The Bookworm: Justice

Justice by Michael J. Sandel. 308 pages. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009.

Justice is inescapably judgmental. Whether we’re arguing about financial bailouts or Purple Hearts, surrogate motherhood or same-sex marriage, affirmative action or military service, CEO pay or the right to use a golf cart, questions of justice are bound up with competing notions of honor and virtue, pride and recognition. Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things.

After chipping away at Justice for a few weeks, I decided Monday to finish it by today. The next four Fear Street books I have in the queue are timely for the Halloween season, so I am very eager to read them. Despite having no recollection of the stories, I remember them being among my favorites. Justice was in my way, so I thankfully polished it off yesterday.

I saw Justice at Prairie Lights and it intrigued me after reading an excerpt about price gouging in Florida following Hurricane Charley. Household generators that normally cost $250 were priced at $2,000. “Contractors offered to clear two trees off a homeowner’s roof — for $23,000.” Was it just for businesses to take advantage of the situation and jack up prices? Or was it better to let the free market do its thing? Sandel, a political philosophy professor at Harvard, never offers an option on the matter (perhaps he does in a roundabout way toward the end when he reveals his philosophical leanings), but uses price gouging and a number of other examples to highlight complicated everyday situations in which we find ourselves asking, “What’s the right thing to do? What is just?” Deciding is not a simple task, as he makes readers aware with stories and hypothetical analogies that complicate and question our reasoning.

Sandel outlines what I guess could be a history of the philosophy of justice. Starting with Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, he moves into the free choice mantra of libertarianism, pulls readers through the maze of Immanuel Kant to John Rawls, and then ponders Aristotle — all the while analyzing and offering analogies of how each theory works. He touches on affirmative action, patriotism, border security, abortion, same-sex marriage, and, yes, the right to use a golf cart. (The golf cart thing was in regards to Casey Martin, who sued the PGA when it denied him a request to use a cart. The Supreme Court sided with Martin, basically deciding that playing golf is about hitting a small ball into a hole in the ground and that whether a golfer walks or rides a cart plays no part in the purpose of the game.) Toward the end, Sandel offers a contemporary theory, which he subscribes to.

Justice is enlightening and thought-provoking, but it is at times convoluted. Kant’s theories were especially hard to grasp, and the way Sandel seemed to revert to philosophese did not make it much easier. Though his analogies were well written and understandable, and the way he wove in contemporary conflicts was masterful, there were times when Sandel became too academic. Maybe I am just obtuse, but there were many times when I felt lost. On top of that, I was unwilling to wade through the text again. (Those Fear Street books are calling.) I am not a skimmer, but there were times when I let my eyes lazily bounce from word to word and thought, “I just don’t care,” especially during the Kant section. I may be able to give a decent description of utilitarianism, Rawls’ philosophy, and Aristotle’s thinking, but not Kant. Perhaps, though, the better articulated and interesting chapters outshined Kant’s theories.

I really liked Rawls. Here is Rawls’ theory in a nutshell, put in the context of writing a constitution:

Suppose that when we gather to choose the principles, we don’t know where we will wind up in society. Imagine that we choose behind a “veil of ignorance” that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. We don’t know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. Nor do we know our advantages and disadvantages — whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high-school dropout, born to a supportive family or a broken one. If no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree to would be just.

Intriguing, no? I thought it was. Also interesting is the fact that Jeremy Bentham thought so much of himself that he specified in his will that “his body be preserved, embalmed, and displayed.” Bentham’s preserved body is on display in a glass case at University College London, where he sits in his actual clothing. The embalming of his real head went badly, so a wax head is used in place of the real one. (His real head is also preserved, though it is not in very good shape.) Sandel writes “…the stuffed Bentham is reportedly wheeled in for meetings of the governing council of the college, whose minutes record him as ‘present but not voting.’”

Wow.

New words I learned: All definitions are courtesy of my MacBook dictionary. Penurious: “extremely poor; poverty-stricken.” Becloud (the meaning is obvious, but it is such a good word I needed to look up the definition): “cause to become obscure or muddled.” Valorize: “give or ascribe value or validity to (something).” Cavil: “make petty or unnecessary objections.” Contretemps: “an unexpected and unfortunate occurrence.” Meritocracy: “government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.” Desert (as in “receiving just deserts”; not like the Sahara): “a person's worthiness or entitlement to reward or punishment.” Recompense: “make amends to (someone) for loss or harm suffered; compensate.” Qua: “in the capacity of; as being.” Capacious: “having a lot of space inside; roomy.” Paean: “a song of praise or triumph.”