What do you think?
Rate this book
ปรัชญาสาธารณะ
การทำแท้งเท่ากับการพรากชีวิตคนหรือไม่?
คู่รักเกย์ควรมีสิทธิทัดเทียมกับคู่รักต่างเพศไหม?
การตัดต่อพันธุกรรมมนุษย์เป็นเรื่องสมควรแล้วหรือ?
ไมเคิล แซนเดล ปรมาจารย์ด้านปรัชญาการเมืองแห่งมหาวิทยาลัยฮาร์วาร์ด จะพาเราไปสู่โลกของ ปรัชญาสาธารณะ (public philosophy) ผ่านความเรียงที่อธิบายและวิพากษ์เจาะลึกปรัชญาอันเป็นรากฐานของแนวคิดทางการเมือง เช่น อรรถประโยชน์นิยม ชุมชนนิยม เสรีนิยม รวมถึงแนวคิดของ อิมมานูเอล คานท์ และ จอห์น รอลส์ อีกทั้งยังนำปรัชญาดังกล่าวมาใช้เป็นฐานในการพิจารณาประเด็นร้อนทางศีลธรรมและการเมืองที่เกิดขึ้นจริง อาทิ การกระจายรายได้ การุณยฆาต การเลิกทาส สิทธิเกย์ การดัดแปลงพันธุกรรมมนุษย์ รวมถึงเสรีภาพในการแสดงออกและเฮตสปีช ฯลฯ
หนังสือเล่มนี้นำเสนอปรัชญาสาธารณะที่ผสานแนวคิดเสรีนิยมที่เน้นสิทธิของปัจเจกและชุมชนนิยมที่เน้นคุณประโยชน์ส่วนรวม เพื่อสะท้อนให้เห็นความสำคัญของทั้งสิทธิขั้นพื้นฐานของปัจเจกและการใช้เหตุผลทางศีลธรรมที่จำเป็นต่อการถกเถียงสาธารณะและการสร้างสำนึกพลเมือง แนวคิดทางเลือกนี้อาจช่วยให้เราค้นหาคำตอบถึง “ชีวิตสาธารณะที่ดี” ซึ่งจำเป็นต่อการออกแบบนโยบายสาธารณะและการสร้างสังคมที่ดี
คู่รักเกย์ควรมีสิทธิทัดเทียมกับคู่รักต่างเพศไหม?
การตัดต่อพันธุกรรมมนุษย์เป็นเรื่องสมควรแล้วหรือ?
ไมเคิล แซนเดล ปรมาจารย์ด้านปรัชญาการเมืองแห่งมหาวิทยาลัยฮาร์วาร์ด จะพาเราไปสู่โลกของ ปรัชญาสาธารณะ (public philosophy) ผ่านความเรียงที่อธิบายและวิพากษ์เจาะลึกปรัชญาอันเป็นรากฐานของแนวคิดทางการเมือง เช่น อรรถประโยชน์นิยม ชุมชนนิยม เสรีนิยม รวมถึงแนวคิดของ อิมมานูเอล คานท์ และ จอห์น รอลส์ อีกทั้งยังนำปรัชญาดังกล่าวมาใช้เป็นฐานในการพิจารณาประเด็นร้อนทางศีลธรรมและการเมืองที่เกิดขึ้นจริง อาทิ การกระจายรายได้ การุณยฆาต การเลิกทาส สิทธิเกย์ การดัดแปลงพันธุกรรมมนุษย์ รวมถึงเสรีภาพในการแสดงออกและเฮตสปีช ฯลฯ
หนังสือเล่มนี้นำเสนอปรัชญาสาธารณะที่ผสานแนวคิดเสรีนิยมที่เน้นสิทธิของปัจเจกและชุมชนนิยมที่เน้นคุณประโยชน์ส่วนรวม เพื่อสะท้อนให้เห็นความสำคัญของทั้งสิทธิขั้นพื้นฐานของปัจเจกและการใช้เหตุผลทางศีลธรรมที่จำเป็นต่อการถกเถียงสาธารณะและการสร้างสำนึกพลเมือง แนวคิดทางเลือกนี้อาจช่วยให้เราค้นหาคำตอบถึง “ชีวิตสาธารณะที่ดี” ซึ่งจำเป็นต่อการออกแบบนโยบายสาธารณะและการสร้างสังคมที่ดี
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
90 people are currently reading
1307 people want to read
About the author
Michael J. Sandel
30 books2,370 followersMichael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher who lives in Brookline, Massachusetts. He is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught since 1980. He is best known for the Harvard course 'Justice', which is available to view online, and for his critique of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice in his first book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
February 15, 2023
این کتاب درباره سیاست گذاری بخش عمومی دولت بود که بیشتر مثال ها برای کشور آمریکاست البته،که بخش های فرهنگی و افتصادی این سیاست گذاری هارو دربرمیگیره، حقوق فردی، عدالت سیاسی،عدالت توزیعی، تکور هویت های قومی و ملی و نحوه ایجاد تعادل بین این هارو توضیح داده که البته بیشتر به کشور آمریکا نگاه کرده.
