What’s the goal of our society and its laws? What should this goal be? In Justice, American political philosopher Michael Sandel explores how political philosophers throughout the ages have answered these questions. Then, he offers his own critiques, insights, and examples to show how these abstract theories can apply to real-life political and moral dilemmas.
In our guide to Justice, we’ll outline the three major discussions that Sandel focuses on:
We’ll explore Sandel’s take on the major philosophies behind each side of these dilemmas. Then, we’ll examine the real-life political and moral dilemmas that Sandel uses to inform these contrasting views. Through our commentary, we’ll offer alternative philosophical views on justice, the history of philosophy, and the specific examples that Sandel offers.
Sandel begins his discussion of the role of government by outlining a common topic of political debate: To what extent should government restrict personal freedoms to ensure public safety and well-being? He illustrates this debate by comparing two radically different ideologies:
In Part 1 of our guide, we’ll explore Sandel’s description of these two philosophies and how their views apply to real-life political questions.
Sandel begins by discussing utilitarianism—a moral philosophy arguing that the morality of an action or choice depends on how much happiness or pain it creates. “Happiness” to utilitarians (which they call “utility”) means pleasure and the fulfillment of desires, while a lack of happiness means pain or deprivation of desires. Utilitarians argue that happiness and pain are the only ways we measure morality—morally good things make people happy, while morally bad things cause people pain. Therefore, utilitarianism states that the most moral choice in any given situation is always the choice that creates the most happiness for the most people possible.
(Shortform note: The idea of measuring morality through pleasure and pain is very old, and by no means unique to utilitarianism. What makes utilitarianism unique, however, is its focus on society as a whole rather than on the individual. Other moral philosophies based on pleasure and pain tend to stay on the individual level—for example, ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) believed that individuals should try and maximize their personal pleasure and minimize their personal pain. This perspective, often known as egoism, doesn’t necessarily align with a utilitarian view of social organization. That’s because, unlike utilitarians, egoists might not agree to sacrifice their personal happiness in exchange for greater collective happiness.)
To show how this applies to political questions, Sandel explores two important views that result from utilitarian thinking: that there are no guaranteed individual rights, and that we can measure happiness.
According to utilitarians, individuals don’t morally deserve guaranteed basic rights—things like a right to safety, freedom, or property. Instead, utilitarians only believe in giving these rights if doing so maximizes collective happiness. On the other hand, if harming an individual or depriving them of freedom maximizes collective happiness, then it’s morally justified.
For example, English philosopher and founder of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) argued that governments should round up homeless people and imprison them in labor camps. He claimed that this was moral because it would create more utility (a cheap labor force to lower the cost of goods, fewer homeless people on the streets, improving standards of living for the homeless) than it would pain (depriving homeless people of freedom).
(Shortform note: The utilitarian rejection of universal rights ties in with their overall view of human nature. Some philosophers (like 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, for example) argue that humans have rights naturally, and that people create governments and laws to preserve their natural rights. On the other hand, Bentham argues that governments and laws create rights, and that without law people have no rights. These arguments inform Locke’s and Bentham’s views on the purpose of government: Locke believes the purpose of government is preserving natural rights, and that laws should serve this end. Bentham, on the other hand, believes the purpose of government is providing utility, and that rights (or a lack thereof) should serve this end.)
To understand how much happiness or pain an action creates (a crucial part of determining what’s most ethical), a utilitarian believes they can measure happiness on a consistent scale. Sandel explains two main perspectives on how to do this:
1) Quantitative method: Some utilitarians (including Bentham) value all pleasures equally in their measurements of happiness. This non-judgmental approach makes it easier to measure pleasure and pain—they just consider how many pleasures a decision will create rather than which pleasures are lesser or greater. For example, a quantitative method would value pleasure from viewing the Mona Lisa as equal to pleasure from viewing The Real Housewives of New Jersey.
2) Qualitative method: Other utilitarians like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argue for a hierarchy of pleasures instead of valuing them all equally. They suggest that general consensus can create this hierarchy—if people generally agree that one pleasure is better than another (focusing on what they actually like, not on what they think they should like), then society will value that pleasure more highly. For example, if people generally accept that they enjoy The Real Housewives of New Jersey more than the Mona Lisa or that it’s “better art,” then a qualitative scale would value Real Housewives above the Mona Lisa.
