What do you think?
Rate this book
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
"For Michael Sandel, justice is not a spectator sport," The Nation's reviewer of Justice remarked. In his acclaimed book―based on his legendary Harvard course―Sandel offers a rare education in thinking through the complicated issues and controversies we face in public life today. It has emerged as a most lucid and engaging guide for those who yearn for a more robust and thoughtful public discourse. "In terms we can all understand," wrote Jonathan Rauch in The New York Times, Justice "confronts us with the concepts that lurk . . . beneath our conflicts."
Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, the moral limits of markets―Sandel relates the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of the day, and shows how a surer grasp of philosophy can help us make sense of politics, morality, and our own convictions as well.
Justice is lively, thought-provoking, and wise―an essential new addition to the small shelf of books that speak convincingly to the hard questions of our civic life.
Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, the moral limits of markets―Sandel relates the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of the day, and shows how a surer grasp of philosophy can help us make sense of politics, morality, and our own convictions as well.
Justice is lively, thought-provoking, and wise―an essential new addition to the small shelf of books that speak convincingly to the hard questions of our civic life.
308 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Michael J. Sandel
31 books2,059 followersMichael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts. He is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught since 1980. He is best known for the Harvard course 'Justice', which is available to view online, and for his critique of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice in his first book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,243 reviews
September 28, 2021
I've attended the 24 Harvard University lectures that the book is based on; that's why I'm going to consider that I read the book.
The topic, the way it was structured, presented and executed was one of the best I've ever experienced. It is arguably the best online course on philosophy you could attend.
In a nutshell, Michael Sandel discusses: What's the right thing for humans to do, whereby he explains theories around Justice, morality and human good. In order to do so, he constantly starts with a controversial (real or theoretical) case study to juxtapose different theories of justice and morality.
For example Michael Sandel starts with the classic example of a train headed towards 5 people on the track. The breaks don't work. If the train continues it will kill the 5 people. Then he introduces the option of pulling a leaver to switch to another track whereby only 1 person is standing. The question is: What do you do?
Through such examples he explains different schools around morality and justice.
1) The Utilitarian view: This school advocates maximizing "pleasure" to the largest "number" of people. By doing so, the individual and the society are acting morally and justly. As such, the moral and just decision for the utilitarians is: to chose to kill the one person instead of five, as this maximizes the "pleasure" as much as possible. This maximization is, in itself, the prime/only moral justification.
The challenge happens when Sandel introduces a twist to the example: "What if there was no other track, and you were a on a bridge watching the train heading towards the 5 people. Now, imagine there was a very large person standing next to you. If that large person falls on the tracks and hits the train, the train will stop and as a result, not kill the 5 people. If you had the opportunity would you push that person of the bridge? From a utilitarian perspective, how can you argue against doing this? given that the outcome is the same as chosing the 2nd track with one person on it. As both options maximize the good.
Obviously, the utilitarian school isn't that shallow, but this gives you glimpse of the philosophical implication of rationalizing morality through maximizing pleasure or good.
Another challenge is around the inherent moral value of a given deed; if maximizing good/pleasure is the rationale, an individual action might be moral in one scenario and immoral in another according to the collective pleasure.
2) The libertarian view: This school advocates maximizing individual freedom (freedom to do what a person pleases with their lives, time and possessions (e.g. money, property). Issues such as: Consent, equality, minimizing state interference/taxation, and social contracts are major themes here. So any action that results in maximizing individual freedoms (without resulting in material harm on other individuals or liberties) is moral. As you can imagine, the libertarian school of thought would advocate against switching the tracks as that results in involving the additional person to the equation without their consent.
The challenge with this line of thinking is: What if two people consent to horrific actions to be done on one another e.g.
- ( in Germany someone (X) put an add that they want someone (Y) to to apply to be killed and eaten by him. Eventually, another person (Y) volunteered and they both (X and Y) executed the act.) What do you do then?
- ( in some native american cultures, taking drugs is part of the religious experience) should the government allow them to do so? If yes, what If I come up with a religion and register it and say that consuming cocaine is part of my religion? what then?
- ( in some parts of Canada indulging in sexual acts with animals is legal) Why? because there is no infringement on individual freedoms
The challenge now becomes, what do we do if a mother and her son want to have sexual intercourse? two siblings? or a person wants to ride a motor bike without a helmet? shouldn't taxation be banned (as it infringes on individual's ownership)?
As a result, all judgement of acts are skewed towards the one measure (freedom).
3) The virtue or Teleology school: whereby it focuses on ensuring achieving virtues or purpose. This has been originally argued by Aristotle. The idea here is that one needs to understand the underlying meaning of something (e.g. life, economy, marriage, money) and its purpose in order to say what is just and moral.
The example here is about a golfer who has a bad leg and wanted the PGA to provide him with a cart. The PGA refused, and the case went up to the supreme court. The main debate was: is walking an essential part of golf? if it was, then providing a cart is unfair. Also if someone suggested to give everyone a cart then it changes the nature of the game itself.
The challenge in this school is a very deep and philosophical one. Who decides on virtue and purpose? one of the earlier arguments was that each group/society sets them. The challenge is: what if the group or society agrees on something like slavery or segregation of people of color, or banning Hijab?
This is where Michael Sandel argues that speaking of justice requires embarking on finding a framework to answer/define the 'Telos' of life. Is it God and religion? can pure reasoning get us there?
Overall a very thought provoking book and lectures that I recommend you start asap
The topic, the way it was structured, presented and executed was one of the best I've ever experienced. It is arguably the best online course on philosophy you could attend.
In a nutshell, Michael Sandel discusses: What's the right thing for humans to do, whereby he explains theories around Justice, morality and human good. In order to do so, he constantly starts with a controversial (real or theoretical) case study to juxtapose different theories of justice and morality.
For example Michael Sandel starts with the classic example of a train headed towards 5 people on the track. The breaks don't work. If the train continues it will kill the 5 people. Then he introduces the option of pulling a leaver to switch to another track whereby only 1 person is standing. The question is: What do you do?
Through such examples he explains different schools around morality and justice.
1) The Utilitarian view: This school advocates maximizing "pleasure" to the largest "number" of people. By doing so, the individual and the society are acting morally and justly. As such, the moral and just decision for the utilitarians is: to chose to kill the one person instead of five, as this maximizes the "pleasure" as much as possible. This maximization is, in itself, the prime/only moral justification.
The challenge happens when Sandel introduces a twist to the example: "What if there was no other track, and you were a on a bridge watching the train heading towards the 5 people. Now, imagine there was a very large person standing next to you. If that large person falls on the tracks and hits the train, the train will stop and as a result, not kill the 5 people. If you had the opportunity would you push that person of the bridge? From a utilitarian perspective, how can you argue against doing this? given that the outcome is the same as chosing the 2nd track with one person on it. As both options maximize the good.
Obviously, the utilitarian school isn't that shallow, but this gives you glimpse of the philosophical implication of rationalizing morality through maximizing pleasure or good.
Another challenge is around the inherent moral value of a given deed; if maximizing good/pleasure is the rationale, an individual action might be moral in one scenario and immoral in another according to the collective pleasure.
2) The libertarian view: This school advocates maximizing individual freedom (freedom to do what a person pleases with their lives, time and possessions (e.g. money, property). Issues such as: Consent, equality, minimizing state interference/taxation, and social contracts are major themes here. So any action that results in maximizing individual freedoms (without resulting in material harm on other individuals or liberties) is moral. As you can imagine, the libertarian school of thought would advocate against switching the tracks as that results in involving the additional person to the equation without their consent.
The challenge with this line of thinking is: What if two people consent to horrific actions to be done on one another e.g.
- ( in Germany someone (X) put an add that they want someone (Y) to to apply to be killed and eaten by him. Eventually, another person (Y) volunteered and they both (X and Y) executed the act.) What do you do then?
- ( in some native american cultures, taking drugs is part of the religious experience) should the government allow them to do so? If yes, what If I come up with a religion and register it and say that consuming cocaine is part of my religion? what then?
- ( in some parts of Canada indulging in sexual acts with animals is legal) Why? because there is no infringement on individual freedoms
The challenge now becomes, what do we do if a mother and her son want to have sexual intercourse? two siblings? or a person wants to ride a motor bike without a helmet? shouldn't taxation be banned (as it infringes on individual's ownership)?
As a result, all judgement of acts are skewed towards the one measure (freedom).
3) The virtue or Teleology school: whereby it focuses on ensuring achieving virtues or purpose. This has been originally argued by Aristotle. The idea here is that one needs to understand the underlying meaning of something (e.g. life, economy, marriage, money) and its purpose in order to say what is just and moral.
The example here is about a golfer who has a bad leg and wanted the PGA to provide him with a cart. The PGA refused, and the case went up to the supreme court. The main debate was: is walking an essential part of golf? if it was, then providing a cart is unfair. Also if someone suggested to give everyone a cart then it changes the nature of the game itself.
The challenge in this school is a very deep and philosophical one. Who decides on virtue and purpose? one of the earlier arguments was that each group/society sets them. The challenge is: what if the group or society agrees on something like slavery or segregation of people of color, or banning Hijab?
This is where Michael Sandel argues that speaking of justice requires embarking on finding a framework to answer/define the 'Telos' of life. Is it God and religion? can pure reasoning get us there?
Overall a very thought provoking book and lectures that I recommend you start asap
August 25, 2018
I wanted to like this book a lot more than I did...I think the problem for me is that I took a political philosophy class when I was an undergraduate that was amazing. I got to read many of the texts this book was based on in depth. I don't think anything beats reading through these texts yourself and trying to pick through the reasoning yourself.
The book also reinforces a fear I have.
I have a feeling that Sandel is actually a lot smarter than this book makes him out to be. I have a feeling that a savvy editor urged him to go simpler (lower?). The cover of the book advertises Sandel as popular and a global phenomenon...and I was worried that in order to be these things, the book would need to be a dumber version of itself.
And that's kind of what it was. As a work of philosophy, it was't really that satisfying. As a popular moral treatise, it seemed thin and not really a revelation, certainly not inspiring (For really inspiring moral reflections and prose, read James Baldwin). Many of the chapters seem like they could have been written by a motivated senior undergraduate.
I'm almost ashamed to admit this deep fear of mine, but it seems like in order to write something popular that many people will read (and *gasp* find smart) you have to aim for the median...if not even lower.
I've found this to be true lately in all sorts of communication activities ranging from talking to senior management to writing popular blog posts -- aim for the middle or slightly lower and hope you get lucky.
That being said, let me say this: The book is a serviceable and easy introduction to political philosophy and ethics. (The topical topics seem to me too American, and somewhat irrelevant given the utter moral collapse in US politics).
One thing this book did motivate me to do is to look for something challenging to read -- something that forces me to read a paragraph twice to wrap my head around the idea.
The book also makes me want to urge people to be really, really smart.
Don't be constrained by a world of medians -- if you have something smart to say/ research / think through, don't be constrained by the tyranny of the TED talk / popular think book / popular blog post format.
Go big! Write a 500 page tome only 5 people will read! Be as smart as you can even if you are misunderstood. That is the most punk rock / awesome thing you can do in these times.
The book also reinforces a fear I have.
I have a feeling that Sandel is actually a lot smarter than this book makes him out to be. I have a feeling that a savvy editor urged him to go simpler (lower?). The cover of the book advertises Sandel as popular and a global phenomenon...and I was worried that in order to be these things, the book would need to be a dumber version of itself.
And that's kind of what it was. As a work of philosophy, it was't really that satisfying. As a popular moral treatise, it seemed thin and not really a revelation, certainly not inspiring (For really inspiring moral reflections and prose, read James Baldwin). Many of the chapters seem like they could have been written by a motivated senior undergraduate.
I'm almost ashamed to admit this deep fear of mine, but it seems like in order to write something popular that many people will read (and *gasp* find smart) you have to aim for the median...if not even lower.
I've found this to be true lately in all sorts of communication activities ranging from talking to senior management to writing popular blog posts -- aim for the middle or slightly lower and hope you get lucky.
That being said, let me say this: The book is a serviceable and easy introduction to political philosophy and ethics. (The topical topics seem to me too American, and somewhat irrelevant given the utter moral collapse in US politics).
One thing this book did motivate me to do is to look for something challenging to read -- something that forces me to read a paragraph twice to wrap my head around the idea.
The book also makes me want to urge people to be really, really smart.
Don't be constrained by a world of medians -- if you have something smart to say/ research / think through, don't be constrained by the tyranny of the TED talk / popular think book / popular blog post format.
Go big! Write a 500 page tome only 5 people will read! Be as smart as you can even if you are misunderstood. That is the most punk rock / awesome thing you can do in these times.