June 7, 2013
I was first introduced to Michael Sandel a couple of years ago on YouTube while I was looking for a productive way to spend my newly free summer days. His course at Harvard called “Justice” is one of the fastest in the entire university to fill up – not something I had to worry about, since I could watch all twelve of the lectures at my leisure. The lectures were filmed in an enormous hall (over 1,000 student register for his class every time it is offered), and are full of students who would never think of necessarily majoring in philosophy, but are still interested in deep, meaningful questions like “What does it mean to be a citizen in a democratic society?” and “How does one pursue the good life in a world of so many competing interests?” This searching quality, and Sandel’s open, interactive maieutic method of engaging his students were some of the best parts of his lectures.
That same Socratic spirit continues within the pages of this book, a series of previously published essays. Sandel’s willingness and insistence on being a knowledgeable cicerone through the history of liberal political theory is a sincere and much-appreciated one. However, some of these pieces are simply too short, both in length and in moral force, to merit inclusion in what otherwise could have been an extremely powerful collection. Most of the short pieces I’m talking about are in Part II, “Moral and Political Arguments.” These are articles (I use this word instead of “essay” because they almost look more like, and it pains me to say it, op-ed pieces than they do well-considered philosophical arguments) discussing the relative positives and negatives of state lotteries, advertising in public classrooms, the morality of buying and selling pollution credits, affirmative action, and the Clinton imbroglio. Some of these sound a little dated, having been written while the public discussions behind these issues was still hot; some of them haven’t been updated, not to mention more fully fleshed out as they should be.
The lengths of the pieces here are pretty proportional to their quality. The opening essay, “America’s Search for a Public Philosophy,” (p. 9-34) nicely sets the tone and informs the body of concerns that resurface throughout the book: our shift away from a kind of communitarian liberalism toward a more rights-based, autonomy-based, voluntarist liberalism in which the state is value-neutral. (This seems to be an essay-long distillation of his book, “Democracy’s Discontent.”) The best essays point out some of the contradictions residing within liberalism (liberalism in the broad philosophical sense, not the narrow sense pundits use the word): for example, is toleration a good in itself if the thing being tolerated is morally dubious, like the neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois? In other words, which is more morally fundamental – the toleration itself, or the inherent goodness or badness of the thing being tolerated? Sandel is right to point out that rudimentary questions like this rarely present themselves in the matter of public discourse.
Two more essays, “Dewey’s Liberalism and Ours” and “Political Liberalism,” a discussion of some of the readings and misreadings Dewey has incurred since his death and a critical discussion of John Rawls respectively, are both equally worthy of attention. In fact, Dewey’s influence on Sandel looms large; both are extremely concerned with the cultivation of a democratic citizenry, and what precisely this would entail. Both are also clearly disenchanted with the rights-based, voluntarist liberalism that has come to be almost unquestioned in the United States over the last century.
While some of the shorter pieces come to the conclusions that you would expect of someone of a Deweyan, communitarian liberal bent who values goods before rights, the longer pieces that I mention above really are good places to see the various ways in which philosophy dovetails into practical political concerns. They are consistently thought-provoking and critical of the liberal tradition within political philosophy when necessary. The short articles, while not totally worthless, are more cursory and may be of interest to those with a passing or historical interest interest, but they don’t provide the intellectual sustenance found in other parts of the book.
That same Socratic spirit continues within the pages of this book, a series of previously published essays. Sandel’s willingness and insistence on being a knowledgeable cicerone through the history of liberal political theory is a sincere and much-appreciated one. However, some of these pieces are simply too short, both in length and in moral force, to merit inclusion in what otherwise could have been an extremely powerful collection. Most of the short pieces I’m talking about are in Part II, “Moral and Political Arguments.” These are articles (I use this word instead of “essay” because they almost look more like, and it pains me to say it, op-ed pieces than they do well-considered philosophical arguments) discussing the relative positives and negatives of state lotteries, advertising in public classrooms, the morality of buying and selling pollution credits, affirmative action, and the Clinton imbroglio. Some of these sound a little dated, having been written while the public discussions behind these issues was still hot; some of them haven’t been updated, not to mention more fully fleshed out as they should be.