Happiness as a State of Well-Being
Some philosophers argue that instead of measuring happiness on a case-by-case basis (like Bentham and Mill do in their quantitative and qualitative approaches), the best way to judge human well-being is through a set list of objective standards—if someone meets all of these standards, then we can accept that they are living a happy life.
This system goes against quantitative measurement, arguing that some things (the essential standards of happiness) offer more utility than others. However, it also goes against qualitative measurement, as it suggests that all of these essential standards are objective and not up for public debate or ranking. Contemporary American philosopher Martha Nussbaum (Women and Human Development) attempts to create a list of standards essential for happiness, which we’ve condensed into three main categories:
1) Physical well-being: This category includes access to health care, shelter, and a healthy diet. It also includes protection from physical and sexual assault as well as autonomy in matters of personal health.
2) Mental well-being: This category includes access to education, access to recreational and relaxing activities, freedom of thought and expression, and overall healthy mental and emotional development unhindered by excessive fear, treatable mental illness, abuse, and trauma.
3) Social well-being: This category includes a say in political matters, freedom of speech and association, loving and being loved by others, access to political and economic opportunities, equal rights, and being respected as someone of equal worth to others.
Sandel then contrasts utilitarianism with a very different view: libertarianism, a political philosophy arguing that the goal of the state is to maximize personal freedom. This goal comes from the libertarian belief that people own themselves. While this might sound abstract, libertarians use it in practice to argue for two kinds of freedom:
(Shortform note: For many libertarians, personhood and economic structures are inseparable. To understand what this means, let’s look at the common libertarian claim that “corporations are people.” Many libertarians interpret all rights as derivative of property rights—even our personal freedoms stem from the idea that an individual has a right to own themselves as property. Therefore, since corporations are also collections of property (money, land, businesses, and so on), libertarians believe that these organizations have the right to act as they please, just like an individual—and that limiting their ability to do so is infringing on people’s property rights and therefore their freedoms.)
Sandel further outlines these two forms of freedom, as well as how they influence political questions:
Sandel explains that to protect personal freedom, libertarians oppose two main kinds of laws:
1) Safety laws: Since everyone owns themselves, they have a right to take personal risks if they so choose. Libertarians argue that safety laws limit this freedom and are therefore unethical. Examples of these laws include the criminalization of potentially dangerous substances like heroin as well as more mundane rules like speed limits.
2) Moral laws: Since everyone owns themselves, they have a right to live according to their own moral code. Therefore, libertarians believe that laws enforcing one specific moral code are unethical. For example, libertarians object to laws against homosexuality or abortion—they believe people have a right to anti-gay or anti-abortion moral beliefs, but that it’s unethical to limit the freedom of those who hold different views.
Sandel says that to preserve personal ownership of labor and whatever it creates, libertarians also oppose most economic regulation. In particular, they argue against wealth redistribution—anything from higher taxes on the rich to a government-mandated minimum wage. Libertarians argue that wealth redistribution is essentially theft: the government forcibly taking money that people have a right to. Some even argue that wealth redistribution is the same as forced labor, since it involves the government forcefully taking the result of someone’s labor.
A Different Conception of Freedom: Marxism
While libertarians believe that personal freedom and an unregulated free market complement each other to create the freest possible state, Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto) argues that these two things are actually incompatible with each other—and that the only way to guarantee personal and economic freedom is to abolish free-market capitalism. Let’s go through each of these points:
Economic freedom: Marx argues that a free-market capitalist system doesn’t provide economic freedom to the vast majority of people—instead, it exploits and oppresses them. In such a system, most people are forced into labor for wages under threat of starvation. These wage laborers (a class he calls the proletariat) don’t earn the true value of their labor because their bosses take a cut for their own enrichment. Any attempt to live outside of this system will inevitably fail, as in a free-market system those who own the factories and businesses (a class he calls the bourgeoisie) must continue to expand to gain more wealth and stay competitive—this means the bourgeoisie inevitably seek more markets and people to exploit.
