Justice with Michael Sandel

Readings

Interested in learning more about justice? The links on this page will help you dig deeper. Below you’ll find many of the texts and legal cases that Michael Sandel discusses in his lectures.

* please note that not all episodes have related readings

ReadingsTOC TITLE

Episode One

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The lifeboat case)

Suppose you find yourself in a situation in which killing an innocent person is the only way to prevent many innocent people from dying. What's the right thing to do? This question arose in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), a famous English law case involving four men stranded in a lifeboat without food or water. How should we judge the action of Dudley and Stephens? Was it morally justified or morally wrong?

One familiar way to think about the right thing to do is to ask what will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This way of thinking about morality finds its clearest expression in the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). In his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), Bentham argues that the principle of utility should be the basis of morality and law, and by utility he understands whatever promotes pleasure and prevents pain. Is the principle of utility the right guide to all questions of right and wrong?

Episode Two

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

Jeremy Bentham's (1748-1832) principle of utility is open to the objection that it may well sacrifice the rights of the minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), himself a utilitarian, sought to rescue utilitarianism from this and other objections. In his essay Utilitarianism, Mill argues that respect for individuals rights as "the most sacred and binding part of morality" is compatible with the idea that justice rests ultimately on utilitarian considerations. But is Mill right to be confident? Can the principle of utility support the notion that some rights should be upheld even if doing so makes the majority very unhappy?

Episode Four

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690)

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632-1704) argues that legitimate government is a limited government based on consent, in which the majority rules but may not violate people's fundamental rights. At first glance, Locke's theory may seem familiar, but it also conceals some puzzling questions. On Locke's view, a legitimate government may not violate our natural right to life, liberty, and property. But Locke allows that government may legitimately take our property through taxation and require citizens to sacrifice their lives in war. If government may do these things, then what counts as a law that violates our rights?

Episode Five

In the Matter of Baby “M” (1988)

Mrs. Whitehead signed a surrogacy contract in which she was paid $10,000 to be impregnated with Mr. Stern’s sperm and to renounce parental rights after the birth of the baby. However, Mrs. Whitehead refused to give up the baby once it was born. The trial court upheld the surrogacy contract and terminated Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights. Mrs. Whitehead then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In the judgment below, the court invalidated the contract and restored Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights, arguing that “there are, in a civilized society, some things that money cannot buy.” Do you agree with the court’s reasoning? Are contracts for the sale of parental rights and women’s labor morally permissible? Do they amount to baby-selling? Do your views about a market for babies challenge or support utilitarianism and libertarianism?

Episode Six

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important works of moral philosophy ever written. In the Groundwork, Kant argues that morality is based neither on the principle of utility, nor on a law of nature, but on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free.

Episode Seven

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)

In A Theory of Justice (1971), the American political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) offers a novel version of the social contract. He argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to if we did not know our place in society, our class, race, gender, or religion. If we thought about justice without knowing whether we would be rich or poor, healthy or frail, a banker or a bus driver, we would adopt a system of equal basic liberties for all citizens, and accept only those inequalities in income and wealth that work to the advantage of the least well-off members of society.

Episode Nine

Aristotle, The Politics

Many rights-oriented philosophers believe that distributive justice is not a matter of rewarding virtue or moral desert, and that the measure of a just society is not whether it produces virtuous citizens, but whether it provides a fair framework of rights within which individuals can pursue their own values. Aristotle (384-322 BC) rejects both of these beliefs. He believes that justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and that a just society is one that enables human beings to realize their highest nature and to live the good life. For Aristotle, political activity is not merely a way to pursue our interests, but an essential part of the good life.

Hopwood v. State (1996)

Is it unjust to consider race as a factor in college and university admissions? That is what Cheryl Hopwood argued when she was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School even though her test scores and grades were higher than some of the minority candidates who were admitted. Hopwood, together with a number of other white candidates, sued the University of Texas Law School in the case of Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996).

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Barbara Grutter applied to law school at the University of Michigan. She was rejected, even though her grades were higher than some of the minority candidates who were admitted. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the US Supreme Court decided that the University of Michigan had acted lawfully. Racial diversity at law school was an important goal. Do you agree? Was the decision just or unjust?

Episode Ten

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2000)

Should a golfer with a congenital leg disease have the right to use a golf cart in professional golf tournaments? In the case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2000), the justices of the US Supreme Court disagreed. Their disagreement turned in part on competing views about whether walking the course is essential to the game of golf. To what extent does the debate about using golf carts call into question the athletic nature of golf and the honor due to those who excel at it?

Episode Twelve

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003)

In a landmark ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state may not deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same-sex who wish to marry. Is it possible to decide whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage without taking sides in the moral and religious controversy over the purpose of marriage and the moral status of homosexuality? Did the court succeed in being neutral?