on honour can never be supreme. Liberal Individualism is the most logically consistent and rational ( )

first few chapters keeps you interested with stories and examples. But last 2-3 chapters become too dry to consume. ( )

A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life. It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread.

Sandel builds his argument gradually, almost imperceptibly, across 220 pages before revealing his political philosophy and how it fits into the discussion of Bentham, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle he delineates across the previous eight chapters. As an overview of major political philosophies, Justice is clear and erudite, sometimes even repetitious in its description of concepts like Rawls's "veil of ignorance" and Kant's "categorical imperative." Sandel illustrates many of the complications of particular political systems by applying them to problematic anecdotes and well-known political controversies in American society.

While I have few, if any, problems with the book as an instructive and thoughtful work of political philosophy, I am still somewhat unclear as to the details and specifics of Sandel's communitarian conclusions. I think he recognizes a huge problem with current liberal political philosophy, most especially the error of ceding the moral arena to those who are religiously minded. By essentially rendering moral value to one's private life, liberals avoid engaging moral arguments in the political arena. Instead, they hold a certain indifference to the moral dispositions of the citizenry — Rawl's "veil of ignorance," for example.

I found myself thinking of President Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech. I think Sandel might have appreciated Carter's urgent warning against the malaise afflicting those who've lost the "unity of purpose for our nation." Sandel similarly contends that a just society requires a strong sense of community and "must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good." ( )