James Donnelly, DSW, LCSW

In what initially may seem like an unlikely companion to Coasting in the Countertransference,* Michael Sandel’s work  Justice: What’s the right thing to do? takes considering the dilemmas and conflicts of self interest to a broader and more profound level.  This compressed presentation of Sandel’s very popular course at Harvard, guides us through his explorations of  two major approaches to ethics (Utilitarianism and Libertarianism) and three major philosophers (Kant, Rawls and Aristotle).  He believes Kant and Rawls, as well as these two approaches to ethics, are having a significant influence on the ethical and political debates in our society today. What is remarkable in this work is that he keeps readers, who may not be particularly versed in these philosophies, engaged and involved – right to the end. Incidentally, the chapters on Kant, Rawls and Aristotle are excellent and inviting introductions to anyone drawn to pursue them in more depth. The work certainly magnifies their relevance to the political and moral issues we and our clients experience on a daily basis.

It is clear throughout, as he pursues confronting the dilemmas we all face, Sandel is presenting a view of his own; but what that  view is doesn’t become clear until the last chapter.

He draws out for us the basic assumptive ground for each approach and for each philosopher; the building block upon which each raises its approach to ethical issues. For the Utilitarians, it is what brings the most pleasure to the most people; for the Libertarians, it is the absolute value of the free choice of the individual. Kant looks for his foundation in what he considers the unique absolute for all men: the capacity for reason. Rawls, who builds upon  and attempts to apply Kant  to contemporary American society, uses a “thought experiment” (the veil of ignorance) to build an assumption of universal equality from which we could conceive the basic grounding values of ethics. Through each of these approaches, and by attempting to apply them to contemporary issues such as affirmative action, gay rights to marry and stem cell research, he bumps into what he considers their fundamental limitation: their  attempt to anchor ethics in an abstraction of non contextual and neutral value.

In  Sandel’s view, the foundations of ethics cannot be established outside the concrete realities of our differences and our being communal beings.  He brings this point to the fore by highlighting the absence, in these prior approaches,  of our dilemmas of loyalty and solidarity; dilemmas that are obviously important in our family and community lives. To address this lack and to reach for a more adequate formulation, Sandel turns to the political philosophy of  Aristotle.

Introducing Aristotle to address these limitations brings into the discussion the validity of purpose or teleological thinking in ethics. Ideas such as the theory of natural law or that goodness and value of our actions are measured by conformity to their ends or purpose, have long been discarded by the dominance of  scientific thinking and an evolutionary view of reality today. It is Sandal’s contention, however,  that considerations of the science of the physical world, and our relationships with each other are of completely different orders. In a profound insight into that difference, he posits the  uniqueness of our human reality. not in each individual person’s capacity for reason or free choice, but in our intrinsically communal capacity and need  to create narrative. The unique value of each and every person is anchored in our capacity for speech and our need for meaning; a capacity and need that is intrinsically communal.

Sandel’s consideration of Justice posed by the original question: what’s the right thing to do? brings us, at the end of this journey, to an unanticipated twist: before we can know what’s the right thing to do, we must first confront the issue of what things mean. Why? Because we are speaking beings of the word and we can only truly mean something to ourselves in the context of what we mean to each other. If I understand him correctly, the ultimate purpose or end of our behaviors, individually and in attempting to structure our society, abides in our continuous attempts to create more inclusive narratives within which we conduct our lives together.

That is the ultimate meaning and purpose of our reach for what is just.

For thoughts and comments, please send to: jdonnellydsw@gmail.com

©  2010 James Donnelly, DSW.LCSW

All rights reserved

South Garden Press, New York