Elizabeth Harson:  Responding to Michael Sandel on Justice.

Michael Sandel was definitely a professor who challenged his students to “think” and take a stand on issues.  He gave the students scenarios and then posed questions.  Asking: Would you kill one for the sake of five?  Would you kill one for the sake of three?  Would you kill one for the sake of 300?  He gave a different scenario for each situation and watched how some students changed their minds based on the situation and circumstance for each. 

He states, the right thing depends on the consequences that will result from the action.  Defining two categories: 

1.   Consequentialist:  locates morality in the consequences of an act.

2.   Categorical:  locates morality in certain duties and rights.

Then he talked about when making decisions we have warnings of personal and political that affect our decisions.  Philosophy teaches and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.  He explains that self-knowledge is like lost innocence, it can never be unknown. 

He believes moral judgment is story of ourselves both personal and political.  Personal being about you and political being, will it make you a better or worse citizen.

He talked about Maximum Utility being a balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering and we base our decisions on these theories. 

At the end he posed these questions:

     1.    Do we have certain fundamental rights?

     2.    Does a fair procedure justify any results?

     3.    What is the moral work of consent?

   

    It was very interesting and there was great discussions.  As a professor/teacher he engaged his students and challenged them to really think about where they stand on every day issues as well as the more difficult ones.  I realized how important it is to have some self-awareness and an abundance of self-knowledge when making decisions that have an impact on others.