The lengths of the pieces here are pretty proportional to their quality. The opening essay, “America’s Search for a Public Philosophy,” (p. 9-34) nicely sets the tone and informs the body of concerns that resurface throughout the book: our shift away from a kind of communitarian liberalism toward a more rights-based, autonomy-based, voluntarist liberalism in which the state is value-neutral. (This seems to be an essay-long distillation of his book, “Democracy’s Discontent.”) The best essays point out some of the contradictions residing within liberalism (liberalism in the broad philosophical sense, not the narrow sense pundits use the word): for example, is toleration a good in itself if the thing being tolerated is morally dubious, like the neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois? In other words, which is more morally fundamental – the toleration itself, or the inherent goodness or badness of the thing being tolerated? Sandel is right to point out that rudimentary questions like this rarely present themselves in the matter of public discourse.
Two more essays, “Dewey’s Liberalism and Ours” and “Political Liberalism,” a discussion of some of the readings and misreadings Dewey has incurred since his death and a critical discussion of John Rawls respectively, are both equally worthy of attention. In fact, Dewey’s influence on Sandel looms large; both are extremely concerned with the cultivation of a democratic citizenry, and what precisely this would entail. Both are also clearly disenchanted with the rights-based, voluntarist liberalism that has come to be almost unquestioned in the United States over the last century.
While some of the shorter pieces come to the conclusions that you would expect of someone of a Deweyan, communitarian liberal bent who values goods before rights, the longer pieces that I mention above really are good places to see the various ways in which philosophy dovetails into practical political concerns. They are consistently thought-provoking and critical of the liberal tradition within political philosophy when necessary. The short articles, while not totally worthless, are more cursory and may be of interest to those with a passing or historical interest interest, but they don’t provide the intellectual sustenance found in other parts of the book.
April 18, 2019
เนื้อเรื่องน่าสนใจ เหมาะสำหรับคนที่ใคร่รู้ในประเด็นการเมืองที่เกิดขึ้นในสังคมอเมริกา (และสามารถประยุกต์ใช้ในการมองภาพรวมการเมืองมุมกว้างทั่วโลก) รวมถึงการโต้แย้งระหว่างระบบความคิดที่แตกต่างกันในเวทีการเมืองที่สร้างความกระอักกระอ่วนซึ่งยากจะหาบทสรุป
January 30, 2017
อ่านหลังจากJusticeที่อาจารย์assignมา อ่านด้วยความสงสัยใคร่รู้ว่ามันจะเหมือนjusticeมั้ย แล้วปรากฏว่าชอบมาก หนังสือเอาประเด็นสนุกๆในสังคมเมกันมาคุยมาถกกันได้สนุกมาก และก็ยังคงเอกลักษณ์แซนเดลเหมือนเดิมด้วยการไม่ชี้ชัดเลือกข้างลงไปสักทีแต่ให้คนอ่านตัดสินเอาเองเหมือนเดิม เอาจริงๆมันก็ดูเป็นกลางดีนะ คือมันทำให้คนอ่านเอาไปคิดต่อเองอย่างจริงจังอะ สนุกดีชอบ
July 31, 2022
A great book to read to have your mind try and tackle different concepts and philosophies along with Sandel. The book is close to 2 decades old but still really rings true in many of the questions in poses.
August 23, 2023
This was so so good, my favorite book on political philosophy.
An important principle in liberal political philosophy is that the right is prior to the good. In other words, the government doesn't pick out any conception of the good life, it just protects our rights as individuals to pursue any version of the good life we want. So for example, the government doesn't pick out which religious values are better or worse, it just protects religious freedom. The government shouldn't have an opinion on what good or bad morals are, it should just protect our rights to have our own morals without interference or judgment.
Sandel challenges this view. One, it's not possible or desirable for the government to be neutral on moral issues. For example, consider the debates about slavery between Stephen Douglas and Abe Lincoln. Douglas was agnostic on the issue of slavery; he thought the federal government should have no say in whether slavery was morally good or bad, it should just leave it up to the states to decide. Lincoln (rightfully) thought that was ridiculous; how could anyone have a conversation about what states have a right to do, without taking an opinion on whether slavery was moral or immoral? What rights we have is derivative of what is moral or immoral.
Another example is the contemporary debate on affirmative action. If the goal of the university is to create the most academically qualified class possible, then affirmative action is unjust. However, if the goal of the university is to create a diverse group of students who can understand a wide range of perspectives, then affirmative action is just. You can't reach an answer about what is just or fair in university admissions without figuring out what the ultimate purpose of the university is, which must take a firm stance on morality. There are a ton of other debates just like this (abortion, civil rights, paying student-athletes), where discussing the right to do something is impossible/difficult without referring to a goal or vision of morality.