Personal freedom: In addition to restrictions on economic freedom, contemporary Marxists argue that free-market capitalism also restricts personal freedom. According to them, capitalism restricts an individual’s ability to live by a moral code, since the proletariat has no choice but to work for and buy products from the bourgeoisie, even if the bourgeoisie hold opposing moral views or use their wealth to harm others.
For example, a large portion of many company supply chains relies on child labor. However, a member of the proletariat can’t stop this by themselves—and many of them can’t afford to live outside of the system that enables this. This lack of choice also means the proletariat can’t determine their own level of personal safety. They are forced to work for and buy from the bourgeoisie, whether those jobs or products are safe or not.
While libertarians believe that the state should maximize freedom, they do recognize that it’s the government’s role to prevent people from limiting the freedom of others. Therefore, the ideal libertarian state does need some laws and government structures. In particular, libertarians argue that the state must criminalize individual actions that limit the freedom of others, like theft or murder. It also should enforce contracts and punish fraud to ensure that people are free to use their property and labor in the way they intend.
(Shortform note: While libertarians argue for a minimal state, they still believe that some kind of state structure is necessary for organizing society. Some philosophers, however, go further than libertarians and reject any kind of state. They argue for “anarchism”: the philosophy that all hierarchies are unjust. Instead of formal state institutions (even the minimal ones proposed by libertarians), anarchists believe in organizing society through other means: Anarcho-capitalists believe that only the free market is necessary for organizing society, while anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists believe that only collective ownership of all property and direct democracy is necessary for organizing society.)
After discussing the abstract theory behind utilitarianism and libertarianism, Sandel then uses a real-life example to explore these philosophical perspectives. Specifically, he discusses paid surrogacy, a process where a couple unable to have a child implants their egg and/or sperm into a surrogate who then carries and delivers that child. Sandel says that this transaction increasingly occurs between relatively wealthy couples in Western nations and much poorer surrogates in countries like India or Thailand.
To explore the morality of paid surrogacy, Sandel examines it through both a utilitarian and libertarian lens, then offers his own criticism:
Utilitarian view: Sandel explains that a utilitarian wouldn’t necessarily object to consensual paid surrogacy, as it’s mutually beneficial—if a surrogate needs money and a couple wants a baby, then paid surrogacy would create happiness for both parties.
Libertarian view: Sandel explains that libertarians have no issue with paid surrogacy—as long as it involves people freely choosing to enter into a contract, then it’s moral.
(Shortform note: Paid surrogacy often involves developing a zygote outside of the womb, a practice that creates another ethical dilemma: “designer babies” genetically edited to have certain traits. From a utilitarian perspective, genetically editing reproductive cells to alter a baby is moral—getting rid of hereditary diseases or adding in genetic benefits can reduce the child’s pain and add utility with no negative consequences. A libertarian would likely also support designer babies, since banning them would limit the freedom of parents to “raise” their child how they wished and would also limit the economic freedom of fertilization clinics to provide these services.)
Alternative view: Sandel argues that the utilitarian and libertarian views both fail to acknowledge a significant moral concern—that paid surrogacy devalues pregnancy and childbirth by making them a monetary transaction. Sandel suggests that pregnancy and childbirth have inherent value as crucial and intimate parts of the human experience. Paying for a child ignores this value, treating a surrogate as just a baby “factory.” This example informs Sandel’s larger criticism of both utilitarianism and libertarianism: He contends that there are things we shouldn’t quantify—either through utilitarian measurements of happiness and pain or through libertarian free-market economics.
(Shortform note: In his later work What Money Can’t Buy, Sandel further explains how utilitarian or free-market quantification damages important emotional experiences. He uses the example of gift-giving to show this: From a utilitarian perspective, giving someone cash as a gift is best, as it assures that the gift giver spends exactly as much as they want and that the recipient can get exactly what they want. A libertarian agrees, praising the freedom that a cash gift offers instead of its utility. However, Sandel suggests that cash is impersonal by design, while a specific gift has far more emotional value—it shows that the giver knows and cares about the recipient enough to find them something they’d really appreciate.)
The second dilemma Sandel discusses is whether the government should embrace one view of morality, or avoid enforcing any specific moral code. To explore this dilemma, he again looks at two opposing philosophies:
In this section, we’ll discuss Sandel’s description of these two philosophies, as well as how they might inform real-life political debates and decisions.
