A difficult book to read because it addresses today's most contentious issues. The most intriguing thing I've learned from this book is HOW TO THINK AND DISCUSS an issue. How not three correct, not neutral, on what grounds, principles, and theories to arguing for sharp!
The "controversies" are based on very real-life situations, and I'll go over the stories discussed in the book. When we rely on these stories, we should be able to recall our own thoughts and arguments. There are some stories that I record in my writing style but keep the core idea of.
- The road in Singapore flooded after heavy rain. Guys who fix BU-GI for motorbikes scream for 100$. Whether you fix it or not! So, is his decision to repair the car correct or incorrect?
- Who receives the heroic battle medal, assuming only one of the two? A selfless warrior fights with 60% of his body injured, while a bomb-obsessed warrior on the battlefield can't sleep?
- Should the government's $700 billion bailout package be injected into large companies and corporations during the 2008 economic crisis? It's the people's tax money, but the company fails to do business while taking the money from the people to help those people? Should you do it?
- You are a bus driver who has lost control of your vehicle. If you run straight and kill 5 people, what will you do? If you pull over and hit a house and kill 1 person, what will you do?
- Three soldiers of the Bladen army were hunting Biladen on a mountain top when they came across two shepherds and a flock of sheep passing by unarmed. So, should you shoot or not shoot? If they don't shoot and kill, could they be spies for Bin Laden's army to pursue?
- Should same-sex marriage be permitted?
- Should the university entrance exam include priority points?
- Should Americans apologize to the Vietnamese people today because their forefathers made mistakes with Vietnam during the war?
- Is it legal to sell a kidney to save lives?
- Is abortion legal?
- Should prostitution be prohibited?
- Is it permissible to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor?
- On a ship with three people and one apprentice, because there was no food left, those three people killed the child to make it to shore? Is there a legal violation?
- Is military service mandatory or optional? Can I pay someone to join the army instead if I have to?
- Is surrogacy legal?
- The university decides to auction off 10% of the enrollment to the highest bidder. Is it conceivable?
- Assume your friend is a wanted terrorist around the world. You know where your friend is, but don't say anything! So, what are your intentions?
Even though I knew this was a difficult question before reading the book. However, after reading the book, I realize that this is not a difficult question to answer. It is a question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered.
What do you think of the following example:
Four British sailors were floating in a small lifeboat in the South Atlantic Ocean in the summer of 1884, more than 1,600 kilometers from land. After 20 days of starvation, the three sailors decided to kill and eat the apprentice boy to survive, and they were saved on the 24th day. They were arrested and tried upon their return to England. They admitted to killing and eating Parker and claimed to have done so in self-defense.
You can back up the preceding statement by arguing that it is preferable to sacrifice one person to save three others than to lose all four. But what if you are a member of the boy's family?
In all matters of justice, regardless of the outcome, there will be some point of disagreement with the judgment, regardless of who pronounces it - a judge or a crowd. Do you understand why?
Michael Sandel's studies of philosophical schools dating back to antiquity have yielded three approaches to justice:
- Justice is maximizing utility or welfare - the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism). On this basis, the example above supports the sacrifice of one person to save three people (the interests of 3 people are more than the interests of boy Parker alone).
- Justice is the respect for the right to choose, whether that choice is made in an individual free market (the libertarian view) or a hypothetical choice people make in a state of affairs. initial equality (the liberal democratic view of equality). This is an example of an argument: Bill Gates is one of the world's wealthiest people. America also has a significant wealth disparity. Assume we take Bill Gates' $1 million and distribute it to 100 poor people, each receiving $10,000. The total happiness of these 100 people will increase and be greater than the sadness of Bill Gates losing one million dollars. This is a utilitarian case. This utilitarian logic can lead us to redistribute wealth until the last dollar we take from Gates irritates him as much as the receiver. Obviously, no one agrees with this argument. Opponents argue that accepting Gates' money when they disagree, even if they have a valid reason, is coercive. These fundamentalists believe that each of us has a fundamental right to freedom. We have the right to do whatever we want with our property as long as we respect the rights of others to do the same. As a result, they have the right to do whatever they want as long as they respect the freedom of others. But is it true that the opinions they hold are their own, uninfluenced by the community in which they live?
- The exchange of virtues and reasoning about the common good constitutes justice. This thesis explains patriotism, national pride (or shame), family, and so on.
Michael Sandel has introduced many views of many philosophers, from ancient times like Plato and Aristotle, medieval-like Lock, and modern like Kant and Rawls, to give readers a multi-dimensional view of justice, fairness, right and wrong. He also illustrated many stories about wealth distribution, military service, surrogacy, same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, and even America's Vietnam War.
What I find important about this book is that, because of the stories and issues it raises, I thought I had definitive answers to many of the questions, but it turned out that I didn't. so. Things are more complicated than we think, and there is no perfect solution.
The writing is coherent and the language is completely clear, explaining the philosophers' concepts and integrating them with typical real-life phenomena. It is excellent as an example to illustrate and analyze for theoretical lectures.
According to this book, arguing right versus wrong with another person is pointless if the two people arguing are on opposing sides of the justice spectrum. This allows me to see an issue from multiple perspectives; accept and value differences in others.
Finally, this book made me appreciate philosophy even more. These are the perennial life questions. It is as close to and necessary as breathing. A philosopher can be anyone.