This political vision requires something out of us. We can't just "tolerate" people with differing visions of the good life, we have to actively engage with them and argue about what morality is, not just leave people to pursue their own morals in private. To do that, we have to cultivate certain virtues that make us good at talking to people from across moral and religious lines. We've gotten very very bad at that, leading many people to just ignore moral questions in the public sphere. Sandel convincingly argues that ignoring moral issues is impossible and that many political, economic, and legal questions can only be resolved if we buckle down and try to hammer out a collective vision of the good life.
Quotes
But this is not the only, or perhaps even the most plausible way of understanding the mutual respect on which democratic citizenship depends. On a different conception of respect - call it the deliberative conception - we respect our fellow citizen's moral and religious convictions by engaging, or attending to them - sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening and learning from them-especially if those convictions bear on important political questions.
When we participate in schools or congregations, we also develop civic virtues, qualities that equip us to be good citizens. We learn, for example, how to think about the good of the whole, how to exercise responsibility for others, how to deal with conflicting interests, how to stand up for our views while respecting the views of others. Above all, the institutions of civil society draw us out of our private, self-interested concerns and get us in the habit of attending to the common good.
An important principle in liberal political philosophy is that the right is prior to the good. In other words, the government doesn't pick out any conception of the good life, it just protects our rights as individuals to pursue any version of the good life we want. So for example, the government doesn't pick out which religious values are better or worse, it just protects religious freedom. The government shouldn't have an opinion on what good or bad morals are, it should just protect our rights to have our own morals without interference or judgment.
Sandel challenges this view. One, it's not possible or desirable for the government to be neutral on moral issues. For example, consider the debates about slavery between Stephen Douglas and Abe Lincoln. Douglas was agnostic on the issue of slavery; he thought the federal government should have no say in whether slavery was morally good or bad, it should just leave it up to the states to decide. Lincoln (rightfully) thought that was ridiculous; how could anyone have a conversation about what states have a right to do, without taking an opinion on whether slavery was moral or immoral? What rights we have is derivative of what is moral or immoral.
Another example is the contemporary debate on affirmative action. If the goal of the university is to create the most academically qualified class possible, then affirmative action is unjust. However, if the goal of the university is to create a diverse group of students who can understand a wide range of perspectives, then affirmative action is just. You can't reach an answer about what is just or fair in university admissions without figuring out what the ultimate purpose of the university is, which must take a firm stance on morality. There are a ton of other debates just like this (abortion, civil rights, paying student-athletes), where discussing the right to do something is impossible/difficult without referring to a goal or vision of morality.
This political vision requires something out of us. We can't just "tolerate" people with differing visions of the good life, we have to actively engage with them and argue about what morality is, not just leave people to pursue their own morals in private. To do that, we have to cultivate certain virtues that make us good at talking to people from across moral and religious lines. We've gotten very very bad at that, leading many people to just ignore moral questions in the public sphere. Sandel convincingly argues that ignoring moral issues is impossible and that many political, economic, and legal questions can only be resolved if we buckle down and try to hammer out a collective vision of the good life.
Quotes
But this is not the only, or perhaps even the most plausible way of understanding the mutual respect on which democratic citizenship depends. On a different conception of respect - call it the deliberative conception - we respect our fellow citizen's moral and religious convictions by engaging, or attending to them - sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening and learning from them-especially if those convictions bear on important political questions.
When we participate in schools or congregations, we also develop civic virtues, qualities that equip us to be good citizens. We learn, for example, how to think about the good of the whole, how to exercise responsibility for others, how to deal with conflicting interests, how to stand up for our views while respecting the views of others. Above all, the institutions of civil society draw us out of our private, self-interested concerns and get us in the habit of attending to the common good.
May 21, 2019
A collection of essays written in the late 1990s, and early 2000s that both try to explain Sandel's philosophy and try to embody it. Some of the essays are a bit dated- there's a lot on Clinton and Bob Dole that would make even someone born in the 1990s scratch their heads. Sandel is writing from the perspective of a partisan democrat, so he has his leanings but the underlaying philosophy is interesting and anyone can learn from it.
Sandel's project has been to challenge what he sees is the dominant paradigm of political liberalism. Sandel argues that for decades, liberalism has been the dominant stream of thought in American politics. Both the right and left believe the individual should be left alone to pursue their own ends. There is slight disagreement on which rights the individual should have- the right focus on negative political rights against the government and the left focuses on positive socio-economic rights- but both share the premise that individual choice is the priority and a government should not dictate the "good life", but only provide a neutral framework for individuals to pursue their own ends.
