Justice

Michael J. Sandel’s Justice addresses a question that every society must confront: What does it mean to treat people fairly, and what principles should guide laws and public decisions? Instead of offering a single definition, Sandel explores several major philosophical traditions and demonstrates how each shapes real-world debates.

Sandel argues that justice cannot be discussed only as an abstract ideal—it affects how communities choose to distribute wealth, rights, opportunities, and responsibilities. He examines how ideas like liberty, well-being, equality, virtue, and community influence legislation and moral reasoning. To show why these theories matter, he uses public controversies such as paid surrogacy, abortion disputes, economic inequality, and debates over civic obligation.

Sandel ultimately suggests that a just society requires more than individual rights or maximized welfare: it requires active public engagement and a shared sense of moral purpose. Citizens must reflect together on difficult ethical questions instead of avoiding disagreement in the name of neutrality.

Welfare or Freedom? The First Clash

The first major conflict Sandel explores concerns the purpose of government: Should society maximize happiness for the greatest number, or should it protect freedom even when doing so reduces collective benefit? This tension appears in nearly every legal and political dispute—from redistributing wealth to regulating public safety.

Sandel compares two opposing ideologies that dominate modern political discourse: utilitarianism, which centers on maximizing overall well-being, and libertarianism, which prioritizes individual autonomy and voluntary exchange.

Utilitarianism: The Pursuit of Maximum Well-Being

Utilitarianism evaluates morality according to consequences rather than intentions or principles. The best decision, policy, or law is the one that produces the most happiness for the most people and minimizes suffering. Pleasure and pain are treated as measurable forces, almost like economic values. Because of this, individuals matter only as contributions to the total balance of welfare.

A utilitarian approach might support raising taxes to improve schools if the improved education creates more happiness than the tax burden creates unhappiness. Conversely, a utilitarian might justify restricting speech or taking property if doing so benefits the majority significantly.

To demonstrate utilitarian logic, Sandel references the example of rounding up homeless people for labor camps, an idea once defended by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham argued that it would both improve living conditions for the homeless and provide cheaper labor for society, producing greater total happiness.

From a utilitarian standpoint, individual rights are negotiable. They exist only because protecting them tends to increase welfare. If violating a right increases happiness for others, utilitarianism supports the violation.

For example:

• A utilitarian might support mandatory organ donation after death if it saves more lives than it harms.

• A utilitarian might defend torturing a suspected terrorist if doing so could prevent an attack and save thousands of lives.

These examples highlight utilitarianism’s potential moral cost: it can justify exploiting minority groups or treating individuals instrumentally when doing so benefits the many.

Utilitarianism also assumes that happiness can be quantified. Some utilitarians value all pleasures equally—television entertainment counts as much as classical art. Others argue that higher pleasures (like intellectual achievement) should rank above lower pleasures. Both approaches struggle with questions such as ...