February 13, 2015
اصلا این کتاب چه ارتباطی به من داره؟
اگه موقع خوندن این مرور دارید این سوال رو از خودتون میپرسید فقط توصیهام اینه که پنج دقیقهی اول این ویدئو رو نگاه کنید
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvyzQah1u4
مایکل سندل استاد فلسفهی سیاسی دانشگاه هاروارد سالهاست که کورسی داره با عنوان «عدالت» که یکی از پرطرفدارترین کورسهای تاریخ این دانشگاه لقب گرفته. طوری که دیگه کلاسهاش توی فضای متعارف کلاسها جا نمیشه و مدتهاست این کلاسها رو تو آمفیتئاتر این دانشگاه با حضور میانگین بالای هزار نفر دانشجو برگزار میکنه. خوب اگه تا الان مسئله کنجکاویتون رو برنیانگیخته! و همچنان سوال بالا رو از خودتون میپرسید کاملا حق با شماست که نخواید ادامهی مرور رو بخونید
ساختارش چجوریه؟
مهمترین نکتهی این کتاب اینه که برای نسل ما نوشته شده. نسل ما شاید دیگه حوصلهی مطالب انتزاعی و خشک رو نداره. برای همین مایکل سندل همین مباحث خشک و بیروح فلسفی رو برده به متن زندگی روزمره. توش هم از سیمپسونها میشنوید و هم از هملت. هم از مادونا میشنوید، هم از مایکل جوردن [بسکتبالیست افسانهای تیم شیکاگو بولز، کسایی که بسکتبال نوین صبح جمعههای شبکه سه رو، پونزده سال پیش نگاه میکردن این غول رو خوب یادشون هست]، هم از خدمت اجباری سربازی صحبت میکنه و هم از سقط جنین. کتاب مال همین دوره زمونهست. ��عاصر با همین دوره
نه، واقعا حالا خداییش ساختارش چجوریه؟
سندل عدالت رو از سه نگاه بررسی کرده. دیدگاه فایدهگراها. دیدگاه لیبرتارینها. دیدگاه فضیلتگراها. در طول کتاب سعی کرده به نقاط ضعف و قوت این دیدگاهها بپردازه و بگه که چرا شاید هر کدوم به تنهایی کامل و جامع نباشن. نویسنده در نهایت به یه نسخهی خاص از نگاه فضیلتگراها اعتقاد داره. برای همین کسی که ویدئو رو نگاه کنه از دو چیز تعجب نمیکنه: ساختار کلاس شبیه یونان قدیمه. شیوهی تدریس سندل به روش سقراطیون با به چالش کشیدن مخاطب و پرسیدن سوالهای پی در پی همراهه تا اینکه حرفی رو که خودش میخواد بزنه رو از دهن مخاطبش بیرون بکشه
حرف آخر
مجموعهی ویدیوهای این درسگفتارها رو یوتیوب هست. مباحث اونقدر جذاب و به روز هست که بعید میدونم کسی ازش بدش بیاد. با خیال راحت میشه رفت طرفش
اگه موقع خوندن این مرور دارید این سوال رو از خودتون میپرسید فقط توصیهام اینه که پنج دقیقهی اول این ویدئو رو نگاه کنید
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvyzQah1u4
مایکل سندل استاد فلسفهی سیاسی دانشگاه هاروارد سالهاست که کورسی داره با عنوان «عدالت» که یکی از پرطرفدارترین کورسهای تاریخ این دانشگاه لقب گرفته. طوری که دیگه کلاسهاش توی فضای متعارف کلاسها جا نمیشه و مدتهاست این کلاسها رو تو آمفیتئاتر این دانشگاه با حضور میانگین بالای هزار نفر دانشجو برگزار میکنه. خوب اگه تا الان مسئله کنجکاویتون رو برنیانگیخته! و همچنان سوال بالا رو از خودتون میپرسید کاملا حق با شماست که نخواید ادامهی مرور رو بخونید
ساختارش چجوریه؟
مهمترین نکتهی این کتاب اینه که برای نسل ما نوشته شده. نسل ما شاید دیگه حوصلهی مطالب انتزاعی و خشک رو نداره. برای همین مایکل سندل همین مباحث خشک و بیروح فلسفی رو برده به متن زندگی روزمره. توش هم از سیمپسونها میشنوید و هم از هملت. هم از مادونا میشنوید، هم از مایکل جوردن [بسکتبالیست افسانهای تیم شیکاگو بولز، کسایی که بسکتبال نوین صبح جمعههای شبکه سه رو، پونزده سال پیش نگاه میکردن این غول رو خوب یادشون هست]، هم از خدمت اجباری سربازی صحبت میکنه و هم از سقط جنین. کتاب مال همین دوره زمونهست. ��عاصر با همین دوره
نه، واقعا حالا خداییش ساختارش چجوریه؟
سندل عدالت رو از سه نگاه بررسی کرده. دیدگاه فایدهگراها. دیدگاه لیبرتارینها. دیدگاه فضیلتگراها. در طول کتاب سعی کرده به نقاط ضعف و قوت این دیدگاهها بپردازه و بگه که چرا شاید هر کدوم به تنهایی کامل و جامع نباشن. نویسنده در نهایت به یه نسخهی خاص از نگاه فضیلتگراها اعتقاد داره. برای همین کسی که ویدئو رو نگاه کنه از دو چیز تعجب نمیکنه: ساختار کلاس شبیه یونان قدیمه. شیوهی تدریس سندل به روش سقراطیون با به چالش کشیدن مخاطب و پرسیدن سوالهای پی در پی همراهه تا اینکه حرفی رو که خودش میخواد بزنه رو از دهن مخاطبش بیرون بکشه
حرف آخر
مجموعهی ویدیوهای این درسگفتارها رو یوتیوب هست. مباحث اونقدر جذاب و به روز هست که بعید میدونم کسی ازش بدش بیاد. با خیال راحت میشه رفت طرفش
November 16, 2015
Single Quote Review:
Click to Expand.
Click to Expand.
Bonus: A quick passage from the book (representative, both):
And here is the letter of acceptance, shorn of honorific implications, that a philosophically frank law school should send those it admits:
Dear successful applicant,
We are pleased to inform you that your application for admission has been accepted. It turns out that you happen to have the traits that society needs at the moment, so we propose to exploit your assets for society’s advantage by admitting you to the study of law.
You are to be congratulated, not in the sense that you deserve credit for having the qualities that led to your admission—you do not—but only in the sense that the winner of a lottery is to be congratulated. You are lucky to have come along with the right traits at the right moment. If you choose to accept our offer, you will ultimately be entitled to the benefits that attach to being used in this way. For this, you may properly celebrate.
You, or more likely your parents, may be tempted to celebrate in the further sense that you take this admission to reflect favorably, if not on your native endowments, then at least on the conscientious effort you have made to cultivate your abilities. But the notion that you deserve even the superior character necessary to your effort is equally problematic, for your character depends on fortunate circumstances of various kinds for which you can claim no credit. The notion of desert does not apply here.
We look forward nonetheless to seeing you in the fall.
Sincerely yours . . .
June 23, 2023
یکی از بهترین کتابهایی که امسال خواندم و لذت بردم. چالش برانگیز، روان، ترجمه خوب، پر از مثال که شما را به تفکر وادار میکند.
*********************************************************************
تقدیر و تشکر
کتاب حاضر بهصورت یک دورهی درسی آغاز شد. حدود ۳۰ سال از امتیاز تدریس فلسفه سیاسی ب�� دانشجویان دوره لیسانس برخوردار بودهام و در بسیاری از این سالها درسی به نام «عدالت» را تدریس میکردهام. این درس دانشجویان را در برابر برخی از بزرگترین نوشتههای فلسفی دربارهی عدالت قرار میدهد و بحثهای حقوقی و سیاسی معاصری را که به پرسشهایی فلسفی میانجامد نیز مطرح میکند. فلسفهی سیاسی موضوعی استدلالی است و بخشی از لذت تدریس عدالت این است که دانشجویان را به بحث متقابل با فیلسوفان، با یکدیگر و با من وادار میکند. بنابراین پیش از هر چیز از هزاران دانشجوی دورهی لیسانس که در این سفر چندساله با من همراه بودند سپاسگزارم. امیدوارم مشارکت پرنشاط آنها در پرسشهایی که درباره عدالت مطرح کردهام در روح این کتاب به نمایش درآید. از چند صد دانشجوی دوره دکتری حقوق نیز که در تدریس این دوره به من کمک کردهاند متشکرم. پرسشهای جست و جوگرانهی آنها، دربارهی مطالب درسی هر هفته، نه تنها مرا همواره آماده نگه میداشت، بلکه درک مرا از موضوعاتی فلسفی که همراه با یکدیگر به دانشجویانمان منتقل میکردیم عمیقتر میکرد. صفحات ۷-۸ کتاب
این کتاب نمیخواهد نشان دهد که چه کسی در تاریخ تفکر سیاسی بر چه افرادی تأثیر گذاشته است، بلکه از خوانندگان دعوت میکند دیدگاههای خود درباره عدالت را در معرض بررسی انتقادی قرار دهند تا بفهمند که چه میاندیشند و چرا چنین اندیشهای دارند. صفحه ۴۳ کتاب
دلیل تعالی لذتهای متعالیتر ترجیح ما نیست، بلکه آنها را ترجیح میدهیم چون متعالیترند. دلیل اینکه هملت را اثر هنری بزرگی میدانیم این نیست که آن را بیشتر از سرگرمیهای مبتذل دوست داریم، بلکه این است که با استعدادهای متعالیتر ما سر و کار دارد و وجود انسانی ما را کاملتر میکند. صفحه ۷۵ کتاب
امروزه، این مفهوم که سیاست دربارهی پرورش فضیلتها است به نظر بسیار عجیب و حتی خطرناک است. چه کسی باید بگوید فضیلت چیست؟ و اگر مردم با این نظر موافق نبودند چطور؟ اگر قانون به دنبال ترویج آرمانهای اخلاقی و دینی خاصی باشد، آیا این مسئله راه را برای نابردباری و تحمیل نمیگشاید؟ هنگامی که به دولتهایی فکر میکنیم که میکوشند فضیلت را ترویج کنند، ابتدا به یاد دولتشهر آتنیها نمیافتیم، بلکه بنیادگرایی دینی گذشته و حال چیزهایی مانند سنگسار کردن به گناه زنا، استفادهی اجباری از برقع، محاکمهی جادوگران و موارد دیگری از این دست را به یاد میآوریم. صفحات ۲۸۰-۲۸۱ کتاب
******************************************************************
چندین سؤال و چند تیتر انتخابی از کتاب:
۱- چه کاری درست است؟
آیا جامعهی عادل بهدنبال ترویج فضایل شهروندان خویش است؟
دو راهیهای اخلاقی
۲- اصل بیشترین سعادت/ فایدهگرایی
فایدهگرایی جرمی بنتام
آیا اصلاً میتوان شکنجه را توجیه کرد؟
جان استوارت میل
دفاع از آزادی
۳- آیا مالک خویشتنیم؟/ اختیار گرایی
فلسفهی بازار آزاد
پول مایکل جردن
فروش کلیه
خودکشی با کمک دیگران
آدمخواری با رضایت طرفین
۴- خرید خدمت: بازار و اخلاق
کدام کار عادلانه است: سربازگیری اجباری یا استخدام سربازان؟
بارداری در ازای پول
۵- آنچه اهمیت دارد، انگیزه است/ ایمانوئل کانت
آزادی چیست؟
افراد و اشیاء
چه چیزی اخلاقی است؟ در جستوجوی انگیزه
اصل عالی اخلاق چیست؟
اخلاق و آزادی
پرسشهایی در برابر کانت
رابطه جنسی، دروغ، سیاست
آیا دروغ گفتن به یک قاتل اشتباه است؟
آیا کانت از بیل کلینتون دفاع میکرد؟
۶- دفاع از برابری/ جان رالز
محدودیتهای اخلاقی قراردادها
هنگامی که رضایت کافی نیست: کارتهای بیسبال و نشتی توالت
زمانی که رضایت ضروری نیست: خانه هیوم و شیشه شورها
منفعت یا رضایت؟ تعمیرگاه خودروی سیار سام
کابوس مساوات گرایانه
آیا زندگی منصفانه است؟
۷- در دفاع از تبعیض مثبت
آیا ترجیحات نژادی حقوق را نقض میکنند؟
آیا میتوان عدالت را از شایستگی اخلاقی جدا کرد؟
چرا پذیرش در دانشگاه را به حراج نگذاریم؟
۸- چه کسی مستحق چه چیزی است؟/ ارسطو
عدالت، غایت، افتخار
تفکر غایت شناسانه: زمینهای تنیس و وینی خرسه
غایت دانشگاه چیست؟
هدف سیاست چیست؟
آیا میتوان بدون مشارکت در سیاست انسانی نیک بود؟
سیاست و زندگی خوب
دفاع ارسطو از بردگی
گاری گلف کیسی مارتین
۹- چه چیزی به یکدیگر مدیونیم؟ معمای وفاداری
عذرخواهی و جبران
آیا ملتها باید برای کارهای ناروای تاریخی عذرخواهی کنند؟
آیا باید گناهان پیشینیانمان را جبران کنیم؟
فردگرایی اخلاقی
آیا دولت باید به لحاظ اخلاقی بیطرف باشد؟
آیا میهنپرستی فضیلت است؟
آیا «[کالای] آمریکایی بخرید» غیرمنصفانه است؟
آیا همبستگی تعصب نسبت به نزدیکانمان است؟
۱۰- عدالت و خیر همگانی
بحثهای سقط جنین و سلولهای بنیادی
ازدواج میان همجنسها
عدالت و زندگی خوب
سیاست خیر همگانی
*********************************************************************
تقدیر و تشکر
کتاب حاضر بهصورت یک دورهی درسی آغاز شد. حدود ۳۰ سال از امتیاز تدریس فلسفه سیاسی ب�� دانشجویان دوره لیسانس برخوردار بودهام و در بسیاری از این سالها درسی به نام «عدالت» را تدریس میکردهام. این درس دانشجویان را در برابر برخی از بزرگترین نوشتههای فلسفی دربارهی عدالت قرار میدهد و بحثهای حقوقی و سیاسی معاصری را که به پرسشهایی فلسفی میانجامد نیز مطرح میکند. فلسفهی سیاسی موضوعی استدلالی است و بخشی از لذت تدریس عدالت این است که دانشجویان را به بحث متقابل با فیلسوفان، با یکدیگر و با من وادار میکند. بنابراین پیش از هر چیز از هزاران دانشجوی دورهی لیسانس که در این سفر چندساله با من همراه بودند سپاسگزارم. امیدوارم مشارکت پرنشاط آنها در پرسشهایی که درباره عدالت مطرح کردهام در روح این کتاب به نمایش درآید. از چند صد دانشجوی دوره دکتری حقوق نیز که در تدریس این دوره به من کمک کردهاند متشکرم. پرسشهای جست و جوگرانهی آنها، دربارهی مطالب درسی هر هفته، نه تنها مرا همواره آماده نگه میداشت، بلکه درک مرا از موضوعاتی فلسفی که همراه با یکدیگر به دانشجویانمان منتقل میکردیم عمیقتر میکرد. صفحات ۷-۸ کتاب
این کتاب نمیخواهد نشان دهد که چه کسی در تاریخ تفکر سیاسی بر چه افرادی تأثیر گذاشته است، بلکه از خوانندگان دعوت میکند دیدگاههای خود درباره عدالت را در معرض بررسی انتقادی قرار دهند تا بفهمند که چه میاندیشند و چرا چنین اندیشهای دارند. صفحه ۴۳ کتاب
دلیل تعالی لذتهای متعالیتر ترجیح ما نیست، بلکه آنها را ترجیح میدهیم چون متعالیترند. دلیل اینکه هملت را اثر هنری بزرگی میدانیم این نیست که آن را بیشتر از سرگرمیهای مبتذل دوست داریم، بلکه این است که با استعدادهای متعالیتر ما سر و کار دارد و وجود انسانی ما را کاملتر میکند. صفحه ۷۵ کتاب
امروزه، این مفهوم که سیاست دربارهی پرورش فضیلتها است به نظر بسیار عجیب و حتی خطرناک است. چه کسی باید بگوید فضیلت چیست؟ و اگر مردم با این نظر موافق نبودند چطور؟ اگر قانون به دنبال ترویج آرمانهای اخلاقی و دینی خاصی باشد، آیا این مسئله راه را برای نابردباری و تحمیل نمیگشاید؟ هنگامی که به دولتهایی فکر میکنیم که میکوشند فضیلت را ترویج کنند، ابتدا به یاد دولتشهر آتنیها نمیافتیم، بلکه بنیادگرایی دینی گذشته و حال چیزهایی مانند سنگسار کردن به گناه زنا، استفادهی اجباری از برقع، محاکمهی جادوگران و موارد دیگری از این دست را به یاد میآوریم. صفحات ۲۸۰-۲۸۱ کتاب
******************************************************************
چندین سؤال و چند تیتر انتخابی از کتاب:
۱- چه کاری درست است؟
آیا جامعهی عادل بهدنبال ترویج فضایل شهروندان خویش است؟
دو راهیهای اخلاقی
۲- اصل بیشترین سعادت/ فایدهگرایی
فایدهگرایی جرمی بنتام
آیا اصلاً میتوان شکنجه را توجیه کرد؟
جان استوارت میل
دفاع از آزادی
۳- آیا مالک خویشتنیم؟/ اختیار گرایی
فلسفهی بازار آزاد
پول مایکل جردن
فروش کلیه
خودکشی با کمک دیگران
آدمخواری با رضایت طرفین
۴- خرید خدمت: بازار و اخلاق
کدام کار عادلانه است: سربازگیری اجباری یا استخدام سربازان؟
بارداری در ازای پول
۵- آنچه اهمیت دارد، انگیزه است/ ایمانوئل کانت
آزادی چیست؟
افراد و اشیاء
چه چیزی اخلاقی است؟ در جستوجوی انگیزه
اصل عالی اخلاق چیست؟
اخلاق و آزادی
پرسشهایی در برابر کانت
رابطه جنسی، دروغ، سیاست
آیا دروغ گفتن به یک قاتل اشتباه است؟
آیا کانت از بیل کلینتون دفاع میکرد؟
۶- دفاع از برابری/ جان رالز
محدودیتهای اخلاقی قراردادها
هنگامی که رضایت کافی نیست: کارتهای بیسبال و نشتی توالت
زمانی که رضایت ضروری نیست: خانه هیوم و شیشه شورها
منفعت یا رضایت؟ تعمیرگاه خودروی سیار سام
کابوس مساوات گرایانه
آیا زندگی منصفانه است؟
۷- در دفاع از تبعیض مثبت
آیا ترجیحات نژادی حقوق را نقض میکنند؟
آیا میتوان عدالت را از شایستگی اخلاقی جدا کرد؟
چرا پذیرش در دانشگاه را به حراج نگذاریم؟
۸- چه کسی مستحق چه چیزی است؟/ ارسطو
عدالت، غایت، افتخار
تفکر غایت شناسانه: زمینهای تنیس و وینی خرسه
غایت دانشگاه چیست؟
هدف سیاست چیست؟
آیا میتوان بدون مشارکت در سیاست انسانی نیک بود؟
سیاست و زندگی خوب
دفاع ارسطو از بردگی
گاری گلف کیسی مارتین
۹- چه چیزی به یکدیگر مدیونیم؟ معمای وفاداری
عذرخواهی و جبران
آیا ملتها باید برای کارهای ناروای تاریخی عذرخواهی کنند؟
آیا باید گناهان پیشینیانمان را جبران کنیم؟
فردگرایی اخلاقی
آیا دولت باید به لحاظ اخلاقی بیطرف باشد؟
آیا میهنپرستی فضیلت است؟
آیا «[کالای] آمریکایی بخرید» غیرمنصفانه است؟
آیا همبستگی تعصب نسبت به نزدیکانمان است؟
۱۰- عدالت و خیر همگانی
بحثهای سقط جنین و سلولهای بنیادی
ازدواج میان همجنسها
عدالت و زندگی خوب
سیاست خیر همگانی
July 9, 2022
I liked this book for how it provided an easy to understand and entertaining introduction to several popular philosophical schools of thought (e.g., utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kant, Rawls, etc.) I remember reading primary philosophy texts for the one intro to philosophy course I took in undergrad and how dense those texts felt – Sandel’s writing feels accessible and smooth. He also applies philosophy in interesting ways to pressing contemporary moral issues including affirmative action, abortion, and gay marriage.
