Justice

Sandel illustrates competing views of justice throughout the book using both (1) hypothetical scenarios and (2) actual moral dilemmas arising from current and historical events. Why would Sandel use both? Is one or the other more effective to illustrate his points? If so, why?

In 2012, President Obama famously said “you didn’t build that” in a speech in which he argued that successful businesses owe their success partly to public infrastructure. What view of redistribution of income does this reflect? How would a libertarian respond to that argument? Would Rawls agree or disagree with Obama’s statement?

In Chapter 4, which is devoted to examining the morality of markets, Sandel’s primary examples are the military draft and bearing children. Why would he choose these particular examples to illustrate principles related to markets, as opposed to financial or commercial examples?

In Chapter 6, Sandel explains that Rawls’s approach to justice calls for programs like Head Start (a government program that provides early childhood education and other services to low-income families) that attempt to bring everyone to the “same starting point” (154). Explain how the competing views of justice discussed in the book would view programs like Head Start. Are these programs moral under these competing theories? Why or why not?

Sandel notes that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is paid $217,400 a year, while Judge Judy is paid $25 million a year for her TV show. Discuss how a utilitarian, libertarian, egalitarian, and communitarian would determine whether this pay differential is just.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has recently advocated for a universal basic income. Assume that all citizens would receive the same baseline income payment from the government, regardless of their income from other sources. Would this universal basic income be viewed as moral or immoral under the competing views of justice discussed in the book?

Sandel devotes an entire chapter to affirmative action, whereas other policy issues are discussed in the context of particular theories. Why do you think Sandel chose to single out affirmative action in this way?

Sandel wrote this book while President Obama was still in office, and he characterized Obama’s rhetoric as consistent with the communitarian ideal of bringing moral and spiritual aspirations into politics. Has President Trump’s rhetoric moved us closer to or further away from this ideal? In what ways?