Michael J. Sandel explains that there are three different approaches to justice: welfare, virtue, and freedom. The theme of the book is how and what is considered moral. It presents several perspectives on morality and we, as readers, gain insight into what people from different groups consider the right and wrong of morality. Some of these different beliefs are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the views of different philosophers. The first five chapters give us a unique perspective on how each of them views morality and the reasons behind their thinking. When Justice was published, in 2009, it was at a time when natural human rights were being questioned. For example, the LGBT community and their marriage rights are condemned, but was it right to deny them? According to one libertarian, this was a mistake because “it is their body and their mind” that can choose to love whoever they want, regardless of their gender. The content of Justice is still relevant today. Every day is a struggle, in the sense that we must decide whether what we stand for is moral or not. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The first chapter of Justice begins by recounting the details of Hurricane Charley and the number of people devastated by the disaster it left in its wake. Individuals and families were left without shelter or electricity, and many people had to go out and buy supplies. However, when they went to buy things necessary for their survival, they encountered higher prices. Businesses raised the prices of their goods and services and took advantage of the devastation caused by the hurricane. This is where Sandel raises the question of morality. Were companies right to raise prices in these circumstances or were they wrong to take advantage of people in distress? When news of what was happening came to light, many were outraged. According to Sandel, the anger expressed by many was directed at 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 question of the purple heart. The Purple Heart is awarded to soldiers who have suffered physical injuries on the battlefield, but not psychological injuries. Mental illnesses such as PTSD do not receive a purple heart because it is not visible. Is it right to overlook injuries that are not visible? Sandel also presents the trolley dilemma in which he places the reader in a situation where their morality is tested. The second chapter deals with 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 the feelings of pain and pleasure.” (p. 34) Bentham's idea of ​​utilitarianism is structured in such a way that any decision must be made with the happiness of the majority in mind. However, the majority is not always right. Sandel gives an example of how something is done for the majority that can be considered controversial. In ancient Rome, the Romans threw Christians into the lions' den to entertain the masses. The argument is that even if many people find the display enjoyable, does that make it morally right? Sandel then goes on to question whether or not we can place a value on life. Should we care more about the product than the people using it? John StuartMills maintains that anyone can do whatever they want as long as it does not impact others. Chapter three introduces libertarianism, which is the belief in free will. That we can do whatever we want, as long as 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" (p. 62). An example would be Michael Jordan and whether or not he should be taxed more because he is part of the 1 percent. Libertarians would say that he should not be forced to pay more taxes because he earned his wealth by working hard for it. Libertarians also believe that we own ourselves and 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. In this chapter, two main examples are given: military conscription and surrogacy. There are three forms of conscription: conscription, where you have no choice, the hybrid system of civil war, where you can pay or replace, and the volunteer army. Many prefer the voluntary system because it seems fairer. Second example, surrogacy. Many people argue that it is not fair to use one's life as a medium 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 his view of morality. He believes that for something to be morally right, it is not the result of what you did, but why you did it. You have to do something because it is the right thing to do and not for personal gain. For example, the merchant who did not take advantage of the child and charges him the usual price. In this example, the merchant lacks morality because he only charged the child the usual 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 offers us different scenarios in which he puts readers in a position to decide what is good or bad. I don't think it's right for companies to take advantage of people affected by a natural disaster. Instead of trying to take advantage of someone's misery, we should come together and help each other when we need it. For the purple heart debate, I believe veterans, whether it is a physical or mental injury, should receive a purple heart. They fought for our country, showed bravery in times of peril, and should be rewarded for their service. In the streetcar scenario, I don't know what decision I would make. Sacrificing one person for the benefit of many is not an easy decision for me to make. If it came to that, I know what I would do, but is it true? This chapter gave me a lot to think about and different perspectives to consider. Chapters two and three give readers two different perspectives on morality. In chapter two, Sandel talks about utilitarianism and how sacrificing one for the good of the many is the right path. It would be nice if you were part of the majority, but that's not the case for everyone. In a utilitarian world, there are no individual rights because it is always about what is best for the majority. Is it right for one person to be in misery if it means that others will live in peace? For example, the city of happiness. All citizens know the child who will live in poverty and it is because.