My main critique of this book is similar to the critique I had of my undergrad philosophy department: it all felt so white and male. I understand that Michael Sandel writes from his own perspective and chose to highlight certain popular philosophers, which like, sure I get that. At the same time, I found it odd that he writes about issues directly related to gender (e.g., abortion) and race (e.g., affirmative action) and from what I read didn’t even mention arguments made my female philosophers and philosophers of color. For example, I’m reading this book as part of a course I’m taking for my current residency, and the instructor of the course mentioned Judith Thomson’s work on abortion which I found pretty impressive. No mention of Thomson by Sandel. I also googled “philosophers of color” and found several philosophers so it’s not like Sandel didn’t have options. Yikes!
Overall, I think this book was interesting and I appreciate the field of philosophy overall for encouraging us to think critically about why we do things and what we perceive as right in the world. If anyone has recommendations for philosophers of color, female philosophers, philosophers with multiple marginalized identities, etc. to read lmk! Also, I’ll end this review by saying that white women have benefitted a ton from affirmative action, a critical fact that Sandel fails to mention when he discusses affirmative action.
My main critique of this book is similar to the critique I had of my undergrad philosophy department: it all felt so white and male. I understand that Michael Sandel writes from his own perspective and chose to highlight certain popular philosophers, which like, sure I get that. At the same time, I found it odd that he writes about issues directly related to gender (e.g., abortion) and race (e.g., affirmative action) and from what I read didn’t even mention arguments made my female philosophers and philosophers of color. For example, I’m reading this book as part of a course I’m taking for my current residency, and the instructor of the course mentioned Judith Thomson’s work on abortion which I found pretty impressive. No mention of Thomson by Sandel. I also googled “philosophers of color” and found several philosophers so it’s not like Sandel didn’t have options. Yikes!
Overall, I think this book was interesting and I appreciate the field of philosophy overall for encouraging us to think critically about why we do things and what we perceive as right in the world. If anyone has recommendations for philosophers of color, female philosophers, philosophers with multiple marginalized identities, etc. to read lmk! Also, I’ll end this review by saying that white women have benefitted a ton from affirmative action, a critical fact that Sandel fails to mention when he discusses affirmative action.
December 19, 2020
با معرفی دوستان خوب و خوبخوانام، با این کتاب آشنا شدم.
اول چند جلسهای از کلاسهای درس سندل رو توی دانشگاه هاروارد دیدم (در یوتوب و آپارات با زیرنویس فارسی موجود است) و خیلی ازش خوشم اومد. کسی که با بامزگی یک کمدین سوالهای اخلاقی رو طرح میکرد و از جوابهای دانشجوها به تئوریهای جدید میرسید و شدیدا روی درسی که میداد مسلط بود. طوری سوالها رو میپرسید که آدمها سوالهایی رو بکنن که در جوابش به چیزی که میخواد برسه. یه استاد به تمام معنا. اما این کتاب درباره چیه؟
اسم کتاب مشخصه، عدالت، چه باید کرد. این کتاب میخواد به ما یاد بده چطوری فکر کنیم. وقتی میخوایم تصمیم بگیریم که چیکار کنیم، وقتی میخوایم قضاوتی اخلاقی کنیم، وقتی میخوایم دنیای اطرافمون رو بسنجیم، نیازبه تفکری نقادانه داریم. باید یاد بگیریم که با چه عینکهایی میشه به دنیا نگاه کرد و مزایا و معایب هر کدوم از این عینکها رو بدونیم. باید کلی مثال ببینیم، کلی سناریو توی ذهنمون باشه که وقتی با یه موقعتی روبرو میشیم، بفهمیم این موقعیت با چه موقعیتی شبیهه، توی چه دستهای قرار میگیره، بتونیم حسابی موقعیتها رو دستهبندی و تجزیه و تحلیل کنیم. حالا ميتونیم بهترین تصمیم رو بگیریم. شایدم بفهمیم که بهترین تصمیمی وجود نداره، اما حالا که با آگاهی سراغ این تصمیم اومدیم، میدونیم که چه بیراهههایی در انتظارمونه و معایب این تصمیم چی بوده. این کتاب سیر تاریخی عدالت نیست، بلکه بیشتر به شرح و تاریخچه سه تا ایدهی بزرگ در جهان میپردازه.
ایدههای مبتنی بر فایدهگرایی، آزادیگرایی و فضیلتگرایی.
سندل در این کتاب با اوردن مثالهای زیاد تمام این ایدهها رو برای خواننده باز میکنه. آزمایشهای ذهنی رو با فاکتورهای تحت کنترل ذهن کوچیک میکنه و وقتی سعی میکنیم به این موقعیتهای فرضی جواب بدیم، میفهمیم که چهطور فکر میکنیم. وقتی بدونیم چه طور فکر میکنیم خیلی چیزا عوض میشه. همهمون بر اساس شهود قضاوتهایی داریم، و هر موقعیتی که پیش بیاد یه واکنشی نشون میدیم. اما معمولا نمیدونیم که منطق پشت این شهود چیه. اصلا منطق پشتشه؟ با خوندن این کتاب ميتونیم گامی برداریم در جهت کشف این منطقها و شهودها. این کتاب به من کمک کرد که شفافتر فکر کنم. وقتی با مسائل روز رو به رو میشم، بدونم که استدلالهای مختلفی که آدمیان جهان به این سوال دادن من رو به چه سمت و سوهایی میکشونه. خیلی خوشحالم که این کتاب رو خوندم.
مسائل جذابی توی این کتاب بررسی میشن. سربازی، سقط جنین، ازدواج همجنسها، این که آزادی چیه، فرقش با عدالت چیه، چطوری میتونیم اثبات کنیم که آزادیم و آیا آزادیم؟ کانت چی فکر میکرده، میل و رالز و دیگران چی فکر میکردن، ارسطو چطور از بردهداری دفاع میکردهو تبعیض مثبت خوبه یا بد، دروغ چیه کار اخلاقی چیه، با مهاجرا چه طوری میشه رفتار کرد و ...
دنیای این کتاب خیلی گستردهس. خوندنش میتونه لذت عجیبی به آدم بده که دوست دارم آدمهای زیادی این لذت رو تجربه کنن.
در نهایت ممکنه با بخشهایی از کتاب مخالف باشین. من هم بودم. ولی این ضعف این کتاب نیست. این کتاب بهمون فکر کردن به علوم سیاسی اجتماعی رو یاد میده. بهمون میگه آدمها تا الان چطوری فکر میکردن و ما چه راهها و امکاناتی برای فکر کردن داریم. مثلا بخشهای اخر کتاب که درباره فضیلتگرایی بود، خود سندل میگه که من این نظرها رو بیشتر قبول دارم. برای من هضم بعضی از نکات این فصل سخت بود، ولی فکر میکنم علت این سختفهمی دانش کم من بود. بعدها دوباره به این کتاب مراجعه خواهم کرد، باید با دوستانم به بحث بشینم، از این ابزار استفاده کنم تا ببینم واقعا حرف حساب اون بخشهایی که درک نمیکنم چیه.
امیدوارم لحظههای خوبی رو با این کتاب داشته باشین، مخصوصا این ر��زها که هوا ابریه و صبحهای سرد جون میده برای خوندن و کنکاش با مسائل همیشگیِ انسانی!
پینوشت:
من با ایده جان رالز خیلی حال کردم. رالز یه جا حرف خیلی جذابی میزنه، میگه که همه رفتارهای ما از یه تصادف بزرگ میاد. این که چه استعدادی داریم، این که چه طوری بزرگ شدیم، ارزشهامون چیه، ما توی هیچ کدومش نقش نداشتیم. پس اگر جامعه به ما حق مالکیت چیزی رو میده، ما شایستهش هستیم اما سزاوارش نیستیم. سزاوار یعنی حق مطلق من. به نظر من چرنده. ما قرارداد میکنیم که این مال منه ولی خب مالکیت به طور مطلق معنی نداره و میشه همون ناسازواری که ازش حرف میزنیم. من سزاوار مو��قیتم نیستم، من سزاوار شکستمم نیستم، چون همه اینها بر پایه تصادفه.
ممکنه عجیب به نظر بیاد این نظر، ولی خب من الان خیلی خلاصهش کردم. امیدوارم کنجکاو شید و برید دنبال کتاب :))
اول چند جلسهای از کلاسهای درس سندل رو توی دانشگاه هاروارد دیدم (در یوتوب و آپارات با زیرنویس فارسی موجود است) و خیلی ازش خوشم اومد. کسی که با بامزگی یک کمدین سوالهای اخلاقی رو طرح میکرد و از جوابهای دانشجوها به تئوریهای جدید میرسید و شدیدا روی درسی که میداد مسلط بود. طوری سوالها رو میپرسید که آدمها سوالهایی رو بکنن که در جوابش به چیزی که میخواد برسه. یه استاد به تمام معنا. اما این کتاب درباره چیه؟
اسم کتاب مشخصه، عدالت، چه باید کرد. این کتاب میخواد به ما یاد بده چطوری فکر کنیم. وقتی میخوایم تصمیم بگیریم که چیکار کنیم، وقتی میخوایم قضاوتی اخلاقی کنیم، وقتی میخوایم دنیای اطرافمون رو بسنجیم، نیازبه تفکری نقادانه داریم. باید یاد بگیریم که با چه عینکهایی میشه به دنیا نگاه کرد و مزایا و معایب هر کدوم از این عینکها رو بدونیم. باید کلی مثال ببینیم، کلی سناریو توی ذهنمون باشه که وقتی با یه موقعتی روبرو میشیم، بفهمیم این موقعیت با چه موقعیتی شبیهه، توی چه دستهای قرار میگیره، بتونیم حسابی موقعیتها رو دستهبندی و تجزیه و تحلیل کنیم. حالا ميتونیم بهترین تصمیم رو بگیریم. شایدم بفهمیم که بهترین تصمیمی وجود نداره، اما حالا که با آگاهی سراغ این تصمیم اومدیم، میدونیم که چه بیراهههایی در انتظارمونه و معایب این تصمیم چی بوده. این کتاب سیر تاریخی عدالت نیست، بلکه بیشتر به شرح و تاریخچه سه تا ایدهی بزرگ در جهان میپردازه.
ایدههای مبتنی بر فایدهگرایی، آزادیگرایی و فضیلتگرایی.
سندل در این کتاب با اوردن مثالهای زیاد تمام این ایدهها رو برای خواننده باز میکنه. آزمایشهای ذهنی رو با فاکتورهای تحت کنترل ذهن کوچیک میکنه و وقتی سعی میکنیم به این موقعیتهای فرضی جواب بدیم، میفهمیم که چهطور فکر میکنیم. وقتی بدونیم چه طور فکر میکنیم خیلی چیزا عوض میشه. همهمون بر اساس شهود قضاوتهایی داریم، و هر موقعیتی که پیش بیاد یه واکنشی نشون میدیم. اما معمولا نمیدونیم که منطق پشت این شهود چیه. اصلا منطق پشتشه؟ با خوندن این کتاب ميتونیم گامی برداریم در جهت کشف این منطقها و شهودها. این کتاب به من کمک کرد که شفافتر فکر کنم. وقتی با مسائل روز رو به رو میشم، بدونم که استدلالهای مختلفی که آدمیان جهان به این سوال دادن من رو به چه سمت و سوهایی میکشونه. خیلی خوشحالم که این کتاب رو خوندم.
مسائل جذابی توی این کتاب بررسی میشن. سربازی، سقط جنین، ازدواج همجنسها، این که آزادی چیه، فرقش با عدالت چیه، چطوری میتونیم اثبات کنیم که آزادیم و آیا آزادیم؟ کانت چی فکر میکرده، میل و رالز و دیگران چی فکر میکردن، ارسطو چطور از بردهداری دفاع میکردهو تبعیض مثبت خوبه یا بد، دروغ چیه کار اخلاقی چیه، با مهاجرا چه طوری میشه رفتار کرد و ...
دنیای این کتاب خیلی گستردهس. خوندنش میتونه لذت عجیبی به آدم بده که دوست دارم آدمهای زیادی این لذت رو تجربه کنن.