First, Sandel describes liberalism and its emphasis on reason. This school of political philosophy developed during the Enlightenment (a period of rapid scientific and ideological change in 17th- and 18th-century Europe) and still strongly influences many of our political institutions today.
Sandel explains that liberalism tries to separate politics from people’s personal backgrounds, identities, and moral beliefs. Instead, liberals argue that people should use logic and reason to discuss politics, law, and justice. Much like libertarians (an offshoot of the liberal tradition), liberals argue in favor of a “value-neutral” state that avoids promoting any one moral code over another and leaves people free to live their lives as they see fit. To this end, liberalism supports freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, and universal laws that apply equally to everyone regardless of their identity, background, or beliefs.
(Shortform note: To understand why liberal philosophers argued for a “value-neutral” state, it helps to consider the history of liberalism. Liberalism mainly derives from John Locke’s response to contemporary events. Specifically, Locke was responding to the European wars of religion—decades of internal and external conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. At the time, religious and political questions were linked, as the dominant ideology of Europe was the theory that monarchs were appointed by God to rule (known as divine right monarchy). Locke believed that mixing religion and politics led to the horrible violence of his time, and that a political ideology independent of any specific religion would help preserve stability.)
Sandel discusses two philosophers to represent the classic and modern views of liberalism: 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant and 20th-century American philosopher John Rawls.
Kant’s moral and political views emphasize reason above all else. Sandel explains that according to Kant, actions aren’t moral unless you decide on them through purely rational deliberation. Kant argues that if you don’t make a choice entirely through reason, then you’re making it due to innate instincts and preferences—things you have no control over. Therefore, that choice wasn’t freely made.
For example, if you work at your job to make money for groceries and a place to live, then Kant argues your choice to work isn’t freely chosen and therefore isn’t a moral action—it’s not motivated by your purely rational view of what’s morally best, but rather by your self-preservation instinct to seek food and shelter.
(Shortform note: Many psychologists challenge the idea that reason exists independent of personal beliefs and preferences. They suggest that a lot of what we think of as rational thought is actually heavily influenced by “confirmation bias,” or subconscious human bias toward our existing beliefs. For example, someone who believes they’re unlucky will subconsciously place greater significance on bad things that happen to them and less significance on good things that happen to them. The existence of confirmation bias seems to show that we can’t clearly separate our rational capabilities from our personal instincts—and therefore Kant’s definition of free choice (and by extension, morality) may be flawed.)
Kant explains that to freely make a moral choice, you must dutifully and unconditionally obey a moral law that you create for yourself. Or, to put it more simply, you must do what’s moral only because it’s the moral thing to do and not for any other reason.
Kant argues that to be entirely rational, moral laws must meet two standards (called the “categorical imperative”):
1) Moral laws must work universally. To test if a moral law derives entirely from reason, consider how it would function if everyone followed it. If it doesn’t work universally, then it’s based at least partially on personal preference rather than entirely on reason. For example, John is furious at his annoying neighbor and thinks, “I should hurt people who disrespect me.” However, if everyone dutifully followed that law, there would be massive and perpetual cycles of violence. Therefore, John’s law is based on preference and isn’t moral.
2) Moral laws can’t use rational beings as a means to an end. As previously explained, a moral law that you follow for its own sake has inherent value—you follow it because it’s the morally right thing to do, not because it gets you something else. Kant argues that human life is the same way: Rational humans live life for its own sake and not for some other external goal. And since we live just to be alive, then living must have inherent value. Therefore, Kant believes that moral laws must respect the inherent value of human life. This means recognizing that human life is an end in itself and not using others (or ourselves) as a means to an end.
For example, John wants to punch his annoying neighbor. However, if he did that he’d be using his neighbor as a means to the end of getting out his anger and feeling better about himself. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative, John punching his neighbor is immoral.