I am a believer in the liberal tradition. But I find Sandel's criticism of liberalism interesting if not compelling. Sandel's philosophy which is known by some as communitarian (but this is somewhat a misnomer, Sandel and other "communitarians" do not believe that the mere fact that a community has a set of values makes those values morally correct), is a challenge to the individualist assumptions of liberalism. Sandel challenges the "neutrality" of liberalism. Liberalism is not simply a set of equations derived from pure logic but a set of ethical commitments itself. Therefore, liberalism in a way, perhaps even unknowingly to itself, purports to supplement ethical commitments with a neutral framework but actually backdoors a set of ethical commitment. The commitment to the sacredness of individual choice is just that, an ethical commitment. Additionally, when liberalism encourages pluralism of certain controversial moral questions, it must admit that the answers being provided to those controversial moral questions is morally reasonable. But that itself, requires a judgement of morality that liberalism purports to avoid.
Sandel also challenges the plausibility of having a political life without some conception of what is the good life or the purpose of political life (he challenges the priority of the right over the good). He argues that liberalism's focus on leaving people "alone" is a rather colorless and second best justification for privacy, when the best justification for certain rights may be that those rights are what we consider to be important in living the good life. Somewhat relatedly, liberalism's focus on choices and obligations only flowing from choice have a difficult time explaining our obligations to family, and communities. While most people intuitively recognize a moral duty to the families and communities they are born into, people do not choose which families and which communities they are born into. Sandel argues that liberalism has not always been the dominant tradition in America. Political thinkers from Jefferson to the Progressives worried about the effect on the growth of citizens of political and economic structures. Jefferson was worried about the growth of mercantile interests because he was worried it would corrupt the citizenry. The Progressives worried that the growth of power corporate interests that were beyond the traditional control of local institutions would hollow out the citizenry. Different Progressives responded differently, some arguing that a national power needed to be created to counterbalance these new concentrated interstate-interests while some argued that these concentrated interstate interests needed to broken up to be better be controlled by local institutions. Regardless, Progressives worried not just about the impact of these new conditions on the choices of citizens but the formation of citizens. Sandel notes that the modern day challenge is when these interests become global, and beyond the control of even nation states. In many ways this aspect of Sandel's philosophy is simply a return to republicanism (with a small "r"), that believed communities should (and in someways, this is inevitable) form their citizens. Sandel's belief in a "formative" or "constitutive" citizenship is what best makes him a "communitarian". Put this way, it seems relatively reasonable, but would challenge a core tenant of liberalism, that the government and society not attempt to shape or form the citizens at all. Of course, Sandel discusses the possible downsides of this approach, and that communities can sometimes become repressive of individuality. Sandel argues that communities need not be repressive, even if historically they occasionally have been and argues for a community that guides gently and is deliberative not one that forces people "to be free". Sandel writes interestingly of John Dewey, whose pragmatism and interest in democracy was based on this model of participation and practical experience.
A final strand in Sandel's thought, which is in line with his philosophy is the importance of the expressive nature of our communities allowing certain conduct. Sandel takes seriously that people do not want their laws to allow certain conduct or behavior because people find that conduct in that sphere of life to be morally wrong. He writes more about this in the "What Money Can't Buy" but Sandel worries that values that are traditionally restricted to the market place and commercial spheres have migrated into other parts of life, degrading and threatening the formation of a good citizenry. His critique of liberalism is tied to this, in that liberalism's supposed commitment to being value neutral makes it difficult for people to just say that they think x, y or z is wrong, so they are forced to contort their positions to fit liberalism.
The book is titled public philosophy, because Sandel believes in a deliberative community that debates seriously our moral commitments, competing visions of the good life and how to get there. Much of the book is comprised of short essays, op-eds, and book reviews previously published. The topics are varied, I have only reviewed the most general and abstract ideas here, but the essays range from the political hot topics of stem cell research to the right to self-assisted suicide (though I do believe there are coherent themes that run throughout). I do not agree with all of what Sandel says, but the book made me think and challenged strong political commitments I have in creative and serious way. I found myself having to think deeply about commitments I took for granted, and while my mind is not changed on the importance of liberalism, I better understand liberalism's merits, and limits. If we believe that morality and political philosophy is subject to reason, the ability to provoke us to think, engage and respond, is the prime mark of the excellence of a work such as this.
Sandel's project has been to challenge what he sees is the dominant paradigm of political liberalism. Sandel argues that for decades, liberalism has been the dominant stream of thought in American politics. Both the right and left believe the individual should be left alone to pursue their own ends. There is slight disagreement on which rights the individual should have- the right focus on negative political rights against the government and the left focuses on positive socio-economic rights- but both share the premise that individual choice is the priority and a government should not dictate the "good life", but only provide a neutral framework for individuals to pursue their own ends.
