Analysis of Ethical Theories of Michael Sandel - Assignment Example

Background review Each video episode of Michael Sandel’s lectures consists of two parts. The first episode consists of two parts. The first part introduces the moral principles and the right thing to do given certain situations or acts. The consequentialist moral principle locates morality in the consequences of an act. The categorical moral principle locates morality in certain duties and rights. On the second part, Sandel tried to discuss the principle that the just thing to do is maximize the utility and that is to maximize pleasure. Based on the utilitarian principle of Jeremy Bentham, humans like pleasures and not pain. For Bentham, the right thing to do then is to maximize overall level of happiness, which is the highest principle of morality. However, this principle brings forward a highly debatable issue when applied in the context of murder. The reason why murder can be categorically wrong is due to the following considerations: the fundamental rights of each individual, fair procedure and the moral work of consent. The second episode first introduced Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism in a wider context and a cost-benefit analysis was discussed in order to analyze this in great detail. It was critically considered then that the value of life cannot just exactly fit under the utilitarian principle. The utilitarian principle raises two important considerations: it fails to respect individual rights, and it is not possible to aggregate all values into something which primarily includes lower and higher pleasures. However, J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher argued that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights and which would make room for utilitarianism for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Sandel has proven this in his Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Fear Factor, and The Simpsons experiment. In the third episode, Sandel entirely talked about the libertarian principle, which primarily criticizes the utilitarian principle and giving more emphasis on respecting individual rights. Sandel made the entire lecture interesting by using Bill Gates and Michael Jordan as examples particularly on the issue about redistribution. Sandel raised important concern on taxation as equivalent to forced labor because under the libertarian principle this basically would possibly contradict two important points in the acquisition of wealth: justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. As mentioned by Sandel, Robert Nozich, a libertarian who strongly adhered to the principle that people own themselves and each one has the right for the fundamental principle of self-possession or self-ownership. In the fourth episode, Sandel introduced another philosopher, John Locke who believes that individuals have natural or unalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Thus, the right to property for instance is natural, and no one can take it from someone else. This right is governed by the law of nature. However, for the protection of the life, property and liberty, an individual enters into a social contract, through a tacit consent maybe personal or through a representative which legitimizes the power of the government. In this, the majority always has the right over the minority for as long as there is no arbitrary government involved, and fair procedure is initiated then this does not eventually violate the law of nature. The fourth episode was more on the application or discussion of the concept about the nature of individual rights. In the first part of this episode, Sandel brought the entire class into a heated argument regarding war and conscription. In this, the application of consent was applied especially the collective one. Also in this episode particular topic was further explicated into other important ideas through the discussion of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights. Sandel introduced Immanuel Kant’s moral theory in the sixth episode. Kant is a renowned philosopher who rejects utilitarianism and believes further that morality can be certainly located in certain duties and rights, a categorical imperative view of moral principle. Therefore Kant rejects the idea about the consequentialist moral principle. Kant also believes that individuals have fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Sandel explicated that according to Kant, achieving an action with moral worth would mean eradicating self-interest and inclination, but instead act out of duty. What is the great dignity in answering to duty? This is the idea of the seventh episode. Duty must be made out of freedom, free in determining one’s own moral law based on pure reason, not subject to external factors. Due to the reason that there are two realms, freedom and necessity, there is always a gap between what we do and what we need to do. Sandel expounded that morality is not empirical. That is why no science can deliver moral truth. In the second part of this episode, Sandel introduced another philosopher John Rawls who argues that fair set of principles are all agreed by rules chosen in the society with nobody having unfair bargaining power. In this episode, Sandel emphasized how Rawls rejects utilitarianism. Sandel also emphasized further the issue about the principle of equality based on the concept of Rawls. Rawls argues that those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead and so it made no difference among those applying a distributive system that rewards effort. Thus, there will always be unfairness, for instance on the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. In the last episode, Sandel elaborately emphasized further the idea of Rawls through a particular case violating the rights of a certain student raised in an ethnic background denying her rights of a high standard quality education. Various ideas and concept were included in this case just to answer further the issue of equality on the issue of justice and morality. On the last part, Sandel introduced Aristotle who disagrees with Kant and Rawls. For Aristotle, justice is about giving people what they deserve and in the matters of distribution, one must consider the objective, end or purpose of what is being distributed. Analysis After widely exposed to different ethical theories and different philosophers trying to piece together the concepts of understanding what the right thing to do is, the bottom line would be to understand that each of them tries to connect the puzzle together in order to see the entire picture of what is happening in today’s contemporary society. For example, there are two important points where to look morality. From the standpoint of consequentialist moral principle, morality is located in the consequences of an act. On the other hand, from categorical moral perspective, morality is located in certain duties and right. These two have specific applications in the actual setting and at present their very principles are constantly in application. Thus, this significantly makes the very notion that morality is not empirical and it cannot be justified by science due to the fact that there are major two perspectives where it can be looked at. Each action therefore can be justified by either of these two. The very proof of this is the varying opinions or ideas presented by the students on different issues or cases introduced by Sandel in the class. This only confirms the fact that each individual has own or even subjective judgment on each issue particularly when it has to be critically analyzed where they have located particularly the morality. Some students adhered to being consequentialist while the other on categorical moral principle. The issue therefore of what the right thing to do depends on certain situations or issues that an individual can relate with or has experienced. For example, there are people who oppose redistribution of income because they have certain reasons to justify their stand in either based on actual experience or purely reason. There are also people who would love to adhere to libertarian principle because they believe that paying taxes is the right thing to do because it particularly gives value to a person. Furthermore, there are those individuals who would particularly believe their absolute power, but the threat of losing their life, properties and opportunities make them give a legitimate power to the government. So they enter into a social contract while they could not deny the fact that they could not just simply put into account the people around them. And it is at this point where justice and ethical consideration would take their own stand. In here would be some questions arise particularly on the issue of the power covered by the legit government, in its implementation of the right process, and the application of consent. Several other theories were mentioned by Sandel, including those from Rawls, Kant and Aristotle. However, their point after all is to create a unified understanding how the moral concept and even social, political and economic environment works in a society. What is very interesting in their points is the fact that they substantially talked about the role of the government on people’s lives. As noticed, the institution of law is an indication that there must be an absolute right thing to do, just to create a place for everyone where there is going to be a protection of natural rights to life, property and opportunity. Conclusion In conclusion, the different theories discussed by Sandel do not show superiority among any other. However, all of them contribute to the body of knowledge in understanding “what is the right thing to do”. It may be at some point that the other theory challenges the other, but the point of it is to actually increase an individual’s understanding on the nature and function of moral principles within the society. Read More