Liberal Revolutions
During Kant’s lifetime (1724-1804), new countries and revolutionary movements adopted liberal ideas into their governments. Let’s look at how two movements used (or didn’t use) ideas from Kant and people like him:
1) The United States of America formed after winning a revolutionary war against the United Kingdom in 1776. The revolutionaries used a lot of the ideas and language of liberalism, stating in the Declaration of Independence that all men have inalienable rights given to them by God. This is consistent with Kant’s view that people had inherent worth, and that moral laws (expressed here as political rights) must apply universally.
However, the new government also allowed legal slavery of Black people to continue in the United States—a clear instance of using another person as a means to an end. Perhaps surprisingly, Kant didn’t see slavery as incompatible with the categorical imperative, as he believed that whites were inherently superior to other races.
2) Revolutionary France formed after a popular revolution toppled the French monarchy in 1789. In The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the revolutionary French government included many principles of liberalism in its constitution: that the purpose of government was to benefit the general will, and that laws and political rights must apply equally to all citizens. The declaration agrees with the categorical imperative’s emphasis on universal moral laws and views the government as a tool of the people generally, seeming to imply that the state wouldn’t use people as a means to an end.
For a more contemporary example of liberalism, Sandel discusses 20th-century American philosopher John Rawls. While Rawls has the same goal as Kant—defining justice entirely through reason—he approaches it in a different way. Instead of appealing to universal moral laws, Rawls focuses entirely on how a group of equally competent and entirely rational individuals would organize society. This organization would determine the distribution of benefits (wealth, political power, rights) and obligations (laws, expectations). Essentially, Rawls tries to define justice in a way that he says any rational and self-interested person could agree with.
To that end, Rawls creates a thought experiment he calls “the original position.” In the original position, everyone comes together as rational, self-interested equals to debate the definition of justice until they find one that everyone agrees with. In this hypothetical, people don’t know the specific circumstances of their lives—things like wealth, religion, race, sexuality, and so on. This means people will argue for terms that apply fairly to everyone regardless of their circumstances. For example, in the original position, Tom doesn’t know how wealthy he is. Therefore, he won’t argue for terms that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor—for all he knows, he’s poor (or could become poor).
Rawls suggests that the original position results in two terms (or something similar to them):
Term one ensures that nobody will be oppressed or denied freedoms for the benefit of others. Term two ensures that people can get ahead socially or economically, but not at the expense of leaving other people behind to suffer. Much like Kant, Rawls’s rules are universal—he believes that they can justly resolve any political question.
Rawls and the Development of Modern Liberalism
Rawls’s theory shows how liberalism evolved as it became the dominant global ideology in the late 20th century. He discusses two core tenets of modern liberalism:
1. Government institutions must strive to be value-neutral—liberals say government institutions (elections, courts, and so on) shouldn’t have specific political or ideological ends. Rawls’s original position follows this tenet, claiming that people unaware of their circumstances and beliefs would create the most just government institutions.
2. Private individuals should own capital and means of production—liberals disagree on how much the government should regulate capitalism, but they all agree that it should exist. Rawls’s defense of wealth inequality follows this tenet by claiming that it can be just for some people to own more than others.)
Sandel contrasts liberalism with the political theory of Aristotle, the 4th-century BC Athenian philosopher. Unlike liberal philosophers, Aristotle believes that we cannot and should not separate politics from questions of morality and personal life circumstances. To demonstrate why this is the case, Sandel focuses on two main themes of Aristotle’s viewpoint:
Aristotle has a “teleological” view of the world—in other words, he believes that everything has an end goal or purpose (a telos in ancient Greek). Sandel explains that Aristotle uses this view to explain politics as a whole as well as the relationship between politics and individuals:
1) The telos of politics, according to Aristotle, is to create laws and a society that help people live satisfying and virtuous lives. While liberalism looks to give people the opportunity and freedom to live well and be moral if they so choose, Aristotle believes that there shouldn’t be a choice.
2) But the definition of “living well” varies depending on the person, explains Aristotle—different kinds of people have their own different telos (purposes in life) and require different things to achieve them.
For example, imagine someone who’s directionless and can’t function in society on their own. To Aristotle, this person would have the telos of obedience—for them to flourish and live the best possible life, they’d need direction, supervision, and help from a superior. Aristotle says that in this case, enslaving this person is moral—it helps both the enslaved person and the enslaver. However, if the enslaved person rejected their status or tried to escape, then Aristotle says they should go free, since their rejection shows that they don’t have the telos of being enslaved.