در نهایت ممکنه با بخشهایی از کتاب مخالف باشین. من هم بودم. ولی این ضعف این کتاب نیست. این کتاب بهمون فکر کردن به علوم سیاسی اجتماعی رو یاد میده. بهمون میگه آدمها تا الان چطوری فکر میکردن و ما چه راهها و امکاناتی برای فکر کردن داریم. مثلا بخشهای اخر کتاب که درباره فضیلتگرایی بود، خود سندل میگه که من این نظرها رو بیشتر قبول دارم. برای من هضم بعضی از نکات این فصل سخت بود، ولی فکر میکنم علت این سختفهمی دانش کم من بود. بعدها دوباره به این کتاب مراجعه خواهم کرد، باید با دوستانم به بحث بشینم، از این ابزار استفاده کنم تا ببینم واقعا حرف حساب اون بخشهایی که درک نمیکنم چیه.
امیدوارم لحظههای خوبی رو با این کتاب داشته باشین، مخصوصا این ر��زها که هوا ابریه و صبحهای سرد جون میده برای خوندن و کنکاش با مسائل همیشگیِ انسانی!
پینوشت:
من با ایده جان رالز خیلی حال کردم. رالز یه جا حرف خیلی جذابی میزنه، میگه که همه رفتارهای ما از یه تصادف بزرگ میاد. این که چه استعدادی داریم، این که چه طوری بزرگ شدیم، ارزشهامون چیه، ما توی هیچ کدومش نقش نداشتیم. پس اگر جامعه به ما حق مالکیت چیزی رو میده، ما شایستهش هستیم اما سزاوارش نیستیم. سزاوار یعنی حق مطلق من. به نظر من چرنده. ما قرارداد میکنیم که این مال منه ولی خب مالکیت به طور مطلق معنی نداره و میشه همون ناسازواری که ازش حرف میزنیم. من سزاوار مو��قیتم نیستم، من سزاوار شکستمم نیستم، چون همه اینها بر پایه تصادفه.
ممکنه عجیب به نظر بیاد این نظر، ولی خب من الان خیلی خلاصهش کردم. امیدوارم کنجکاو شید و برید دنبال کتاب :))
February 19, 2017
I'm going to think fondly of this book for a long long time. My copy is battered and stained and loved.
May 12, 2023
حقیقتش اینه که بچهها راست میگن. این کتاب برای من روژان ۲۲ ساله که در ایران معاصر زندگی میکنه، (با تمام محرومیتها و امتیازاتی که دارم) نوشته نشده. برای یک شهروند آمریکایی، اون هم سفیدپوستش نوشته شده. که خب لزوما چیز بدی نیست اما نسخهی خوبی هم برای من نیست.
اما من میتونم از همین کتاب هم برای خودم چیزی به یادگار بردارم. تهنشینی که احتمالا سالهای بعدی از سندل خواهم داشت، نه توضیح فلسفهی اخلاق کانت، نه بحث راجع به غایتشناسی ارسطو و نه معماهای اخلاقیش خواهد بود. چیزی که برای من میمونه اهمیت «تکتک» روایتهای فردیه. اینه که وقتی بحث «انسان» میاد وسط ما نمیتونیم یک قرارداد کلی یا یک قانون جهانشمول داشته باشیم. به اندازهی تکتک ما میتونه استثنا وجود داشته باشه و هر کدوم از این استثنائات لایق شنیدن شدن و ارزش نهادن هستند.
حالا وقتی نمیتونم قانون اخلاقی صادر کنم از من چه چیزی برمیاد؟ شنیدن، گفتمان کردن و در نهایت همدلی.
اما من میتونم از همین کتاب هم برای خودم چیزی به یادگار بردارم. تهنشینی که احتمالا سالهای بعدی از سندل خواهم داشت، نه توضیح فلسفهی اخلاق کانت، نه بحث راجع به غایتشناسی ارسطو و نه معماهای اخلاقیش خواهد بود. چیزی که برای من میمونه اهمیت «تکتک» روایتهای فردیه. اینه که وقتی بحث «انسان» میاد وسط ما نمیتونیم یک قرارداد کلی یا یک قانون جهانشمول داشته باشیم. به اندازهی تکتک ما میتونه استثنا وجود داشته باشه و هر کدوم از این استثنائات لایق شنیدن شدن و ارزش نهادن هستند.
حالا وقتی نمیتونم قانون اخلاقی صادر کنم از من چه چیزی برمیاد؟ شنیدن، گفتمان کردن و در نهایت همدلی.
June 20, 2021
مایکل سندل فیلسوف آمریکایی درکتاب عدالت چه باید کرد کوشیده است به سوالاتی مانند تعریف عدالت ، کار درست ، راه های رسیدن به عدالت و سوال های دیگری که در جریان این مباحث پیش می آیند پاسخ دهد ، موضوعاتی عمیقا فلسفی که سندل با کمک مثال ها و نمونه های زیاد تلاش کرده است درک کتاب را اندکی برای خواننده آسانتر سازد .
سندل سه دیدگاه در مورد عدالت را بیان کرده و سپس آنها را در فصلهای کتاب بسط داده و به شرح آنها از نگاه فیلسوفان مختلف پرداخته است . این سه دیدگاه عبارتند از :
1. تولید حداکثر سود و رفاه
2. عدالت همراه با احترام به آزادی
3. عدالت بر پایه فضیلت
مایکل سندل ایده تولید حداکثر سود و رفاه را از دید جرمی بنتام و جان استوارت میل بررسی کرده و نقاط ضعف و قوت آنرا می گوید ، سپس نظریه عدالت بربستر آزادی را از دیدگاه امانوئل کانت و جان رالز شرح می دهد ، هرچند که نویسنده به کانت توجه بیشتری نشان داده و عقاید او را به صورت مفصل بیان کرده است اما حتی بیان شیوا و کلام نسبتا ساده مایکل سندل از سختی ایده کانت کم نکرده است .
شاید بتوان نظر سندل را به ایده سوم یعنی عدالت بر پایه فضیلت نزدیکتر دانست ، اگرچه نویسنده این نظر را هم ناقص و معیوب می داند و آنرا ناقض آزادی و تلاش در جهت تحمیل ارزش ها به همگان می خواند .
در پایان کتاب سندل هیچ نظریه یا چهارچوب فکری روشنی را توصیه نمی کند ، اگرچه که او جامعه ای می خواهد که فضیلت در آن بوسیله گفت و گو تعیین و سپس قوانین توسط فضیلت ها وضع شوند ، ایده ای که شاید در جهان امروز که گفت و گو در آن جایی ندارد بسیار محال و دور از دسترس باشد .
کتاب عدالت چه باید کرد ؟ با جود تلاشهای بسیار نویسنده در آوردن مثال و کلام و بیان شیوا و شیرین مایکل سندل ، تا اندازه ای سخت به نظر می رسد ، با وجود آنکه من هر صفحه را تا 3 بار و با تمرکز زیاد خواندم ولی بخش قابل توجهی از کتاب برای من غیر قابل درک بود ، امیدوارم به زودی و با مطالعه دگر بار کتاب حجم بیشتری از آن را درک کنم .
سندل سه دیدگاه در مورد عدالت را بیان کرده و سپس آنها را در فصلهای کتاب بسط داده و به شرح آنها از نگاه فیلسوفان مختلف پرداخته است . این سه دیدگاه عبارتند از :
1. تولید حداکثر سود و رفاه
2. عدالت همراه با احترام به آزادی
3. عدالت بر پایه فضیلت
مایکل سندل ایده تولید حداکثر سود و رفاه را از دید جرمی بنتام و جان استوارت میل بررسی کرده و نقاط ضعف و قوت آنرا می گوید ، سپس نظریه عدالت بربستر آزادی را از دیدگاه امانوئل کانت و جان رالز شرح می دهد ، هرچند که نویسنده به کانت توجه بیشتری نشان داده و عقاید او را به صورت مفصل بیان کرده است اما حتی بیان شیوا و کلام نسبتا ساده مایکل سندل از سختی ایده کانت کم نکرده است .
شاید بتوان نظر سندل را به ایده سوم یعنی عدالت بر پایه فضیلت نزدیکتر دانست ، اگرچه نویسنده این نظر را هم ناقص و معیوب می داند و آنرا ناقض آزادی و تلاش در جهت تحمیل ارزش ها به همگان می خواند .
در پایان کتاب سندل هیچ نظریه یا چهارچوب فکری روشنی را توصیه نمی کند ، اگرچه که او جامعه ای می خواهد که فضیلت در آن بوسیله گفت و گو تعیین و سپس قوانین توسط فضیلت ها وضع شوند ، ایده ای که شاید در جهان امروز که گفت و گو در آن جایی ندارد بسیار محال و دور از دسترس باشد .
کتاب عدالت چه باید کرد ؟ با جود تلاشهای بسیار نویسنده در آوردن مثال و کلام و بیان شیوا و شیرین مایکل سندل ، تا اندازه ای سخت به نظر می رسد ، با وجود آنکه من هر صفحه را تا 3 بار و با تمرکز زیاد خواندم ولی بخش قابل توجهی از کتاب برای من غیر قابل درک بود ، امیدوارم به زودی و با مطالعه دگر بار کتاب حجم بیشتری از آن را درک کنم .
April 10, 2011
"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god."
This quote from Aristotle's Politics was new to me. It was one of many highlights in this book.
Sandel's "Justice" is organized in a very interesting way. He starts with utilitarian, then libertarian political philosophy. You might assume he's following a sequence of conservative (less sophisticated) to liberal (more sophisticated). And then, surprise, he throws three crazy detours.
Kant, Rawls, Aristotle. This is not the usual stroll through moral and political philosophy's "greatest hits".
The covert moral and political stances of so many so-called philosophers is a big reason why "Justice" feels so refreshing. You might wonder how the author votes or what his 'theoretical paradigm' is, but not for long. (He's actually pretty middle of the road.)
Oddly enough, he does have a secret agenda--a philosophical one! One thing that was a little frustrating at times: I kept expecting him to talk about actual policy making. This was because he reads his examples so thoroughly, e.g. the moral aspects of issues as difficult as affirmative action or gay marriage, I kept expecting him to say "...and so the answer is:...".
But he sticks to the script (philosophy in light of politics/ethics)--and the result is a thrilling read. A must for thoughtful people across the political spectrum.
This quote from Aristotle's Politics was new to me. It was one of many highlights in this book.
Sandel's "Justice" is organized in a very interesting way. He starts with utilitarian, then libertarian political philosophy. You might assume he's following a sequence of conservative (less sophisticated) to liberal (more sophisticated). And then, surprise, he throws three crazy detours.
Kant, Rawls, Aristotle. This is not the usual stroll through moral and political philosophy's "greatest hits".
The covert moral and political stances of so many so-called philosophers is a big reason why "Justice" feels so refreshing. You might wonder how the author votes or what his 'theoretical paradigm' is, but not for long. (He's actually pretty middle of the road.)
Oddly enough, he does have a secret agenda--a philosophical one! One thing that was a little frustrating at times: I kept expecting him to talk about actual policy making. This was because he reads his examples so thoroughly, e.g. the moral aspects of issues as difficult as affirmative action or gay marriage, I kept expecting him to say "...and so the answer is:...".
But he sticks to the script (philosophy in light of politics/ethics)--and the result is a thrilling read. A must for thoughtful people across the political spectrum.
January 23, 2023
نویسنده توی این کتاب ازدواج، خودکشی با کمک پزشک، سقط جنین، خدمات ملی، محدودیتهای اخلاقی بازارها و… در خصوص عدالت مطرح میکنه. فلسفه سیاست در مورد اخلاق و عدالت مطرح میکنه و بهمون میگه چطور آدم های بهتری باشیم. ایدههای ارسطو، جرمی بنتام، ایمانوئل کانت، جان استوارت میل، رابرت نوزیک و جان رالز در این کتاب مطرح شده در مورد عدالت.
کتاب خیلی روون و منسجم و منظم و کامل هست. خیلی هم ساده نوشته شده عالیه.
کتاب خیلی روون و منسجم و منظم و کامل هست. خیلی هم ساده نوشته شده عالیه.
April 2, 2015
On Plato's cave:
I don't think I ever before heard anyone criticize the meaning behind the metaphor of Plato's cave. It is just one of the unusual points Michael Sandel makes in this book.
As I started reading, I thought this book was going to reflect a philosopher's exploration of justice, that is, divorced from the kind of psychological slant taken by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, for example, or from a historical framework as in Jerry Muller's The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. I thought the author was simply going to explore the various philosophical schools a la Philosophy 101, along with looking at some of the implications of those approaches. Instead, as the book progressed, a trajectory emerged, hidden or unclear at times but eventually reaching a crescendo, followed by a denouement, almost like a play. I don't mind saying that much, but at the same time feel this book could be susceptible to spoilers, almost like a work of fiction. I don't want to interfere with anybody else' voyage of discovery.
By the way, we're talking about justice as morality here, as in the subtitle, What's the Right Thing to Do, not about justice as punishment and the opposite of mercy, as one sometimes hears it used. We're taking a much broader look at justice than simply "the justice system." We're talking about how goods and other valuables should be distributed, and onward from there to further points about how one should live.
In the earlier chapters we take a look at Utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) and Libertarianism (ownership of one's person and resources and the freedom to decide what to do with them as long as one isn't hurting anybody else). Those approaches and attendant difficulties if carried to their logical extremes were fairly easy to understand. Then on to market economies and whether there should be things that money can't buy. Think conscription during the American Civil War and rich people paying needier ones to serve for them. From a libertarian point of view that may be hunky-dory, but, then, what is free choice? Isn't the poor man in that situation being coerced by his financial status? What about today's volunteer army? Does allowing the market to decide the issue constitute freedom? Rousseau turned the tables on that conclusion.
Then on to a long chapter on Kant--on his moral philosophy and his ideas about freedom. Is it the ability to do anything you want, as in defying former New York Mayor Bloomberg and drinking as large a soda as you want? In the US, the Left and Right came together to condemn Bloomberg for interfering with their free choice. No! says Kant; you are just being coerced by your inner drives, in this case your sugar craving, and you are not free as long as you are following your inclinations. Doing whatever you want is being a slave to your passions. Then what is freedom? Duty, he says--doing something because it's right. Certainly, whether you get a positive charge out of doing something is not key, for, again, a positive feeling cannot be the signal you have done the right thing. Doing the right thing is the opposite of doing something to get a particular result. You need rules you have chosen, rules that would not be self-contradictory if they were universalized, and rules that treat persons as ends, not as means.
With Kant we get to talk about lies, since one of his rules is never to lie. Would you lie to a murderer to protect a friend that murderer is after? I had always thought that a misleading truth was just as bad as a lie, but there can be a principled defense of the claim that a deceptive truth is better than a bald-faced lie. The deceptive truth does not coerce or manipulate the hearer to the same extent--and in telling a deceptive truth the speaker makes obeisance to the rule against lying in a way that the bald-faced liar does not.
