I am wondering who else has read Justice by Michael J. Sandel?
My immediate reaction upon completing the book, was wow I must read that again. Not because I loved it so much, though I did, but simply since I really am not sure I understood it. Which is more of a compliment to the author than it is a criticism of the reader. Being me.
The book was impossible to put down because the part I loved about it was the call to the world to spend more time thinking through our approach to rules, laws, policies, and general approach to governance. I found inspiration in every page, including those I did not understand. There is no question that if people on all three sides of the aisle, which in my mind features the two sides who both believe they are right and the third, unpopulated side that is actually right, we would have a world that is more humane, decent, and sustainable.
Now the other reason that it may have been hard for me to put down was because I was trying to figure out what I did not fully understand. There are so may amazing concepts in the book where I have some earlier knowledge, sometimes incorrect, that as I was absorbing so much new thinking the book kept creating new cravings inside of me to understand more.
Let me give you a simple example. Before I read Justice I would have described utilitarianism as a very fundamental concept in society, and approach to life, that provide basic living standards for people. I would have imagined it as being the lowest common denominator or standard for people to be provided. The basics. The minimum. The expected.
While many of you may have known all along that the concept of utilitarianism is about maximizing the most benefit for the most people, which clearly, I did not, Sandel’s explanations and critiques illuminated the concept for me, and kept me awake. It made me realize that utilitarianism could weaponized to provide for the masses while a small number of people, in some cases just one would pay the price for others.
The many examples and cases studies that he then uses to show the flaw in the definition, and the concept bring the idea into my vision as a potentially evil concept. The behind-the-scenes decision making process in the case of exploding cars. Experiments around pain for pay. Justifying torture. The value of a human life. Many more.
The founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, believed in his doctrine and himself so much that his pre-death instructions included having his body embalmed and that society should meet once a year to discuss his teachings, and ensure that his body was present for the debates. As Sandel writes, even in planning for his death Bentham arrogantly believed in what he thought would provide the greatest good for the greatest numbers.
Going back to my opening question, I am curious to find out who has read this book in the hopes they will help shape my rereading of it by sharing their findings as to what aspects of the book I should redouble my focus on. As well I am intrigued to know how the book is going to shape their future interactions with politicians, partners, and workplace leaders.