What’s Your Telos?
While Sandel mentions that Aristotle defines “living well” differently for different people, he doesn’t explore in depth what these definitions are or what they mean. For that, we can look to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. In his Ethics, Aristotle explains that living virtuously is the telos of humanity—our purpose or goal in life—and that different kinds of people must emphasize different virtues depending on their abilities. Aristotle believes that these virtues are hierarchical in their “goodness,” meaning some people are naturally able to become more “good” than others. Here are the three main categories of virtue that Aristotle believes are the telos of humanity, ranked in order from least to most good:
1) Obedience: In his Politics, Aristotle argues that some people have the telos of obedience. This means that how well they live their life depends on how well they obey those above them in society. Aristotle says that obedience is the telos of “natural slaves” (as Sandel mentions), women, and children. According to Aristotle, these groups cannot and should not aspire to higher intellectual or moral virtues—they should just obey.
2) Moral virtue: While those with the telos of obedience simply need to follow what others say is best, Aristotle explains that free men must develop their moral virtue to determine the best thing to do in any given situation. He suggests that for these free men, moral virtue is the telos of their social interactions—being moral is the best way they can conduct themselves, and is therefore the goal of the social parts of their lives.
3) Wisdom: Aristotle claims that wisdom, or philosophical knowledge, is the greatest virtue of all and the ultimate telos of free men. While humans are social and moral virtue must guide those social interactions in a good life, Aristotle explains that the best possible human life will devote as much time as possible to developing philosophical knowledge.
The second crucial part of Aristotle’s political theory that Sandel discusses has to do with merit and “desert” (a philosophical term meaning “being deserving of something”). These are the main guidelines Aristotle uses for distributing social goods like rights, wealth, and political power. He reasons that society should give goods to the people who can use them best—for example, the best tools to the best carpenter, or the most land to the best farmers. Since Aristotle considers politics as the application of virtue, he concludes that the most virtuous people should hold power. This ties in with the telos of politics: Since the goal of politics is to make people live virtuously, it follows that a virtuous person is best suited to this task.
To Aristotle, this all takes place in the context of a community as a whole—the best farmer wouldn’t get the most land just so they could grow their personal wealth. Instead, said farmer would use their skill to grow food for everyone in the community.
(Shortform note: You might be wondering how Aristotle’s system prevents leaders from acting in their own self-interest at the expense of society. For a solution to this problem, we can look to Aristotle’s teacher Plato and his Republic. Much like Aristotle, Plato argues that the wisest and most moral people should rule. To prevent rulers from acting in self-interest, though, Plato says leaders must go through a specific upbringing: The previous generation of moral leaders must raise the most promising children communally—they’ll have no families, no private property, and will undergo extensive scientific and moral education. This, Plato suggests, creates a class of moral rulers who don’t want power or wealth and therefore won’t act in self-interest.)
To show the difference between liberalism’s rational approach to politics and an Aristotelian moral-centric approach to politics, Sandel explores contemporary debates over abortion rights:
Rational perspective: Sandel explains that from a liberal perspective based on reason, it’s not the job of the government to impose a specific way of living or moral code. Therefore, liberals generally argue that the government should guarantee abortion rights.
(Shortform note: While Sandel proposes that liberalism supports abortion rights, many philosophers actively debate how to interpret abortion using Kant’s categorical imperative. One Kantian argument against abortion rights tries to universalize the question, suggesting that to consent to other people’s abortions you would have to agree that it would’ve been acceptable for you yourself to have been aborted (something that proponents of this argument claim nobody would accept). On the other hand, one Kantian argument in favor of abortion rights suggests that according to Kant, rational thought is a necessary component of personhood. Since a fetus is not capable of rational thought, then, it wouldn’t count as a person and aborting it wouldn’t be morally wrong.)
Moral-centric perspective: However, Sandel says a moral viewpoint would argue that the government should legislate abortion rights (either banning, limiting, or guaranteeing them) because it’s morally right. Sandel briefly notes the main moral arguments for and against abortion: Moral-centric arguments against abortion rights often claim that life begins at conception and that abortion therefore kills a living person. Moral-centric arguments in favor of abortion rights, on the other hand, often argue that abortion bans are an attempt to punish people (especially the poor or less fortunate) for having sex.