For the American political philosopher John Rawls, we are all parties to an implicit social contract in which we agree to what would be fair if we were blind to what our own status and position in society was going to be. With Rawls, the author gets into the intriguing area of desert, that is, what we deserve. Proceeding along those lines, we find ourselves in unfamiliar and perhaps contested territory, since if we didn't truly earn what we have, than how can we claim to deserve it? Sandel gives an example of his students, who, upon hearing these arguments, claim they do deserve their acceptance at Harvard, that they did work hard for it. Then he asks them how many of them are the first-born in their families, and it always turns out that 75 to 80% are. Research shows that first-borns have a stronger work ethic and achieve more conventional success. Did the students earn their status, or is it not just another morally arbitrary fact?
The idea of moral desert is deeply engrained. It's hard to think outside that box. Don't we bask in self-approval when fortune smiles on us and struggle with shame when it does not?
Aristotle with his focus on the purpose of things (telos) was particularly hard to understand, since we don't so much think that way. Instead of the neutrality espoused by Kant and Rawls, should governments attempt to establish what is good? Whose good? Which comes first, the good or the right? What goods/values in society are associated with respect and honor, and who is worthy of respect and honor?
From Aristotle, Sandel moves on to the fraught subject of collective responsibility. For example, should we have affirmative action? The people benefiting from it are not the ones who suffered under slavery, and in fact are likely to be middle-class rather than mired in poverty. The people taxed to pay for it are not the ones who perpetrated slavery. But, then, are there no social encumbrances on us? Is patriotism wrong? Group loyalty?
And here is where our author's narrative does intersect with historical understanding:
This book clarified some puzzles for me. I hadn't understood very well the debates over to what degree we are participating in a "social contract." Sandel helped me see that the egalitarian, individualist, voluntarian approach assumes we all have all signed on individually. It is surprising to me that libertarianism and liberalism are quite close in those matters. I also understood better what the factual versus the normative means; factual means what is and normative is what ought to be.
I gathered from the first that Michael Sandel is one of those popular professors with a large following. Apparently he's more than a big man on the campus. He's being called a "moral rock star." Here's a fun 2013 article on him from Financial Times.
I loved reading this book, and my husband liked it, too. It has given me some new ideas and better ways of thinking, and I love books that do that. We read chunks of it out loud, but also had to read alone for stretches to complete in time for a book club meeting.
...He's right, I think, but only in part. The claims of the cave must be given their due. If moral reflection is dialectical--if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in concrete situations and the principles that inform those judgments--it needs opinions and convictions, however partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall can only yield a sterile utopia. (p. 29)
I don't think I ever before heard anyone criticize the meaning behind the metaphor of Plato's cave. It is just one of the unusual points Michael Sandel makes in this book.
As I started reading, I thought this book was going to reflect a philosopher's exploration of justice, that is, divorced from the kind of psychological slant taken by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, for example, or from a historical framework as in Jerry Muller's The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. I thought the author was simply going to explore the various philosophical schools a la Philosophy 101, along with looking at some of the implications of those approaches. Instead, as the book progressed, a trajectory emerged, hidden or unclear at times but eventually reaching a crescendo, followed by a denouement, almost like a play. I don't mind saying that much, but at the same time feel this book could be susceptible to spoilers, almost like a work of fiction. I don't want to interfere with anybody else' voyage of discovery.
By the way, we're talking about justice as morality here, as in the subtitle, What's the Right Thing to Do, not about justice as punishment and the opposite of mercy, as one sometimes hears it used. We're taking a much broader look at justice than simply "the justice system." We're talking about how goods and other valuables should be distributed, and onward from there to further points about how one should live.
In the earlier chapters we take a look at Utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) and Libertarianism (ownership of one's person and resources and the freedom to decide what to do with them as long as one isn't hurting anybody else). Those approaches and attendant difficulties if carried to their logical extremes were fairly easy to understand. Then on to market economies and whether there should be things that money can't buy. Think conscription during the American Civil War and rich people paying needier ones to serve for them. From a libertarian point of view that may be hunky-dory, but, then, what is free choice? Isn't the poor man in that situation being coerced by his financial status? What about today's volunteer army? Does allowing the market to decide the issue constitute freedom? Rousseau turned the tables on that conclusion.
Then on to a long chapter on Kant--on his moral philosophy and his ideas about freedom. Is it the ability to do anything you want, as in defying former New York Mayor Bloomberg and drinking as large a soda as you want? In the US, the Left and Right came together to condemn Bloomberg for interfering with their free choice. No! says Kant; you are just being coerced by your inner drives, in this case your sugar craving, and you are not free as long as you are following your inclinations. Doing whatever you want is being a slave to your passions. Then what is freedom? Duty, he says--doing something because it's right. Certainly, whether you get a positive charge out of doing something is not key, for, again, a positive feeling cannot be the signal you have done the right thing. Doing the right thing is the opposite of doing something to get a particular result. You need rules you have chosen, rules that would not be self-contradictory if they were universalized, and rules that treat persons as ends, not as means.
With Kant we get to talk about lies, since one of his rules is never to lie. Would you lie to a murderer to protect a friend that murderer is after? I had always thought that a misleading truth was just as bad as a lie, but there can be a principled defense of the claim that a deceptive truth is better than a bald-faced lie. The deceptive truth does not coerce or manipulate the hearer to the same extent--and in telling a deceptive truth the speaker makes obeisance to the rule against lying in a way that the bald-faced liar does not.
For the American political philosopher John Rawls, we are all parties to an implicit social contract in which we agree to what would be fair if we were blind to what our own status and position in society was going to be. With Rawls, the author gets into the intriguing area of desert, that is, what we deserve. Proceeding along those lines, we find ourselves in unfamiliar and perhaps contested territory, since if we didn't truly earn what we have, than how can we claim to deserve it? Sandel gives an example of his students, who, upon hearing these arguments, claim they do deserve their acceptance at Harvard, that they did work hard for it. Then he asks them how many of them are the first-born in their families, and it always turns out that 75 to 80% are. Research shows that first-borns have a stronger work ethic and achieve more conventional success. Did the students earn their status, or is it not just another morally arbitrary fact?
The idea of moral desert is deeply engrained. It's hard to think outside that box. Don't we bask in self-approval when fortune smiles on us and struggle with shame when it does not?
Aristotle with his focus on the purpose of things (telos) was particularly hard to understand, since we don't so much think that way. Instead of the neutrality espoused by Kant and Rawls, should governments attempt to establish what is good? Whose good? Which comes first, the good or the right? What goods/values in society are associated with respect and honor, and who is worthy of respect and honor?
From Aristotle, Sandel moves on to the fraught subject of collective responsibility. For example, should we have affirmative action? The people benefiting from it are not the ones who suffered under slavery, and in fact are likely to be middle-class rather than mired in poverty. The people taxed to pay for it are not the ones who perpetrated slavery. But, then, are there no social encumbrances on us? Is patriotism wrong? Group loyalty?
And here is where our author's narrative does intersect with historical understanding:
Liberal political theory was born in an attempt to spare politics and law from becoming embroiled in moral and religious controversies. The philosophies of Kant and Rawls represent the fullest and clearest expression of that ambition. ...A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life. It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread. ...If our debates about justice invariably embroil us in substantive moral questions, it remains to ask how these arguments can proceed. Is it possible to reason about the good in public without lapsing into wars of religion? (my italics) (p. 243)
This book clarified some puzzles for me. I hadn't understood very well the debates over to what degree we are participating in a "social contract." Sandel helped me see that the egalitarian, individualist, voluntarian approach assumes we all have all signed on individually. It is surprising to me that libertarianism and liberalism are quite close in those matters. I also understood better what the factual versus the normative means; factual means what is and normative is what ought to be.
I gathered from the first that Michael Sandel is one of those popular professors with a large following. Apparently he's more than a big man on the campus. He's being called a "moral rock star." Here's a fun 2013 article on him from Financial Times.
I loved reading this book, and my husband liked it, too. It has given me some new ideas and better ways of thinking, and I love books that do that. We read chunks of it out loud, but also had to read alone for stretches to complete in time for a book club meeting.
October 11, 2017
لم أقرأه، لكن شاهدت حلقات مترجمة على شكل سلسلة للمؤلف نفسه يحمل نفس عنوان الكتاب ومحاوره، وكانت تجربة ماتعة بحق، فطريقة استعراض المؤلف واستفزازه لعقلك، ومحاولته ضخ الأدرينالين عن طريق المحاورات السقراطية الجدلية كانت جيدة جدا وأضافت لي الكثير، خصوصا لشخص مثلي لا يملك خلفية جيدة في هذا النوع من المواضيع.
January 15, 2021
."عندما اجتمعنا للمرة الأولى قبل حوالي ثلاثة عشر أسبوعا، تحدثت عن متعة الفلسفة السياسية وأيضا عن خطورتها، ولكن كيفية عمل الفلسفة كما هو شأنها دائما هو من خلال تغريبنا عن المألوف وزعزعة الفرضيات المبتوت فيها، حاولت أن احذركم من أنه بعد أن يصبح المألوف غريباً ويبدأ بالانعكاس والتأثير على ظروفنا فإنه لا يعود أبدا إلى وضعه السابق.
آمل أن تكونوا قد واجهتم حتى الآن على الأقل شيئا من هذا القلق لأن هذا القلق ينشط التأمل النقدي والتحسن السياسي وربما حتى الحياة الأخلاقية أيضا..
وبذلك ينتهي النقاش في منحى، ولكنه يستمر في منحى آخر، سألنا في البداية، لماذا تتواصل هذه المناقشات على الرغم من أنها تقود إلى أسئلة مستحيلة الحل بشكل قاطع؟ يتلخص السبب بأننا نعيش بعض الإجابات على هذه الأسئلة طوال الوقت في حياتنا العامة والشخصية.
لا يمكن تجنب الفلسفة حتى لو بدت أحيانا مستحيلة..
بدأنا بفكرة "كانط" عن أن الشكوكية توفر مكاناً مريحاً للمحاكمة العقلية البشرية حيث يمكن تأمل التساؤلات العقائدية، ولكنها لا توفر مكاناً مثيرا للاستقرار الدائم عندما نسمح لأنفسنا ببساطة بالإذعان للشك أو الرضا، لا يمكن أبدا كما كتب "كانط" أن يكون ذلك كافياً للتغلب على قلق وعدم استكانة المنطق . كان الهدف من هذا المساق الدراسي هو استثارة القلق وعدم استكانة المنطق لديكم ومعرفة إلى أين يمكن أن يؤدي ذلك. فإذا حققنا ذلك على الأقل واستمرت حالة عدم الاستكانة بإزعاجكم خلال الأيام والسنوات القادمة، في هذه الحالة نكون قد حققنا معا أمرا ملموسا وهاما".
.
هذا هو ما ختم به د.مايكل ساندل المحاضرة الأخيرة من المساق الدراسي لسلسلة العدالة ، جامعة هارفرد ..
سلسلة محاضرات في الفلسفة السياسية غاية في المتعة تناقش الأسئلة الفلسفية تدريجياً من أبسطها بداية من الجانب الأخلاقي لجريمة القتل وقضايا أكل لحوم البشر وحتى الحياة الصالحة وتترك للعقل الكثير من التفكير.
تعتبر المحاضرات بداية جيدة للقراءة في الفلسفة وأنصح بمشاهدتها..
رابط السلسلة⬇️
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=P...
Sep 13, 2020
آمل أن تكونوا قد واجهتم حتى الآن على الأقل شيئا من هذا القلق لأن هذا القلق ينشط التأمل النقدي والتحسن السياسي وربما حتى الحياة الأخلاقية أيضا..
وبذلك ينتهي النقاش في منحى، ولكنه يستمر في منحى آخر، سألنا في البداية، لماذا تتواصل هذه المناقشات على الرغم من أنها تقود إلى أسئلة مستحيلة الحل بشكل قاطع؟ يتلخص السبب بأننا نعيش بعض الإجابات على هذه الأسئلة طوال الوقت في حياتنا العامة والشخصية.
لا يمكن تجنب الفلسفة حتى لو بدت أحيانا مستحيلة..
بدأنا بفكرة "كانط" عن أن الشكوكية توفر مكاناً مريحاً للمحاكمة العقلية البشرية حيث يمكن تأمل التساؤلات العقائدية، ولكنها لا توفر مكاناً مثيرا للاستقرار الدائم عندما نسمح لأنفسنا ببساطة بالإذعان للشك أو الرضا، لا يمكن أبدا كما كتب "كانط" أن يكون ذلك كافياً للتغلب على قلق وعدم استكانة المنطق . كان الهدف من هذا المساق الدراسي هو استثارة القلق وعدم استكانة المنطق لديكم ومعرفة إلى أين يمكن أن يؤدي ذلك. فإذا حققنا ذلك على الأقل واستمرت حالة عدم الاستكانة بإزعاجكم خلال الأيام والسنوات القادمة، في هذه الحالة نكون قد حققنا معا أمرا ملموسا وهاما".
.
هذا هو ما ختم به د.مايكل ساندل المحاضرة الأخيرة من المساق الدراسي لسلسلة العدالة ، جامعة هارفرد ..
سلسلة محاضرات في الفلسفة السياسية غاية في المتعة تناقش الأسئلة الفلسفية تدريجياً من أبسطها بداية من الجانب الأخلاقي لجريمة القتل وقضايا أكل لحوم البشر وحتى الحياة الصالحة وتترك للعقل الكثير من التفكير.
تعتبر المحاضرات بداية جيدة للقراءة في الفلسفة وأنصح بمشاهدتها..
رابط السلسلة⬇️
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=P...
Sep 13, 2020
January 5, 2021
نسبت به کتابهایی که تا الان خوندم، برای من موضوع جدیدی داشت، یک سری موارد رو تکرار میکرد ولی با اینحال خستهکننده نبود. خوندن اینجور کتابها یکم زمان بیشتری میبره و نمیدونم بعدا چقدر از متن این کتاب تو ذهنم میمونه ولی امیدوارم که باعث دیدن جنبههای دیگه هر تصمیم و اتفاق (از لحاظ اخلاقی) بشه.
January 30, 2015
رحلة رائعة جداً وضرورية لكل طالب علم وقارىء ومثقف.
أسلو�� الدكتور ساندل مثير جداً وممتع. يحرّك الذهن وينمّيه.
المواضيع المطروحة في هذا الكورس كلها تتمحور حول القيم والمبادىء الأخلاقية،
وكما هو واضح من العنوان فإنها بشكل عام تتحدث وتناقش الشيء الصحيح الذي يجب علينا فعله في حالات ومعضلات أخلاقية مختلفة.
طبعاً الحلقات هي من العمق بحيث تستهلك بشكل أو بآخر طاقة كبيرة من الذهن!
بالنسبة لي كنت أحس بعدما أنهي كل حلقة بنوع من الصداع الخفيف .. اللذيذ ربما :)
أنصح بمشاهدة جميع الحلقات ..
للأهميّة.
ولكن تحذير ..
إن كان القارىء قد درس في جامعات عربية (سهلبيسيّة!!) فسوف تصيبه عدة سكتات قلبية من هول ما سيراه من روعة!!