I am a believer in the liberal tradition. But I find Sandel's criticism of liberalism interesting if not compelling. Sandel's philosophy which is known by some as communitarian (but this is somewhat a misnomer, Sandel and other "communitarians" do not believe that the mere fact that a community has a set of values makes those values morally correct), is a challenge to the individualist assumptions of liberalism. Sandel challenges the "neutrality" of liberalism. Liberalism is not simply a set of equations derived from pure logic but a set of ethical commitments itself. Therefore, liberalism in a way, perhaps even unknowingly to itself, purports to supplement ethical commitments with a neutral framework but actually backdoors a set of ethical commitment. The commitment to the sacredness of individual choice is just that, an ethical commitment. Additionally, when liberalism encourages pluralism of certain controversial moral questions, it must admit that the answers being provided to those controversial moral questions is morally reasonable. But that itself, requires a judgement of morality that liberalism purports to avoid.
Sandel also challenges the plausibility of having a political life without some conception of what is the good life or the purpose of political life (he challenges the priority of the right over the good). He argues that liberalism's focus on leaving people "alone" is a rather colorless and second best justification for privacy, when the best justification for certain rights may be that those rights are what we consider to be important in living the good life. Somewhat relatedly, liberalism's focus on choices and obligations only flowing from choice have a difficult time explaining our obligations to family, and communities. While most people intuitively recognize a moral duty to the families and communities they are born into, people do not choose which families and which communities they are born into. Sandel argues that liberalism has not always been the dominant tradition in America. Political thinkers from Jefferson to the Progressives worried about the effect on the growth of citizens of political and economic structures. Jefferson was worried about the growth of mercantile interests because he was worried it would corrupt the citizenry. The Progressives worried that the growth of power corporate interests that were beyond the traditional control of local institutions would hollow out the citizenry. Different Progressives responded differently, some arguing that a national power needed to be created to counterbalance these new concentrated interstate-interests while some argued that these concentrated interstate interests needed to broken up to be better be controlled by local institutions. Regardless, Progressives worried not just about the impact of these new conditions on the choices of citizens but the formation of citizens. Sandel notes that the modern day challenge is when these interests become global, and beyond the control of even nation states. In many ways this aspect of Sandel's philosophy is simply a return to republicanism (with a small "r"), that believed communities should (and in someways, this is inevitable) form their citizens. Sandel's belief in a "formative" or "constitutive" citizenship is what best makes him a "communitarian". Put this way, it seems relatively reasonable, but would challenge a core tenant of liberalism, that the government and society not attempt to shape or form the citizens at all. Of course, Sandel discusses the possible downsides of this approach, and that communities can sometimes become repressive of individuality. Sandel argues that communities need not be repressive, even if historically they occasionally have been and argues for a community that guides gently and is deliberative not one that forces people "to be free". Sandel writes interestingly of John Dewey, whose pragmatism and interest in democracy was based on this model of participation and practical experience.
A final strand in Sandel's thought, which is in line with his philosophy is the importance of the expressive nature of our communities allowing certain conduct. Sandel takes seriously that people do not want their laws to allow certain conduct or behavior because people find that conduct in that sphere of life to be morally wrong. He writes more about this in the "What Money Can't Buy" but Sandel worries that values that are traditionally restricted to the market place and commercial spheres have migrated into other parts of life, degrading and threatening the formation of a good citizenry. His critique of liberalism is tied to this, in that liberalism's supposed commitment to being value neutral makes it difficult for people to just say that they think x, y or z is wrong, so they are forced to contort their positions to fit liberalism.
The book is titled public philosophy, because Sandel believes in a deliberative community that debates seriously our moral commitments, competing visions of the good life and how to get there. Much of the book is comprised of short essays, op-eds, and book reviews previously published. The topics are varied, I have only reviewed the most general and abstract ideas here, but the essays range from the political hot topics of stem cell research to the right to self-assisted suicide (though I do believe there are coherent themes that run throughout). I do not agree with all of what Sandel says, but the book made me think and challenged strong political commitments I have in creative and serious way. I found myself having to think deeply about commitments I took for granted, and while my mind is not changed on the importance of liberalism, I better understand liberalism's merits, and limits. If we believe that morality and political philosophy is subject to reason, the ability to provoke us to think, engage and respond, is the prime mark of the excellence of a work such as this.
September 20, 2018
หนังสือที่หยิบยกปนะเด็นข้อโต้แย้งในสังคมมาวิเคราะห์หลักปรัชญาเบื่องหลังที่มีผลต่อการตัดสินใจในประเด็นนั้นๆได้ย่างจับต้องได้ จากเดิมที่คิดว่าเราแต่ละคนตัดสินความถูก-ผิดในเรื่องราวสาธารณะตามอารมณ์ความรู้สึกของแต่ละคน แต่ปู้เขียนได้แสดงให้เห็นถึงตรรกะและหลักยึดของแต่ละแนวคิดเบื้องหลังการตัดวินใจนั้นๆ
โดยส่วนตัวคิดว่าหนังสือตัวเองได้อะไรจากหนังสือเล่มนี้เยอะทีเดียว ตินิดหน่อยตรงที่หลายๆจุดในหนังสือเข้าใจยากต้องใช้ความพยายามสูงมากในการคิดตาม
โดยส่วนตัวคิดว่าหนังสือตัวเองได้อะไรจากหนังสือเล่มนี้เยอะทีเดียว ตินิดหน่อยตรงที่หลายๆจุดในหนังสือเข้าใจยากต้องใช้ความพยายามสูงมากในการคิดตาม
June 13, 2025
Sommige denk voorbeelden had ik al in vorige boeken gelezen , en hoewel veel hetzelfde zijn sommige ( economische) zaken in de Verenigde Staten nog iets anders bv qua verzekeringen enz.