(Shortform note: Sandel appeals to moral arguments more broadly here instead of specifically to Aristotle—abortion as we now know it didn’t exist during Aristotle’s lifetime. However, both Aristotle’s views and his culture’s conception of childbirth did not support reproductive autonomy. Aristotle believed that women were biologically inferior, “flawed” versions of men. Other ancient Athenian medical writers viewed the womb as an independent thing that would “wander” around the body or dry out if not attended to regularly by men through intercourse. All of these views pointed to the broader belief that women couldn’t function autonomously on a fundamental, biological level, and they therefore needed men to control and manage their lives and reproductive health.)
Sandel closes the book with his own conception of justice and how he thinks it can create a more moral world. He advocates a version of communitarianism (a philosophy arguing that the goal of the state is to create and preserve a community of citizens) that promotes public engagement, kinship among citizens, and the sense that they’re part of a larger project. In this section, we’ll explore the benefits of Sandel’s approach, as well as some practical examples he suggests for implementing it.
(Shortform note: While Sandel doesn’t connect his version of communitarianism to any specific religion, some philosophers (including 17th-century English philosopher Thomas More) argue that religion is necessary for communitarianism, as it provides the shared values necessary for people to collaborate and organize. While he opposes religious discrimination, More’s Utopia describes a self-sustaining community built on Catholic faith and ideals. In Utopia, religious tenets encourage citizens to prioritize each other and the community as a whole over material things—ensuring everyone always has enough to get by, and that citizens collaborate instead of competing for wealth.)
Sandel argues that his version of communitarianism combines the best parts of the philosophies he discusses while avoiding the morally concerning portions:
Utilitarianism: Sandel’s view shares the utilitarian concern for the overall public good by focusing on serving the community as a whole. Unlike utilitarianism, however, Sandel’s philosophy sees individuals as inherently valuable community members regardless of pleasures or pains.
Libertarianism: Similar to libertarians, Sandel appreciates the benefits of the free market as a tool for organizing and creating wealth. He also believes that the state should, to a degree, respect personal freedoms. However, Sandel doesn’t argue for complete deregulation of these areas—instead, he argues that the state should manage and regulate personal conduct and the market to make sure they serve the community as a whole.
Liberalism: Much like liberal philosophers, Sandel argues for a baseline level of decency, respect, and personal rights for all human beings. However, he disagrees with the liberal view that those baseline moral obligations derive only from reason. He argues that people also have moral obligations to their loved ones and communities. Sandel also disagrees with the liberal view that governments should avoid questions of morality—he says people must debate these questions to determine their community’s goals and differences.
Aristotle’s political theory: Sandel agrees that the state should help people live fulfilling and virtuous lives. However, unlike Aristotle, he’s against forcing people into certain roles and distributing social goods based on merit and moral “desert.” Instead, Sandel believes that the state should instill values of kinship, solidarity, and civic participation so everyone can freely debate over the best, most moral way to live and distribute social goods.
Beyond Just and Unjust: Friedrich Nietzsche
As he explains in the introduction of Justice, Sandel believes that moral and political philosophy is a project of reflecting on and adjusting your beliefs. His communitarian view reflects this, as it incorporates Sandel’s favorite ideas from many different philosophies into a cohesive whole. However, another philosophical approach argues that instead of synthesizing ideas from previous thinkers, we must instead reject them in favor of something entirely different. One of the most significant thinkers using this approach is 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche strongly rejected the idea of “universal truths” that many past philosophies appealed to, instead arguing that there was no objective good or evil and that people only used these concepts to delude or benefit themselves. He suggested that instead of appealing to objective morality, we instead should recognize that life is inherently competitive, hierarchical, and often brutal. Let’s see how Nietzsche responds to two of the major ideas above:
Inherent human value: Sandel’s communitarianism agrees with the liberal and libertarian view that individuals have inherent worth—this informs his belief in equal rights and freedoms. Nietzsche rejected this idea, believing it was a collective fantasy born out of the Christian idea that God loved everyone equally. If one viewed reality as-is without any abstract ideas about the universe, claimed Nietzsche, then they’d see no evidence that people were inherently equal or valuable. Instead, they’d see that humans are like other animals: some are stronger or smarter than others, and our lives have no greater purpose or value beyond our ability to survive and dominate others. Nietzsche believed in embracing that instead of hiding from it.