مشاهدة ممتعة :)
April 5, 2016
Michael Sandel is something of a “moral rock star” according to the Financial Times, with hordes of acolytes the world over. It is easy for me to see why. This book, published in 2009, discusses theories of fairness and freedom that have been the basis of political discourse and civic structure in the U.S. for some fifty years, bringing us to the state of affairs we currently observe in our market-(un)regulated society. Sandel suggests that we may get twinges now and again that something is amiss in our transactional economy, with the mad rush to acquire more, and our knowing the cost of everything does not reflect the value of anything…of anything that really matters.
Sandel has a very smooth, well-practiced style filled with amusing or absorbing ethical and moral choices that have been presented to us over the years, some of which we (or the Supreme Court) may have responded to but not resolved to our satisfaction. Sandel waits for the end of his book to wade into the abortion issue, when we have been well-steeped in philosophical theory for hours. I was hoping for that. I have never bought into any of the increasingly shrill and limited arguments on either side of that debate, and felt we were missing something essential in our thinking. Sandel gently points to why the arguments of neither side satisfy our craving for justice and suggests there may be another way to look at the issue. You will need to go there to see what he suggests.
If we look at the theories of justice that have been incorporated into our thinking since Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and John Rawls (1921-2002), we have first the principle of respect for an individual because they are human with the capacity to reason (Kant) and the notion of social and economic equality and basic liberties for all (Rawls). Sandel gives lots of examples how these actually play out in a society based on the rule of law. We get tied up with some people questioning equality, and some questioning fairness. Sandel thinks we might want to look again at what Aristotle said about political philosophy. Defining rights requires us to figure out the purpose or end of the social practice in question. And justice is honorific, that is, we need to reason out what it is we are trying to achieve, what virtues we want to promote by reward.
It does seem to be a step we have skipped. We need to question and define again, together, the “good life.” We need to look at the ends, the virtues we hope to achieve by rewards of wealth or position. I would be surprised if many people did not share my sense that there is something seriously amiss in the way we are valuing both the productive capacity of the populace and our physical “plant,” that is to say, our land and resources.
Additionally, Sandel remarks on the need to restore community. Wealth disparities allow us to live apart from one another when we need to interact more; we need to see what is true and what is only imagined. We need to influence one another. In the prevailing philosophies espoused by the political parties, either the one in power or the one challenging it, something is missing, something important, like meaningful debate about who we are as people, as Americans. In this book, Sandel talks about some of those things I could sense were missing but couldn’t articulate. It has to do with values—the real ones, not the price of a Birkin bag. The lack of recognition about what is important has led us to unconscionable wealth disparities and trite but vicious debate on the political stage. Unless we address what is really important, it ultimately does not matter who wins the election. That way hell lies.
Sandel is much feted around the world for his discussions of justice, but in the Financial Times interview linked above he tells us that his ideas achieve less resonance in two countries: the United States and China. As a result of his celebrity, he has several TED talks posted on YouTube (links below) which cover some of the material in his books, and the course he teaches at Harvard is posted online as well. Sandel is very clear in expressing difficult concepts, so I recommend you go straight to him rather than take my word for it.
TED Talk on Democratic Debate
TED talk on The Moral Limits of Markets
Sandel has a very smooth, well-practiced style filled with amusing or absorbing ethical and moral choices that have been presented to us over the years, some of which we (or the Supreme Court) may have responded to but not resolved to our satisfaction. Sandel waits for the end of his book to wade into the abortion issue, when we have been well-steeped in philosophical theory for hours. I was hoping for that. I have never bought into any of the increasingly shrill and limited arguments on either side of that debate, and felt we were missing something essential in our thinking. Sandel gently points to why the arguments of neither side satisfy our craving for justice and suggests there may be another way to look at the issue. You will need to go there to see what he suggests.
If we look at the theories of justice that have been incorporated into our thinking since Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and John Rawls (1921-2002), we have first the principle of respect for an individual because they are human with the capacity to reason (Kant) and the notion of social and economic equality and basic liberties for all (Rawls). Sandel gives lots of examples how these actually play out in a society based on the rule of law. We get tied up with some people questioning equality, and some questioning fairness. Sandel thinks we might want to look again at what Aristotle said about political philosophy. Defining rights requires us to figure out the purpose or end of the social practice in question. And justice is honorific, that is, we need to reason out what it is we are trying to achieve, what virtues we want to promote by reward.
It does seem to be a step we have skipped. We need to question and define again, together, the “good life.” We need to look at the ends, the virtues we hope to achieve by rewards of wealth or position. I would be surprised if many people did not share my sense that there is something seriously amiss in the way we are valuing both the productive capacity of the populace and our physical “plant,” that is to say, our land and resources.
Additionally, Sandel remarks on the need to restore community. Wealth disparities allow us to live apart from one another when we need to interact more; we need to see what is true and what is only imagined. We need to influence one another. In the prevailing philosophies espoused by the political parties, either the one in power or the one challenging it, something is missing, something important, like meaningful debate about who we are as people, as Americans. In this book, Sandel talks about some of those things I could sense were missing but couldn’t articulate. It has to do with values—the real ones, not the price of a Birkin bag. The lack of recognition about what is important has led us to unconscionable wealth disparities and trite but vicious debate on the political stage. Unless we address what is really important, it ultimately does not matter who wins the election. That way hell lies.
Sandel is much feted around the world for his discussions of justice, but in the Financial Times interview linked above he tells us that his ideas achieve less resonance in two countries: the United States and China. As a result of his celebrity, he has several TED talks posted on YouTube (links below) which cover some of the material in his books, and the course he teaches at Harvard is posted online as well. Sandel is very clear in expressing difficult concepts, so I recommend you go straight to him rather than take my word for it.
TED Talk on Democratic Debate
TED talk on The Moral Limits of Markets
July 29, 2023
ترجمۀ افشین خاکباز رو خوندم که خوب بود. نکتۀ جذاب کتاب اینه که اخلاق و مفهوم عدالت رو در موقعیت های عملی و واقعی میذاره و جلو میبره و توضیح میده؛ که خب در این راستا بحثش درمورد ارتش های حرفه ای و مزدبگیر خیلی جالب بود برام و اینکه کلاً شکل جهان تغییر کرده. و در حیطۀ نظریه هم جان راولز رو نمیشناختم که خب خیلی خیلی خیلی خوب و جذاب معرفیش کرد و باعث شد از جان راولز خوشم بیاد و به نظرم یه متفکر راست گرای بسیار بسیار جدیه که باید خوندش و درکش کرد و نسبت بهش موضع گرف��.
October 8, 2017
Achei uma ótima introdução ao que é justiça, com exemplos, explicações claras e discussões que dão toda a margem para quem lê tirar as próprias conclusões. A falta de julgamentos óbvios, mas que enviesariam o conteúdo, foi bastante animadora.
Para discutir o que achamos justo, de onde vem nosso conceito de justiça ou vários outros tópicos mais abstratos ou relacionados ao nosso comportamento, Michael Sandel usa os conceitos propostos por filósofos para embasar a discussão. Seria uma leitura completa até 2010, mas em tempos recentes isso deixa um buraco muito claro no centro do livro. Muito dessa discussão seria resolvido (ou mesmo dispensado) com os conceitos de comportamento humano (sistemas 1 e 2) do Rápido e Devagar: Duas Formas de Pensar.
Nosso entendimento de como pensamos avançou bastante recentemente e Justice ainda foi concebido antes disso, ou sem boa parte dessa informação. Acho uma boa base sobre de onde vêm o conceito de justiça e como pensam juristas e quem trabalha com isso. Mas The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion faz um trabalho melhor de amarrar as duas pontas, como pensamos com como legislamos.
Para discutir o que achamos justo, de onde vem nosso conceito de justiça ou vários outros tópicos mais abstratos ou relacionados ao nosso comportamento, Michael Sandel usa os conceitos propostos por filósofos para embasar a discussão. Seria uma leitura completa até 2010, mas em tempos recentes isso deixa um buraco muito claro no centro do livro. Muito dessa discussão seria resolvido (ou mesmo dispensado) com os conceitos de comportamento humano (sistemas 1 e 2) do Rápido e Devagar: Duas Formas de Pensar.
Nosso entendimento de como pensamos avançou bastante recentemente e Justice ainda foi concebido antes disso, ou sem boa parte dessa informação. Acho uma boa base sobre de onde vêm o conceito de justiça e como pensam juristas e quem trabalha com isso. Mas The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion faz um trabalho melhor de amarrar as duas pontas, como pensamos com como legislamos.
June 16, 2019
"لا يمكن تحقيق مجتمع عادل بتعظيم المنفعة أو تأمين حرية الاختيار فقط. فلأجل تحقيق مجتمع عادل لا بد أن نفكر معاً في معنى الحياة الصالحة، وأن نخلق ثقافة عمومية كريمة ومرحبة بالاختلاف الذي سيحصل ولا محالة."
يتناول الكتاب كما هو واضح من عنوانه مفهوم العدالة وقيم الحق والخير والمساواة والواجب والحرية. كتاب مهم جداً يطرح العديد من التساؤلات حول موضوعات مثيرة للجدل وتمس حياتنا بشكل أساسي.
استمتعت كثيراً بقرائته.
اقتباس أعجبني ورد في مقدمة المترجم:
"إن الجنس البشري لن يتخلّص من البؤس حتى يصل الفلاسفة الحقيقيون الأصلاء إلى السلطة، أو يُصبح حكام المدن –بفضل معجزة إلهية- فلاسفة أصلاء." – أفلاطون
يتناول الكتاب كما هو واضح من عنوانه مفهوم العدالة وقيم الحق والخير والمساواة والواجب والحرية. كتاب مهم جداً يطرح العديد من التساؤلات حول موضوعات مثيرة للجدل وتمس حياتنا بشكل أساسي.
استمتعت كثيراً بقرائته.
اقتباس أعجبني ورد في مقدمة المترجم:
"إن الجنس البشري لن يتخلّص من البؤس حتى يصل الفلاسفة الحقيقيون الأصلاء إلى السلطة، أو يُصبح حكام المدن –بفضل معجزة إلهية- فلاسفة أصلاء." – أفلاطون
November 28, 2019
Quyển sách hay nhất mình đọc trong năm 2019. Được bạn giới thiệu lâu rồi mà chưa đọc, khi đi học ở HN mới có dịp đọc luôn, vì có học một môn là Công Lý. Giúp mình tăng thêm hiểu biết rất nhiều về lĩnh vực này, tăng tư duy phản biện rất nhiều, quan trọng hơn là hiểu được những cái thuộc về bản chất, cốt lõi sâu xa của những chủ nghĩa, những mô hình xây dựng xã hội khác nhau. Và quan trọng nhất là cho mình hình dung rõ ràng hơn về việc mình đang sống trong một xã hội như thế nào, và một xã hội tương lai nơi mình mong muốn đóng góp và kiến tạo, nơi mình có thể chung sống hòa bình với những người rất khác mình thì sẽ như thế nào.
September 15, 2021
"We cannot know until we try and that it always seems impossible until it is done."
A book of political philosophy and ethics, this book compares and contrasts several important approaches to justice and provides a study of different political philosophies, and simultaneously applies them to address contemporary legal and political issues. Sandel illustrates the hard moral questions we confront in our everyday lives.
The approaches to justice presented in the book fall into three categories:
1.Welfare:MaximizingWelfare( Utilitarianism)
2. Freedom : Respecting Freedom ( Libertarianism )
3. Virtue : Cultivating and promoting virtue
Chapter by chapter, Sandel has elaborated the above-mentioned approaches while parallelly identifying the primary and eminent political philosophers who held such views. One such philosopher is John Rawls, distinguished as a pre-eminent philosopher of the 20th century and who originally gave birth to the "Justice Theory". The book enables the reader to rethink their understanding of justice and practices in their morally- and religiously charged public spheres. The book also includes assorted arguments for affirmative action and the telos of a social institution.
The fact that Sandel presents his arguments in line with the views of the intellectual giants of all times - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Locke, Kant makes the reader comprehensively engaged to the book. Such profound critique, written in a reader-friendly language enables the reader to develop critical thinking and a balanced approach towards arguments.
A book of political philosophy and ethics, this book compares and contrasts several important approaches to justice and provides a study of different political philosophies, and simultaneously applies them to address contemporary legal and political issues. Sandel illustrates the hard moral questions we confront in our everyday lives.
The approaches to justice presented in the book fall into three categories:
1.Welfare:MaximizingWelfare( Utilitarianism)
2. Freedom : Respecting Freedom ( Libertarianism )
3. Virtue : Cultivating and promoting virtue
Chapter by chapter, Sandel has elaborated the above-mentioned approaches while parallelly identifying the primary and eminent political philosophers who held such views. One such philosopher is John Rawls, distinguished as a pre-eminent philosopher of the 20th century and who originally gave birth to the "Justice Theory". The book enables the reader to rethink their understanding of justice and practices in their morally- and religiously charged public spheres. The book also includes assorted arguments for affirmative action and the telos of a social institution.
The fact that Sandel presents his arguments in line with the views of the intellectual giants of all times - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Locke, Kant makes the reader comprehensively engaged to the book. Such profound critique, written in a reader-friendly language enables the reader to develop critical thinking and a balanced approach towards arguments.
September 19, 2018
نکات مثبت:
پر است از مثالهای خوب
ترتیب خلاقانهای برای بیان مکاتب اخلاقی انتخاب کرده
واضح می نویسه
مسائل اخلاقی رو موشکافانه از جنبه های متفاوت بررسی می کنه
ولی پاسخی رو به خواننده تحمیل نمیکنه
با تمام شدن کتاب، با کلی مسئلهی اخلاقی آشنا شدهاید
که با شناختی که از اصول اخلاقی پیدا کردهاید
می ت��انید مدتها حلاجیشان کنید، تا اندیشه اخلاقی خودتون رو سروشکل بدین
پر است از مثالهای خوب
ترتیب خلاقانهای برای بیان مکاتب اخلاقی انتخاب کرده
واضح می نویسه
مسائل اخلاقی رو موشکافانه از جنبه های متفاوت بررسی می کنه
ولی پاسخی رو به خواننده تحمیل نمیکنه
با تمام شدن کتاب، با کلی مسئلهی اخلاقی آشنا شدهاید
که با شناختی که از اصول اخلاقی پیدا کردهاید
می ت��انید مدتها حلاجیشان کنید، تا اندیشه اخلاقی خودتون رو سروشکل بدین
September 19, 2012
I love books like this: they challenge the mind and lead to great discussions.
Michael Sandel teaches a very popular course at Harvard entitled “Justice.” It’s available in video through the iTunes University (a phenomenal resource, I might add.) Sandel uses a series of hypothetical situations to focus the class on the different ways philosophers would have analyzed and puzzled out solutions to the problems raised in the hypotheticals. (This somewhat Socratic method is also used very effectively in several magnificent series created by Fred Friendly: The Constitution: That Delicate Balance and Ethics in America I & II - both available for free and I cannot recommend them too highly.)*
Sandel, reprises some of the major themes of that course in this fascinating book. I listened to this book as an audiobook and it’s read by Sandel who does an excellent narration. He again begins by posing several moral dilemmas and uses those as jumping off points for a discussion of the three philosophical theories and asking how they might help us decide what constitutes justice: that which provides the maximum good to the largest possible number of people; individual freedoms as opposed to collective virtues; or that which promotes the development of harmonious communities.