Het boek doet wel nadenken over hoe complex economische en ethische zaken kunnen verweven zitten alsook de verschillen tussen kleinschalig en grootschalig zowel overheid als bedrijven , beide met voor en nadelen die waarschijnlijk niet kunnen opgelost worden iedere visie heeft zijn eigen tekortkomingen , hoeveel wat mag men kopen , wat kan / mag men verkopen ? Of bv een arena bij de Romeinen , … dood en spektakel , …. Ethische kompassen lijken soms rond te draaien , mee met groepsdruk, .. en mss ook ook onder invloed van temperatuur , .. de vraagstukken wat is goed , wat mag , wat moet , wat mag niet , ? Zijn niet altijd gemakkelijk te beantwoorden, … hoewel sommige zaken wel duidelijk zijn , dan blijft de vraag waarom en onder welke invloed gebeuren ze ,
4 sterren , doordat het soms wat herhaling was voor deze lezer , maar bij zichzelf eens nadenken over wat het goede is om te doen , zeggen, schrijven , en in welke samenleving men wil leven zal wel altijd relevant blijven , in een altijd veranderende wereld ,
Het boek doet wel nadenken over hoe complex economische en ethische zaken kunnen verweven zitten alsook de verschillen tussen kleinschalig en grootschalig zowel overheid als bedrijven , beide met voor en nadelen die waarschijnlijk niet kunnen opgelost worden iedere visie heeft zijn eigen tekortkomingen , hoeveel wat mag men kopen , wat kan / mag men verkopen ? Of bv een arena bij de Romeinen , … dood en spektakel , …. Ethische kompassen lijken soms rond te draaien , mee met groepsdruk, .. en mss ook ook onder invloed van temperatuur , .. de vraagstukken wat is goed , wat mag , wat moet , wat mag niet , ? Zijn niet altijd gemakkelijk te beantwoorden, … hoewel sommige zaken wel duidelijk zijn , dan blijft de vraag waarom en onder welke invloed gebeuren ze ,
4 sterren , doordat het soms wat herhaling was voor deze lezer , maar bij zichzelf eens nadenken over wat het goede is om te doen , zeggen, schrijven , en in welke samenleving men wil leven zal wel altijd relevant blijven , in een altijd veranderende wereld ,
July 23, 2023
This was… interesting. Obviously it being a book on political philosophy, debating morals and ethics, means that there will be topics up for debate. However, the joy about reading philosophy is that you don’t have to agree. It’s wonderful to see arguments from all sides, and while we each think our point of view is correct, we cannot deny other views (especially in philosophy). There is no “one” right answer, and learning about other views only allows us to develop ours. This book was especially enjoyed by me and my father, I think Sandel does a very good job at organising and conveying his thoughts, and he does it in a very enjoyable way.
June 12, 2017
Kapitel eins und zwei des Buches waren großartig.
Es wurden Themen angesprochen bei denen selbst man durchaus lange Zeit nachdenken muss um herauszufinden wie man selbst eigentlich dazu steht und warum. Zu jedem Thema wurden Pro & Contra genannt ohne dem Ziel dem Leser von einer gewissen Meinung überzeugen zu wollen.
Das letzte Kapitel des Buches fand ich leider nicht so interessant, da hätte das zweite Kapitel detaillierter behandelt werden können.
Es wurden Themen angesprochen bei denen selbst man durchaus lange Zeit nachdenken muss um herauszufinden wie man selbst eigentlich dazu steht und warum. Zu jedem Thema wurden Pro & Contra genannt ohne dem Ziel dem Leser von einer gewissen Meinung überzeugen zu wollen.
Das letzte Kapitel des Buches fand ich leider nicht so interessant, da hätte das zweite Kapitel detaillierter behandelt werden können.
February 28, 2021
Es fascinante como el libro explica, usando reflexiones filosóficas, el desarrollo de la política de un país. Como individuos, estamos sujetos a esos cambios y a la valoración de la moralidad del partido político que nos gobierna ¡Con razón estamos muy mal!