Community structure: Much like utilitarians and Aristotle, Sandel defines communities as a group of people collaboratively working toward a collective good. This informs his views on market regulation and public service. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believed that a select few willful and intelligent individuals should rise up to guide the weak and directionless “masses.” In a weak and decadent society, said Nietzsche, the people on top aren’t chosen by will and strength alone but instead through arbitrary means or the will of the weak—things like democracy, hereditary monarchy, or religion. In a strong society, however, he said the most willful can lead and achieve greatness through things like military conquest or works of art.
To show how communitarianism works in practice, Sandel offers examples of how governments can create and preserve a community of citizens:
1) Regulate markets: While Sandel doesn’t believe in abolishing free-market capitalism, he does suggest that governments thoroughly regulate markets. Under an unregulated market, people judge things in terms of monetary value or profitability rather than moral value or value to the community. Sandel argues that regulation, on the other hand, can prevent free-market capitalism from replacing community values and traditions with whatever is most profitable. This combines the free market ideals of libertarianism with Aristotle’s concern for preserving and encouraging the morality of citizens.
2) Address inequality: Sandel warns that growing inequality damages communities. Increased inequality means people from different classes and backgrounds interact less—the rich have enough money to cut themselves off from everyone else. When the wealthy self-segregate, their taxes don’t contribute to public services in poorer places. These public services (things like schools, parks, and community centers) are crucial not only for improving poor people’s lives but also for helping different kinds of people mingle and strengthen their sense of community. This echoes Rawls’s liberalism—specifically the idea that economic inequality is just so long as it services the community as a whole (in this case, through taxes that fund public services).
3) Encourage public participation: Sandel also suggests that governments encourage (through monetary incentives) or require acts of public participation like volunteering, community service, or political participation. Public participation means anything from government-created public works projects to campaigns encouraging people to organize politically. These efforts will not only get people interacting with other members of their community, but they’ll also encourage people to help each other and join in the larger project of being a citizen. This idea resonates with utilitarian thought by encouraging (or requiring) citizens to work toward maximizing well-being for as many people as possible via public projects.
Is Sandel Progressive?
Though Sandel doesn’t use the label, his practical political suggestions seem to at least partially match those of “progressivism,” a political ideology that argues for public projects and regulated capitalism in service of the public good. Let’s compare Sandel’s suggestions to some of the policies of the American progressive politician Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) (FDR for short):
1) Regulate markets: Like Sandel, FDR believed in a heavily regulated capitalist system. But while Sandel believes in regulation as a way to preserve values, FDR mainly used regulation to try and prevent predatory business practices and ensure a degree of public well-being. For example, he signed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, banning child labor and creating the 40-hour work week.
2) Address Inequality: Like Sandel, FDR argued that the government must take steps to address inequality, and he did this through measures like introducing a wealth tax and establishing a federal minimum wage. However, FDR didn’t do this to create a cross-class community as Sandel suggests—FDR believed that the relationship between management and labor was one of direct competition, and tried to make the government a neutral party in their disputes instead of trying to bring the two groups together as one unified community.
3) Encourage public participation: Sandel and FDR strongly agree when it comes to public participation and community. FDR encouraged public participation through government programs like the Works Progress Administration—programs that gave jobs to millions of Americans working on infrastructure projects. While he did this partially to ease unemployment and develop strong infrastructure networks, he also did it to create the sense of a collective project that America was working on—something that helped unite the country during the Great Depression.
Consider your own perspective on the role of a just and moral government.
What’s more important for the government to emphasize: freedom or welfare? Is it possible for the government to do both? Explain your answer.
Should the government uphold specific moral codes and beliefs? Explain why or why not. If you think the government should uphold certain moral codes and beliefs, how should it decide which beliefs to uphold?
What do you think influences your beliefs more: the communities you’re part of, or your own individual thoughts, personality, and experiences? Explain your answer.