Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

Justice is an opportune appeal for us to abstain from radical wrangles and see if there is a possibility of having a utilitarian debate on the kind of community in which we desire to associate. Bestselling author and Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel pose a challenge to his students to gauge the moral predicaments faced in our everyday lives including business and politics. This essay reflects on Michael Sandel ought to debate with his students on justice and what to be done.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

During the lecture, Professor Sandel tests his students with tough ethical impasses and questions about their views on the right things to do. He asks them to scrutinize their responses in the light of innovative circumstances. The outcomes are often astonishing, revealing that crucial ethical questions are never white and black. Sandel introduces Aristotle's hypothesis of justice. He assumes that fairness is more of offering citizens what they deserve. When making considerations on distribution issues, Sandel presents Aristotle's arguments that individuals ought to contemplate on the purpose, the end, and the goal of what is on distribution. Sandel narrates the example of a musical instrument, cooking, and joking to his students. For instance, he states that the best flute ought o be awarded to the best flute troupes. Explaining Aristotle's claim, Sandal states that any individual can get a nice flute since it is not only for the rich, for the flute has no connection with wealth. Nor is it the individual who gets contented, because producing nice music is not the same as happiness. Therefore, the flutes purpose is to be played well. Then according to Aristotle, the top political positions needs to be given to those who are good at making judgments and holding great public virtue. According to Aristotle, says Sandel, justice is an issue of suiting an individual's virtues with a suitable role.

In the first part of the lecture, Sandel starts by stating Aristotle's belief on politics purpose in promoting and cultivating the virtues of its people. He states that the aim of the political and state community is the 'good life.' The citizens who make contributions to the society's purpose ought to be rewarded more. The theory by Aristotle contributes to a modern discussion about golf. Sandel describes Casey Martin's case - an incapacitated golf player- who charged the PGA after they failed to permit him to use a golf cart. The presented case opens the way to a discussion on the purpose of golf and if a golfer's capability to walk the course is crucial for the sport.

Sandel tries to question if the purpose of golf is to entertain or if it is sports superiority as well. Sandel got responses from a few of his students on what they thought about the issue. The answers given helped to determine how golf ought to be played. Sandel helped by proposing that if the approach to playing golf is that of entertainment, then it should not be a problem whether the players ride golf carts from one hole to the other. On the other hand, he stipulates that if its intention is for athletic excellence, then, maybe players need to walk in the playground or lose the game.Sandel explains that justice is not a spectator game like golf. He calls for nothing less than a reinvigoration of public spirit. He uses Aristotle's teleological approach of thinking about the justice of a certain circumstance. The debate proposes that Aristotle's approach is to reflect on the determination of a nice person or an institution. He argues that if the purpose of a tennis court is to play tennis, then the best players have the priority. If man's purpose is to live a successful life, then the community ought to enhance the good life by making sure that citizens get the necessary resources for the good life, as well as motivating them in the quests which make for that sort of living.

There is also the topic of discussion on Freedom versus Fit. The question posed is on how Aristotle addresses the problem of freedom to make decisions and individual rights. Sandel talks about one of the greatest conspicuous oppositions to Aristotle, that is, his defense of slavery as a fitting social role for particular persons. The students engage in a discussion on several disapprovals to Aristotle's assumptions and argue whether his viewpoint leads to excessive restrictions on the freedom of human beings. Sandel ends up making clarifications on a basic political division, not between right and left, but between those who only understand personal choices and rights, as well as those who support a politics of the public decent entrenched in ethical norms which cannot be disregarded.

Conclusion

Michael Sandel is justice at his best; no matter the kind of opinions he presents, his charming style draws in the audience and forces them to reconsider their assumptions as well as challenges them to question accepted ways of thinking. Sandel, through his debate, convinces and directs us to better ways of engaging in politics, as well as more inspiring ways of living our lives. This video, as well as Sandel's arguments and approach, are not devoted to determining between wrong and right. The arguments are conventional on developing the perceptions of every possible circumstance. Concluding, psychologically and philosophically, why we do what we do.