Este libro se lo regalaría a algunos candidatos a la presidencia del Perú.
*El libro describe el contexto político de Estados Unidos, pero igual ayuda entender muchas de las cosas que suceden en Perú.
Este libro se lo regalaría a algunos candidatos a la presidencia del Perú.
*El libro describe el contexto político de Estados Unidos, pero igual ayuda entender muchas de las cosas que suceden en Perú.
September 6, 2021
Besides his atrocious understanding of abortion, Sandel has some compelling essays in this collection. What especially struck me was his articulation of how economic conditions affect the degree to which a community flourishes and society is just, not in terms of distribution but rather regarding teleology.
June 16, 2025
Still so relevant despite the many changes our societies underwent since it was published.
Furthermore, very rich in providing different theories in political philosophy and political theory on justice which are sadly enough, based upon my experience, not mentioned often at University.
I for sure have more to read and contemplate upon now I’ve finished it.
Furthermore, very rich in providing different theories in political philosophy and political theory on justice which are sadly enough, based upon my experience, not mentioned often at University.
I for sure have more to read and contemplate upon now I’ve finished it.
January 8, 2023
Brillante! Es una exposición amplia de varios temas relacionados con el Filosofía Pública
Es un maestro, y lo que me gusta es que habla desde una cátedra repleta de sentido común y revestida de humildad. Felicidades!
Es un maestro, y lo que me gusta es que habla desde una cátedra repleta de sentido común y revestida de humildad. Felicidades!
January 22, 2018
Ein Essay-Band mit Höhen und Tiefen, nicht als Einstieg zu Sandel, aber als Ergänzung zu seinen anderen Werken interessant zu lesen.
November 14, 2021
Decent read. I was expecting a book of similar quality such as Justice by Michael J. Sandel. It wasn’t. A bit verbose and the same philosophers kept popping up.
January 27, 2025
Unfortunately, I expected something more interesting, given Sandel's work and the table of contents. It's great, but given the author, it could be more interesting.
December 9, 2025
Er waren zeker interessante observaties en gedachtegangen in Sandels essays. Over het algemeen vond ik het wel iets wolliger en minder concreet dan ik graag had willen lezen.
June 1, 2021
If you are interested in understanding the country we live in. I recommend any book written by Professor Sandel. He writes, I imagine, as he instructs, to make sure you will be able to grasp complex systems as a lay person.
October 26, 2023
به نظرم این کتاب نمایانگر توجیهات اخلاقی و فلسفی بخشی از چپگرایان امروز دنیا بود. ورزش ذهنی که در قبال سوالات کتاب ایجاد میشد، برای من جذاب بود. با این حال در مجموع نگاه اخلاقی کتاب برای من قانعکننده نبود. قطعا در دنیا نمیتوان به بیطرفی کام�� دولت در قبال مسائل اخلاقی رسید، اما به نظرم دولتی که بر اصول عدالت را بر مبنای ایدهی رالز پیشببرد؛ همچنان بر دولتی که بخواهد به اسم «اصول عدالت در خدمت خیر» دست دولت و بروکراتها را برای هر کار باز بگذارد، به صلاح نزدیکتر است.
توضیح تفصیلی تر تو وبلاگم: https://hamidrezaaziminia.substack.co...
توضیح تفصیلی تر تو وبلاگم: https://hamidrezaaziminia.substack.co...
August 31, 2020
En Filosofía Pública nos encontramos una recopilación de algunos artículos publicados por Michael J. Sandel a lo largo de las últimas décadas en los que aborda una serie de dilemas morales desde la perspectiva política. En todo el libro vuela el enfrentamiento entre los derechos individuales y las reivindicaciones comunitarias, y Sandel se sirve de este para denunciar la degradación moral de la vida política y sus consecuencias.
Un buen libro aunque, en mi opinión, con errores a la hora de la resolución de ciertas cuestiones.
Os dejo mi reseña por si os interesa. Espero que os guste:
YouTube: https://youtu.be/AM2QgSVeUXM
Blog: https://www.libropensador.com/2020/fi...
Un buen libro aunque, en mi opinión, con errores a la hora de la resolución de ciertas cuestiones.
Os dejo mi reseña por si os interesa. Espero que os guste:
YouTube: https://youtu.be/AM2QgSVeUXM
Blog: https://www.libropensador.com/2020/fi...
July 16, 2009
It's okay. The guy brings up old arguments and debates, analyzes them mildly, slightly puts in his two cents, but doesn't really make any new found discovery. There is one essay he is pretty good at nailing, but only to the very end. And that essay is in tribute to one of his mentors.
April 1, 2022
How many angels dance on the head of a pin? Answer WHO CARES?!
Read
May 1, 2012As a student of contemporary philosophy, I find Sandel quite accessible and illuminating.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews