Michael J. Sandel explains how there are three different approaches to justice: well-being, virtue, and freedom. The theme of the book is how and what is considered moral. It introduces different perspectives on morality and we, the readers, are given insight into what people from different groups consider the rights and wrongs of morality. Some of these different beliefs are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the different views of philosophers. The first five chapters give us a unique perspective of how each of them perceives morality and the reasons behind their thinking. When Justice was published in 2009, it was at a time when people's natural rights were being questioned. For example, the LGBT community and its marriage rights were condemned, but was it right to deny them? According to libertarians, it was wrong because "it is their body and their mind" that can choose to love whoever they want, regardless of gender. The contents of Justice are still relevant today. Every day is a battle, as we have to decide whether what we stand for is moral or not. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first chapter of Justice begins by recounting the details of Hurricane Charley and how many people were devastated by the disaster it left in its wake. Individuals and families were left without shelter and electricity, many people had to go out and buy supplies. However, when they went to buy the things necessary for their survival, they were faced with higher prices. Businesses had increased the prices of their goods and services and had taken advantage of the devastation created by the hurricane. This is where Sandel introduces the question of morality. Were the companies right to increase prices in those circumstances or were they wrong to take advantage of people in difficulty? When word spread of what was happening, many were outraged. According to Sandel, the anger many expressed was toward injustice. That in difficult times we should come together and help each other instead of taking advantage of each other. Another example introduced by Sandel is the issue of the purple heart. The Purple Heart is given to soldiers who have suffered physical wounds on the battlefield, but not psychological injuries. Mental illnesses like PTSD aren't given a purple heart because it's not visible. Is it right to ignore non-visible injuries? Sandel also presents the trolley dilemma where he puts the reader in a situation where his morality is tested. The second chapter discusses utilitarianism and what is best for the majority. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the doctrine of utilitarianism, emphasized the importance of maximizing happiness. In this “we are governed by feelings of pain and pleasure”. (p. 34) Bentham's idea of ​​utilitarianism is structured in such a way that any decision made must be made with the happiness of the majority in mind. However, the majority is not always right. Sandel provides an example of how something done for the majority can be considered controversial. In ancient Rome, the Romans threw Christians into the lions' den as a form of entertainment for the masses. The argument is that even if many people find viewing entertaining, does that make it morally right? Sandel then continues by talking about the possibility or otherwise of attributing value to life. Should we care more about the product than the people who use it? John Stuart Mills argues that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't impact others. Chapter three introduces libertarianism, which is the belief in free will. That you can do anything you want,considering that it does not harm others. Robert Nozick, a philosopher, defends libertarianism by stating that “no one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do” (p. 62). An example would be Michael Jordan and whether or not he should be taxed more because he is part of the one percent. Libertarians would argue that he shouldn't be forced to pay more taxes because he earned his wealth by working hard for it. Libertarians also believe that we own ourselves and that we should be able to decide what to do with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone. Chapter four is about the economic market and how we behave. Two main examples are provided in this chapter: military conscription and surrogacy. There are three forms of conscription: the first is compulsory conscription, where you have no choice, the hybrid Civil War system, where you can pay or replace yourself, and the volunteer army. Many prefer the volunteer system because it seems fairer. On the second example, surrogacy, many argue that it is not right to use one's life as a means of exchange. It is not right to value life, because surrogacy degrades the life of the child. Finally, chapter five focuses on Immanuel Kant and how he views morality. He believes that for something to be morally right, it's not the outcome of what you did that matters, but why you did it. That something should be done because it is the right thing to do and not for personal gain. For example, the shopkeeper who did not take advantage of the child and made him pay the usual price. In this example, the shopkeeper lacks morality because he only charged the child the normal price to save his reputation, not because it was the right thing to do. EvaluationThe first chapter gives us the basis of the book which is "what is morality?". Sandel gives us several scenarios in which he puts readers in the position of deciding what is right or wrong. I don't think it's right for businesses to take advantage of people affected by a natural disaster. Instead of trying to profit from someone's misery, we should come together and help each other in times of need. As for the Purple Heart debate, I believe veterans, whether it's a physical or mental injury, should receive a Purple Heart. They fought for our country, showed courage in times of danger, and should be rewarded for their service. In the cart scenario, I don't know what decision I would make. Sacrificing one person for so many others is not an easy decision for me to make. If it came down to it, I know what I would do, but is it right? This chapter gave me a lot to think about and different perspectives to take into account. Chapters two and three offer readers two different perspectives on morality. In chapter two Sandel talks about utilitarianism and how sacrificing the one for the good of the many is the right path. That would be fine if you were part of the majority, but not everyone does. In a utilitarian world there are no individual rights because it is always about what is best for the majority. Is it right for a person to be in misery if it means others will live in peace? For example, the city of happiness. All the citizens know about the child who will live in poverty and it is because of that child that their city is a perfect utopia. I don't think this is fair, even if it means I can live in a utopia because everyone should have the same chances in life, whether it's good or bad. Chapter three is about libertarianism which focuses on the rights of the individual. Because it is self-focused, we are in control of our bodies and what we choose to do with them. I believe this is true, but to what extent. If one is free to.