第二名
姓  名 林 容 學  校 天主教曉明女中 年  級 一 年 丙 班

 

 

Justice

What’s the right thing to do? This question drifts through our mind every time we deliberate over a decision, and we all have our own theories of why one choice is superior to the other. Long have I been fascinated by the motives and reasons behind an action. This curiosity is why I was ensnarled the moment I flipped open Professor Michael Sandel’s book, Justice.

Upon turning over the flyleaf of the book, the author took me on a journey exploring the definition of “just” and trying to seek a “once and for all” principle that people can follow to justify their actions. Over the course of this expedition, I encountered the three approaches to justice: welfare, freedom, and virtue. The author supported each approach with doctrines of renowned political philosophers, including Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls. Using various examples, Professor Sandel illustrated how each theory works and the dilemmas each faces. He explained ideas such as utilitarianism, libertarianism, and communitarianism. Toward the end of this philosophic journey, the author revealed his inclination to the third approach of justice, virtue. He then ended the book by stating that public moral engagement “is a more promising basis for a just society.”

Before reading Justice, the abstract and tedious wording of philosophic books had long prevented me from venturing into this realm. However, Professor Michael Sandel offered a completely different reading experience. His charisma lies in his ability of turning complicated philosophical ideas into a variety of easy-to-understand real-life examples. In this book, the illustrations range from military service, the right to use a golf cart, and even to Winnie-the-Pooh. Through these examples, I gradually began to understand the three approaches to justice.

The first approach was welfare. At first, I easily embraced the idea of utilitarianism. Maximizing utility seems to be the right and just thing to do. We tend to make decisions that make the most people content. However, I shuddered to apply this idea to the Coliseum fights in ancient Rome. How could this be justified by stating that the collective ecstasy of the spectating crowd surpasses the suffering of the Christians thrown to the lions? Utilitarianism can seriously breach individual or minority rights. Therefore, I now do not think this theory can justify one’s actions.

Abandoning utilitarianism, I turned to the next approach, one stating that freedom should be the core of justice. Libertarians claim that we have the right to do whatever we want with our things, as long as we respect other’s right to do so. I totally agree with this idea. However, how far does this right extend to? If we are free to sell one of our kidneys in exchange for money, can a person kill himself by selling two kidneys in want of money for his family? I believe un-restrained liberty would ruin many values and replace them all with money. Therefore, I do not take the libertarian idea of justice.

Eliminating the first two options, I was left with the third and last approach, virtue. As Aristotle proposed, a just society distributes resources in a way that promotes virtue. However, how do we define virtue and vice? I believe it requires public discussion. Whenever a controversial issue arises, people should actively engage themselves in public discussions. Although it is challenging to debate about moral questions rationally, I hold that it is still an essential aspect of a just society.

Closing the book, I tried to subside the storm it had stirred inside my head. Professor Sandel overwhelmed me with brand new ways of considering an issue. I was encouraged to reconsider some of my past assumptions, and was surprised by the new ideas that sprang forth. Although this book offered no concrete answer to the question of justice, it reveals several paths leading to it. From now on, I will follow these trails and endeavor on my own quest for justice.