One example of a moral dilemma is taken from a true story. A platoon sergeant in Afghanistan was behind Taliban lines with three other soldiers on patrol when they came across two goat herders with their flock. Knowing that if they released the goat herders their position might be revealed they had to make a decision: whether to kill the goat herders and possibly save themselves, or whether to let them go and assume they were innocent civilians. They had no way to simply disable the man and boy and leave them. The sergeant polled his men and the vote was to kill them, but, examining his “Christian conscience” the sergeant decided to let them live. They were later ambushed by the Taliban and all of his men were killed and he barely escaped having been severely injured. In fact the rescue chopper sent to rescue them was shot down killing those on board. The sergeant later said he had made the wrong decision and should have killed the goat herders. Thank goodness I have never been faced with such a dilemma.
A really intriguing case was that of how we view our bodies. The Libertarian argues we own our bodies and therefore can do whatever we want with them. Can we then sell our body parts? Let’s envision the poor Indian who desperately wants to send his children to college. He sells one kidney. Problems yet? Now along comes a second child and the man is willing to sell his second kidney for his child even knowing that he cannot survive. How many of us would approve of his decision? Is he despicable? or a hero? So if he is despciable, how about the man who throws himself in front of the train to push his child out of the way who wandered on to the tracks. I suspect most people would consider him a hero, yet he is deliberately sacrificing his life for that of the child? How is that different from the Indian? A real case involved a prisoner in the Califonia prison system (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article...) who wanted to donate his remaining kidney to his daughter (the first donation had failed to take.) How is his willingness to self-sacrifice his life for his child different from the fellow with the fellow who saves his daughter from the train? The UC Ethics board denied his request. So does their decision mean that the state owns his body and can determine what to do with it? And what if a pregnant woman decided to sell (does it make a difference if it’s a donation as opposed to a sale?) her fetus? What are the rights of the state?
Sandel uses the last couple of chapters to state his own preference of what constitutes Justice. I found these the least interesting of the book. The best part if his weaving of the hypotheticals with a deep understanding of the historical and philosophical viewpoints.
Listening to this book, I was reminded of a talk I heard given by Rushworth Kidder whose point was that deciding between good and evil is easy; the hard decisions are those that require choosing between two goods each of which may have a different outcome.
My wife and I listened to this book on a trip and the dilemmas posed some very lively discussions.
* http://www.learner.org/resources/seri... and http://www.learner.org/resources/seri...
Michael Sandel teaches a very popular course at Harvard entitled “Justice.” It’s available in video through the iTunes University (a phenomenal resource, I might add.) Sandel uses a series of hypothetical situations to focus the class on the different ways philosophers would have analyzed and puzzled out solutions to the problems raised in the hypotheticals. (This somewhat Socratic method is also used very effectively in several magnificent series created by Fred Friendly: The Constitution: That Delicate Balance and Ethics in America I & II - both available for free and I cannot recommend them too highly.)*
Sandel, reprises some of the major themes of that course in this fascinating book. I listened to this book as an audiobook and it’s read by Sandel who does an excellent narration. He again begins by posing several moral dilemmas and uses those as jumping off points for a discussion of the three philosophical theories and asking how they might help us decide what constitutes justice: that which provides the maximum good to the largest possible number of people; individual freedoms as opposed to collective virtues; or that which promotes the development of harmonious communities.
One example of a moral dilemma is taken from a true story. A platoon sergeant in Afghanistan was behind Taliban lines with three other soldiers on patrol when they came across two goat herders with their flock. Knowing that if they released the goat herders their position might be revealed they had to make a decision: whether to kill the goat herders and possibly save themselves, or whether to let them go and assume they were innocent civilians. They had no way to simply disable the man and boy and leave them. The sergeant polled his men and the vote was to kill them, but, examining his “Christian conscience” the sergeant decided to let them live. They were later ambushed by the Taliban and all of his men were killed and he barely escaped having been severely injured. In fact the rescue chopper sent to rescue them was shot down killing those on board. The sergeant later said he had made the wrong decision and should have killed the goat herders. Thank goodness I have never been faced with such a dilemma.
A really intriguing case was that of how we view our bodies. The Libertarian argues we own our bodies and therefore can do whatever we want with them. Can we then sell our body parts? Let’s envision the poor Indian who desperately wants to send his children to college. He sells one kidney. Problems yet? Now along comes a second child and the man is willing to sell his second kidney for his child even knowing that he cannot survive. How many of us would approve of his decision? Is he despicable? or a hero? So if he is despciable, how about the man who throws himself in front of the train to push his child out of the way who wandered on to the tracks. I suspect most people would consider him a hero, yet he is deliberately sacrificing his life for that of the child? How is that different from the Indian? A real case involved a prisoner in the Califonia prison system (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article...) who wanted to donate his remaining kidney to his daughter (the first donation had failed to take.) How is his willingness to self-sacrifice his life for his child different from the fellow with the fellow who saves his daughter from the train? The UC Ethics board denied his request. So does their decision mean that the state owns his body and can determine what to do with it? And what if a pregnant woman decided to sell (does it make a difference if it’s a donation as opposed to a sale?) her fetus? What are the rights of the state?
Sandel uses the last couple of chapters to state his own preference of what constitutes Justice. I found these the least interesting of the book. The best part if his weaving of the hypotheticals with a deep understanding of the historical and philosophical viewpoints.
Listening to this book, I was reminded of a talk I heard given by Rushworth Kidder whose point was that deciding between good and evil is easy; the hard decisions are those that require choosing between two goods each of which may have a different outcome.
My wife and I listened to this book on a trip and the dilemmas posed some very lively discussions.
* http://www.learner.org/resources/seri... and http://www.learner.org/resources/seri...
December 18, 2020
THE Christmas present to not-so-subtly shame the people who've wronged you during the last year! :-) Jokes aside, Harvard professor and moral philosopher Sandel does an excellent job discussing ethical decision-making. Offering different perspectives and illustrating different viewpoints depending on what premises decisions are based on, he always remains engaging by giving examples and directly questioning the reader (granted, the book is based on university lectures, but don't we all know plenty of lectures that are more or less monologues?).
From Aristotle to John Rawls, Immanuel Kant and many others, Sandel takes schools of thought and concepts that at first might seem abstract and applies them to practical questions - and while some of them might be answered quite easily (is it okay to raise prices for home repairs after a severe storm?), others seem unanswerable (is it okay to kill one innocent person to save a greater number of innocent people?).
Will Sandel provide us with a general guideline for moral behavior? Oh no, we have to go on thinking for ourselves when we face moral challenges. But he inspires new ways of thinking, and that's already quite an achievement.
You can also watch Sandel's lectures on justice here.
From Aristotle to John Rawls, Immanuel Kant and many others, Sandel takes schools of thought and concepts that at first might seem abstract and applies them to practical questions - and while some of them might be answered quite easily (is it okay to raise prices for home repairs after a severe storm?), others seem unanswerable (is it okay to kill one innocent person to save a greater number of innocent people?).
Will Sandel provide us with a general guideline for moral behavior? Oh no, we have to go on thinking for ourselves when we face moral challenges. But he inspires new ways of thinking, and that's already quite an achievement.
You can also watch Sandel's lectures on justice here.
March 26, 2019
Thoughts soon.
August 2, 2023
Justice And The Good Life
Michael Sandel is Professor of Government at Harvard. His course on ethics has for many years attracted large numbers of students. His book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" likewise has brought philosophical questions in the public sphere alive to many readers. I heard Sandel give the contents of this book in a 5-CD audio set. Sandel reads clearly and slowly, and I was able to follow the presentation. Still, I greatly prefer written books to audio.
Sandel's book is insightful in the way it combines philosophical theory with discussion of contemporary political issues. He tends to move back and forth between them to show how they are related and to suggest how different ethical approaches may give different answers to ethical dilemmas. Sandel's answers to specific questions tend to be on the liberal side of the American political spectrum. There is a fluidity in his approach, however, which recognizes that ethical questions involve issues of value and worth, which are subjects of discussion and good faith disagreement.
The part of this book I most enjoyed was Sandel's exposition of great ethical philosophers. He offers careful introductions to Bentham, Mill, Kant, John Rawls, and Aristotle. Broadly speaking, Sandel distinguishes three approaches to Justice and the Good Life: 1. utilitarianism, 2. various schools emphasizing individual autonomy and freedom of choice. 3. "virtue" ethics which involves cultivating virtuous behavior and reasoning about the common good.
The third approach derives from Aristotle. It is the ethical philosophy of most appeal to Sandel. His discussion of Aristotle's politics and ethics is sympathetic and good in its emphasis on teleology -- purpose -- as a key component of human activity and in its recognition of the inherently social and political nature of human life. Sandel's approach is fresh because Aristotelianism generally has more appeal to conservative tending thinkers than to liberals. But Sandel argues for a "politics of the common good" which takes moral and spiritual concerns seriously and does not leave such issues solely in the purview of the Christian right. He rejects attempts at value neutrality -- which involve making decisions about public issues which claim to be nonjudgmental about the values of individuals. We need to come to terms with values, Sandel argues and discuss them with our fellows in a community. Politics requires moral engagement and a culture of respect.
I found much to be learned from Sandel. Sandel's discussions of specific questions of public ethics are also good but for me less interesting than his discussion of broader questions. He discusses questions such as abortion and gay marriage but he emphasizes that such difficult issues of the culture wars far from exhaust the scope of ethics. Sandel is probably more concerned with matters such as the growing inequality of income in the United States and its bad effect on our public life and on questions about the proper sphere of markets and about the place of non-market norms in ethical decision-making. He uses many examples, large and small, to illustrate his questions. For example, he discusses the philosophical parable of the "runaway streetcar" which shows some of the difficulties people tend to find with utilitarianism and about their seemingly inconsistent responses to similar ethical situations.
Sandel examines a recent Supreme Court decision brought by a professional golfer who needed to use a cart on the golf course because he was unable to walk. He sued because the professional golf association would not allow him to use his cart to play in a major tournament. The Court ruled the golfer was entitled to play. For Sandel, the case raised various ethical questions and questions about personality that involve the telos -- the purpose -- of the game of golf. Is part of the goal of golf to test the participant's capacity for strenuous physical activity (as is football, say) by walking around the course? Or is the purpose to show the player's skill in concentrating and responding to mental stress by putting the ball in the cup in as few strokes as possible? Sandel supports the player and the decision of the Court in the case by finding that golf tests the latter skill set rather than the former.
Other ethical questions, for Sandel, involve the telos -- the purpose -- of an activity and the type of human behavior that deserves to be honored. Sandel examines the debate about gay marriage and asks about the telos of marriage. Is its purpose procreative, or the celebration of love and commitment between two people regardless of gender, is it both of these, or is it something else? Sandel's own answer to this question seems rather clear. The reader or listener, however, may consider the issue using Sandel's Aristotelian framework and work to his or her own conclusion.
I was not always persuaded by Sandel's own answers to particular questions. But I enjoyed this book and the reminder it offered me of the importance of ethics and its role in public life.
Robin Friedman
Michael Sandel is Professor of Government at Harvard. His course on ethics has for many years attracted large numbers of students. His book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" likewise has brought philosophical questions in the public sphere alive to many readers. I heard Sandel give the contents of this book in a 5-CD audio set. Sandel reads clearly and slowly, and I was able to follow the presentation. Still, I greatly prefer written books to audio.
Sandel's book is insightful in the way it combines philosophical theory with discussion of contemporary political issues. He tends to move back and forth between them to show how they are related and to suggest how different ethical approaches may give different answers to ethical dilemmas. Sandel's answers to specific questions tend to be on the liberal side of the American political spectrum. There is a fluidity in his approach, however, which recognizes that ethical questions involve issues of value and worth, which are subjects of discussion and good faith disagreement.
The part of this book I most enjoyed was Sandel's exposition of great ethical philosophers. He offers careful introductions to Bentham, Mill, Kant, John Rawls, and Aristotle. Broadly speaking, Sandel distinguishes three approaches to Justice and the Good Life: 1. utilitarianism, 2. various schools emphasizing individual autonomy and freedom of choice. 3. "virtue" ethics which involves cultivating virtuous behavior and reasoning about the common good.
The third approach derives from Aristotle. It is the ethical philosophy of most appeal to Sandel. His discussion of Aristotle's politics and ethics is sympathetic and good in its emphasis on teleology -- purpose -- as a key component of human activity and in its recognition of the inherently social and political nature of human life. Sandel's approach is fresh because Aristotelianism generally has more appeal to conservative tending thinkers than to liberals. But Sandel argues for a "politics of the common good" which takes moral and spiritual concerns seriously and does not leave such issues solely in the purview of the Christian right. He rejects attempts at value neutrality -- which involve making decisions about public issues which claim to be nonjudgmental about the values of individuals. We need to come to terms with values, Sandel argues and discuss them with our fellows in a community. Politics requires moral engagement and a culture of respect.
I found much to be learned from Sandel. Sandel's discussions of specific questions of public ethics are also good but for me less interesting than his discussion of broader questions. He discusses questions such as abortion and gay marriage but he emphasizes that such difficult issues of the culture wars far from exhaust the scope of ethics. Sandel is probably more concerned with matters such as the growing inequality of income in the United States and its bad effect on our public life and on questions about the proper sphere of markets and about the place of non-market norms in ethical decision-making. He uses many examples, large and small, to illustrate his questions. For example, he discusses the philosophical parable of the "runaway streetcar" which shows some of the difficulties people tend to find with utilitarianism and about their seemingly inconsistent responses to similar ethical situations.
Sandel examines a recent Supreme Court decision brought by a professional golfer who needed to use a cart on the golf course because he was unable to walk. He sued because the professional golf association would not allow him to use his cart to play in a major tournament. The Court ruled the golfer was entitled to play. For Sandel, the case raised various ethical questions and questions about personality that involve the telos -- the purpose -- of the game of golf. Is part of the goal of golf to test the participant's capacity for strenuous physical activity (as is football, say) by walking around the course? Or is the purpose to show the player's skill in concentrating and responding to mental stress by putting the ball in the cup in as few strokes as possible? Sandel supports the player and the decision of the Court in the case by finding that golf tests the latter skill set rather than the former.
Other ethical questions, for Sandel, involve the telos -- the purpose -- of an activity and the type of human behavior that deserves to be honored. Sandel examines the debate about gay marriage and asks about the telos of marriage. Is its purpose procreative, or the celebration of love and commitment between two people regardless of gender, is it both of these, or is it something else? Sandel's own answer to this question seems rather clear. The reader or listener, however, may consider the issue using Sandel's Aristotelian framework and work to his or her own conclusion.
I was not always persuaded by Sandel's own answers to particular questions. But I enjoyed this book and the reminder it offered me of the importance of ethics and its role in public life.
Robin Friedman
August 25, 2015
Một cuốn sách không hề dễ đọc vì bàn về những vấn đề gây tranh cãi nhất hiện nay. Điều thú vị nhất tôi rút ra được từ cuốn này là CÁCH NGHĨ, CÁCH TRANH LUẬN về một vấn đề. Làm sao không ba phải, không trung lập, quan điểm mình dựa trên cơ sở nào, nguyên tắc, học thuyết nào để lập luận cho sắc bén!
Những tranh "cãi" xoay quanh những tình huống rất đời thường, và mình sẽ review lại những câu chuyện được đưa ra bàn luận trong sách. Hy vọng rằng khi dựa lại những câu chuyện này, ta gợi lại được những suy nghĩ, lập luận riêng của mình. Có những câu chuyện mình ghi lại dưới cách hành văn của mình, song vẫn giữ được cái ý cốt lõi của nó
(1) Sau trận mưa to ở SG, đường ngập lụt. Mấy ông sửa BU-GI cho xe máy hét giá 100k. Sửa không thì tùy! Vậy hành động của ông sửa xe đó là đúng hay sai?
(2) Huân chương chiến đấu anh dũng trao cho ai, giả sử chỉ một trong hai? Một chiến binh thương quên mình chiến đấu thương tật 60% cơ thể, còn một chiến binh bị ám ảnh bom đạn trên chiến trường không đêm nào ngủ thẳng giấc được?
(3) Trong khủng hoảng kinh tế 2008, gói cứu trợ 700 tỷ của chính phủ có nên được bơm vào các công ty, tập đoàn lớn? Đó là tiền thuế của dân, mà công ty làm ăn thất bại vậy mà lấy tiền dân cứu trợ những người đó? Nên hay không?
(4) Bạn đang là bác tài xe buýt mất phanh, nếu chạy thẳng đâm chết 5 người, nếu tấp vào lề tông vào 1 nhà dân giả sử sẽ làm chết 1 người, bạn sẽ làm gì?
(5) Ba binh lĩnh đang săn lùng Biladen trên một đỉnh núi của quân Biladen, thì gặp 2 anh chăn cừu cùng 1 đàn cừu đi ngang không có vũ trang? Vậy có nên bắn chết hay không? Nếu không bắn chết, có thể họ gián điệp lại cho quân Binladen sẽ truy sát lại?
(6) Có nên đồng ý hôn nhân đồng tính hay không?
(7) Có nên cộng điểm ưu tiên khi thi đại học?
(8) Người dân Mỹ thời nay có nên xin lỗi người dân Việt Nam không, vì thời chiến ông cha xưa của người Mỹ đã lầm lỗi với Việt Nam?
(9) Có được phép bán thận cứu người không?
(10) Có được phép nạo phá thai không?
(11) Có nên cấm hành nghề gái mại dâm?
(12) Có lên lấy tiền của người giàu chia bớt cho người nghèo?
(13) Trên một con tàu có 3 người + 1 đứa nhỏ học việc, vì không còn thức ăn, 3 người đó đã giết đứa nhỏ để sống sót vào bờ? Có vi phạm luật không?
(14) Đi Lính là bắt buộc hay tự nguyện? Nếu bắt buộc thì tôi có thể trả tiền cho ai đó đi lính thay được không?
(15) Mang thai hộ có được chấp nhận không?
(16) Trường đại học quyết định bán đấu giá 10% số lượng tuyển sinh cho ai trả nhiều nhất? Có được không?
(17) Giả sử anh bạn lẫn trốn về khủng bố truy nã toàn thế giới. Bạn biết anh bạn ở đâu, nhưng được phép không khai báo! Vậy bạn có khai báo không.
Qua cách lập luận đứng trên cả 2 phương diện: ủng hộ & chống đối những tình huống "éo le", "khó xử" trên. Mình hiểu được thêm suy nghĩ của mình, học được cách lập luận của tác giả, và hiểu được trường phái suy nghĩ của mình thuộc nền tảng của triết gia nào.
Hiểu 70% là đã thấy nhiều thứ mới mẻ và hay ho rồi!
Hehe!
Những tranh "cãi" xoay quanh những tình huống rất đời thường, và mình sẽ review lại những câu chuyện được đưa ra bàn luận trong sách. Hy vọng rằng khi dựa lại những câu chuyện này, ta gợi lại được những suy nghĩ, lập luận riêng của mình. Có những câu chuyện mình ghi lại dưới cách hành văn của mình, song vẫn giữ được cái ý cốt lõi của nó
(1) Sau trận mưa to ở SG, đường ngập lụt. Mấy ông sửa BU-GI cho xe máy hét giá 100k. Sửa không thì tùy! Vậy hành động của ông sửa xe đó là đúng hay sai?
(2) Huân chương chiến đấu anh dũng trao cho ai, giả sử chỉ một trong hai? Một chiến binh thương quên mình chiến đấu thương tật 60% cơ thể, còn một chiến binh bị ám ảnh bom đạn trên chiến trường không đêm nào ngủ thẳng giấc được?
(3) Trong khủng hoảng kinh tế 2008, gói cứu trợ 700 tỷ của chính phủ có nên được bơm vào các công ty, tập đoàn lớn? Đó là tiền thuế của dân, mà công ty làm ăn thất bại vậy mà lấy tiền dân cứu trợ những người đó? Nên hay không?
(4) Bạn đang là bác tài xe buýt mất phanh, nếu chạy thẳng đâm chết 5 người, nếu tấp vào lề tông vào 1 nhà dân giả sử sẽ làm chết 1 người, bạn sẽ làm gì?
(5) Ba binh lĩnh đang săn lùng Biladen trên một đỉnh núi của quân Biladen, thì gặp 2 anh chăn cừu cùng 1 đàn cừu đi ngang không có vũ trang? Vậy có nên bắn chết hay không? Nếu không bắn chết, có thể họ gián điệp lại cho quân Binladen sẽ truy sát lại?
(6) Có nên đồng ý hôn nhân đồng tính hay không?
(7) Có nên cộng điểm ưu tiên khi thi đại học?
(8) Người dân Mỹ thời nay có nên xin lỗi người dân Việt Nam không, vì thời chiến ông cha xưa của người Mỹ đã lầm lỗi với Việt Nam?
(9) Có được phép bán thận cứu người không?
(10) Có được phép nạo phá thai không?
(11) Có nên cấm hành nghề gái mại dâm?
(12) Có lên lấy tiền của người giàu chia bớt cho người nghèo?
(13) Trên một con tàu có 3 người + 1 đứa nhỏ học việc, vì không còn thức ăn, 3 người đó đã giết đứa nhỏ để sống sót vào bờ? Có vi phạm luật không?
(14) Đi Lính là bắt buộc hay tự nguyện? Nếu bắt buộc thì tôi có thể trả tiền cho ai đó đi lính thay được không?
(15) Mang thai hộ có được chấp nhận không?
(16) Trường đại học quyết định bán đấu giá 10% số lượng tuyển sinh cho ai trả nhiều nhất? Có được không?
(17) Giả sử anh bạn lẫn trốn về khủng bố truy nã toàn thế giới. Bạn biết anh bạn ở đâu, nhưng được phép không khai báo! Vậy bạn có khai báo không.
Qua cách lập luận đứng trên cả 2 phương diện: ủng hộ & chống đối những tình huống "éo le", "khó xử" trên. Mình hiểu được thêm suy nghĩ của mình, học được cách lập luận của tác giả, và hiểu được trường phái suy nghĩ của mình thuộc nền tảng của triết gia nào.
Hiểu 70% là đã thấy nhiều thứ mới mẻ và hay ho rồi!
Hehe!
December 17, 2018
کتابی بسیار جذاب و خواندنی از مایکل سندل فیلسوفِ سیاسی دانشگاه هاروارد که کلاسهای پرجمعیت و پر بار او مشهور است، کلاسهایی که علیرغم تعداد زیاد دانشجو، بخوبی از طرف استاد کنترل می شود و با مباحثی شیرین و جذاب بر غنای علمی دانشجویان می افزاید، قابل توجۀ پاره ای از اساتیدِ داخلی که چون قابلیت و سوادِ بحث با دانشجویان را ندارند همواره خواهانِ کلاسی بی سروصدا و ساکت هستند، هر چند که حفظِ موقعیتِ شغلی نیز در این آشفته بازار مزید برعلت شده است
سندل با طرح کردن پرسش هایی، گفتمانِ فایده گرایی را به چالش می کشد، گفتمانی که توسطِ جرمی بنتام پایه گذاری شد و توسطِ استوارت میل به تکامل رسید
از طرفِ دیگر سندل علاقه و احترام خود به کانت را نمی تواند مخفی کند و او را یکی از پرقدرت ترین و پرنفوذترین فیلسوفان عصر حاضر می داند و معتقد است که پاسخ های کانت، کلِ فلسفۀ اخلاق و سیاست را تحت تاثیر قرار داده است
سندل در این کتاب با پیش کشیدنِ موضوعاتی مانند عدالت و بیعدالتی، برابری و نابرابری، حقوق فردی و خیرهمگانی و... میکوشد برای بسیاری از پرسش ها، پاسخی مناسب بیابد
و با وادار کردنِ دانشجویان به تفکرِ انتقادی، سعی در القای این مفهوم دارد که دانشجویان آگاه باشند که چرا چنین می اندیشند
به عقیدۀ سندل، همیشه امکانِ تعریفِ حقوق و تکالیف، بدون طرح مسائل مهم اخلاقی، وجود ندارد ، حتی اگر وجود داشته باشد ممکن است مطلوب نباشد
سندل همچنین معتقد است که هر کسی وقتی می تواند به کشور خود و تاریخش افتخار کند که از پذیرش و انتقالِ گذشتۀ تاریخی کشورش به زمان حال و حمل بار اخلاقی همراه آن سرباز نزند و اگرفرضا چند دهه قبل، سیاستمدارانِ کشورش در حقِ مردم کشور دیگری اجحافی روا داشته اند، برعهدۀ مردمِ کنونی است که از مردمِ کشور موردِ ظلم قرار گرفته عذر خواهی کنند، هرچند مردمانِ معاصر در آن خطاکاری، نقشی نداشته اند
چهارده جلسه از کلاسهای درسی سندل را در سایت زیر می یابید
http://goo.gl/4x9grC
از متن کتاب:
در شهروندیِ موردِ نظر ارسطو، زنان مشروعیت نداشتند و همینطور بردگان، ارسطو معتقد بود که طبیعتِ آنها مناسبِ شهروندی نیست
برده داری در آمریکا در سال 1865 برچیده شد و زنان آمریکا در سال 1920 حق رای بدست آوردند، اما استمرارِ این بی عدالتی ارسطو را تبرئه نمی کند
بین درستکاری به خاطر درستکاری، و درستکاری به خاطر کسب سود تفاوت هست، اولی یک موضوعِ اصولی است و دومی یک موضعِ مصلحتی
زندگی در جوامع مردمسالار سرشار از اختلاف نظر درباره درست و نادرست، عدالت و بیعدالتی است. برخی طرفدار حق سقط جنیناند و برخی دیگر این کار را قتل میدانند. برخی بر این باورند که عدالت حکم میکند از ثروتمندان به نفع مستمندان مالیات بگیریم، ولی برخی دیگر عقیده دارند که مالیات گرفتن از پولی که افراد با تلاش خود به دست میآورند درست نیست
ارسطو به ما میآموزد که عدالت به معنای این است که هر فردی آنچه را شایسته است، به دست آورد
و برای تعیین این که چه کسی سزاوار چه چیزی است، باید معلوم کنیم که کدام فضیلتها سزاوار افتخار و پاداشاند
ارسطو می گوید که بدون اندیشیدن درباره مطلوب ترین شیوۀ زندگی، نمیتوانیم بفهمیم که چه قانونی عادلانه است، به نظر او، قانون نمیتواند در برابر مسائل مربوط به شیوۀ درست زندگی بیطرف باشد
سندل با طرح کردن پرسش هایی، گفتمانِ فایده گرایی را به چالش می کشد، گفتمانی که توسطِ جرمی بنتام پایه گذاری شد و توسطِ استوارت میل به تکامل رسید
از طرفِ دیگر سندل علاقه و احترام خود به کانت را نمی تواند مخفی کند و او را یکی از پرقدرت ترین و پرنفوذترین فیلسوفان عصر حاضر می داند و معتقد است که پاسخ های کانت، کلِ فلسفۀ اخلاق و سیاست را تحت تاثیر قرار داده است
سندل در این کتاب با پیش کشیدنِ موضوعاتی مانند عدالت و بیعدالتی، برابری و نابرابری، حقوق فردی و خیرهمگانی و... میکوشد برای بسیاری از پرسش ها، پاسخی مناسب بیابد
و با وادار کردنِ دانشجویان به تفکرِ انتقادی، سعی در القای این مفهوم دارد که دانشجویان آگاه باشند که چرا چنین می اندیشند
به عقیدۀ سندل، همیشه امکانِ تعریفِ حقوق و تکالیف، بدون طرح مسائل مهم اخلاقی، وجود ندارد ، حتی اگر وجود داشته باشد ممکن است مطلوب نباشد
سندل همچنین معتقد است که هر کسی وقتی می تواند به کشور خود و تاریخش افتخار کند که از پذیرش و انتقالِ گذشتۀ تاریخی کشورش به زمان حال و حمل بار اخلاقی همراه آن سرباز نزند و اگرفرضا چند دهه قبل، سیاستمدارانِ کشورش در حقِ مردم کشور دیگری اجحافی روا داشته اند، برعهدۀ مردمِ کنونی است که از مردمِ کشور موردِ ظلم قرار گرفته عذر خواهی کنند، هرچند مردمانِ معاصر در آن خطاکاری، نقشی نداشته اند
چهارده جلسه از کلاسهای درسی سندل را در سایت زیر می یابید
http://goo.gl/4x9grC
از متن کتاب:
در شهروندیِ موردِ نظر ارسطو، زنان مشروعیت نداشتند و همینطور بردگان، ارسطو معتقد بود که طبیعتِ آنها مناسبِ شهروندی نیست
برده داری در آمریکا در سال 1865 برچیده شد و زنان آمریکا در سال 1920 حق رای بدست آوردند، اما استمرارِ این بی عدالتی ارسطو را تبرئه نمی کند
بین درستکاری به خاطر درستکاری، و درستکاری به خاطر کسب سود تفاوت هست، اولی یک موضوعِ اصولی است و دومی یک موضعِ مصلحتی
زندگی در جوامع مردمسالار سرشار از اختلاف نظر درباره درست و نادرست، عدالت و بیعدالتی است. برخی طرفدار حق سقط جنیناند و برخی دیگر این کار را قتل میدانند. برخی بر این باورند که عدالت حکم میکند از ثروتمندان به نفع مستمندان مالیات بگیریم، ولی برخی دیگر عقیده دارند که مالیات گرفتن از پولی که افراد با تلاش خود به دست میآورند درست نیست
ارسطو به ما میآموزد که عدالت به معنای این است که هر فردی آنچه را شایسته است، به دست آورد
و برای تعیین این که چه کسی سزاوار چه چیزی است، باید معلوم کنیم که کدام فضیلتها سزاوار افتخار و پاداشاند
ارسطو می گوید که بدون اندیشیدن درباره مطلوب ترین شیوۀ زندگی، نمیتوانیم بفهمیم که چه قانونی عادلانه است، به نظر او، قانون نمیتواند در برابر مسائل مربوط به شیوۀ درست زندگی بیطرف باشد
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,243 reviews