The Myth of the Fair Society

1001 Books To Read Before Your Kindle Battery Dies, Part 97
Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

What would a reasonable person consider a just and fair distribution of life’s goods and services? This isn’t an idle question. When Americans talk about “justice” nowadays, we often limit ourselves to dispensing payback for criminals, but that’s only one narrow aspect of justice. Throughout history, philosophers have struggled to identify the fairest, most honest distribution of life’s qualities. After five millennia of Western Civilization, we still have no answer.

Michael J. Sandel, Harvard University professor of philosophy, provides a concise overview of that ongoing debate. He doesn’t attempt to provide a comprehensive history; rather, he considers the most influential philosophers and philosophies, as measured by their relevance to modern technological democracies. He also, mercifully, favors real-world examples over high-minded thought experiments. The outcome is supremely useful for helping mold thoughtful, engaged citizens.

Sandel focuses on five broad philosophies: the Utilitarian and Libertarian schools, and the philosophies deriving from Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, and Aristotle. In that order. He pairs Utilitarians with Libertarians, and Kant with Rawls, because they have overlapping but not entirely compatible goals. All four have differing ideas of freedom, which has become the rallying cry of modernism, but define freedom in very different ways, demonstrating that words matter.

Utilitarians believe society’s entire purpose is to maximize happiness. Whatever makes people happy is necessarily good; whatever impedes happiness, follow the pattern. But as Sandel demonstrates, “happiness” proves a malleable criterion when pushed. Libertarians respond by using wealth as their yardstick, and owning one’s own output as freedom. Even this, though, encounters serious limits when Sandel tests Libertarianism’s precepts against real-world market outcomes.

Michael J. Sandel

(In discussing Utilitarianism, Sandel mostly quotes the school’s founder, Jeremy Bentham, with clarifications from his successor John Stuart Mill. Followers of political science will appreciate that, for Libertarianism, Sandel entirely cites Robert Nozick, a serious philosopher. That classic bomb-thrower, Ayn Rand, doesn’t merit a mention. Rand may energize the masses, but only Nozick translates his philosophy into useful, quantifiable applications.)

Where these two schools reward individuals, Kant and Rawls place much greater consideration on social ends and common good. Kant creates a series of moral precepts, which strive to remain morally neutral and irrespective of individuals or titles. Society should encourage freedom, but unlike Libertarians, Kant believes we don’t own ourselves. Humans are moral ends in themselves, and therefore cannot morally be exploited without undermining justice and liberty itself.

Rawls, by contrast, supports the idea of common good being founded on a social contract, then, unlike prior philosophers, attempts to reconstruct the conditions under which humans first signed this contract. What would we consider a fair society, Rawls asks, if we didn’t know beforehand where we stood in society? Rawls thus creates a social fabric that assumes everybody’s liberty to the extent that their liberty doesn’t undercut the common good.

All four of these philosophies make sense in their own terms, but all have come under scrutiny for what they omit. And the common omission, apparently, is that they assume humans are completely rational, choosing beings. Sandel tests all four principles against real-world examples. When is it okay for shipwrecked sailors to eat the dying cabin boy? If free-market contracts cover parental rights for surrogate mothers, have we established a market value for humans?

Ultimately, Sandel finds much to admire in all four philosophies, but deems each ultimately unsatisfying because humans are neither rational nor morally neutral. Here he finds recourse to Aristotle, whose ideal of justice involves concrete moral judgements on what comprises a “good life.” Admittedly, Aristotle considered a good life to resemble a refined version of Athenian life, so even that requires some adjustment to make it useful for modern Western audiences.

In his final chapters, Sandel focuses on more recent philosophers who imagine justice precepts which place moral weight on humans as players in society, a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the collective. Philosophers like Alasdair Macintyre, Richard John Neuhaus, or Sandel himself. Clearly, in this telling, the definition of the just society remains unresolved; this book solves little, but it invites us to informed participation in the continuing debate.

Philosophers will insist that their field isn’t about answering every possible question, but about asking the best questions possible. By testing his various philosophers’ precepts against real-world conundrums, Sandel ensures we’ve asked the correct questions, and even if all answers remain contingent, at least we’ve examined the answers thoroughly. This book doesn’t purpose to conclude the justice debate. It only wants to ensure we have the most informed debate available.