Justice, a 2009 nonfiction book written by Harvard professor Michael J.

Sandel, grew out of a popular

course of the same name that Sandel teaches, in which he “exposes students to some of the great
philosophical writings about justice, and also takes up contemporary legal and political controversies
that raise philosophical questions” (293). In this book, Sandel does the same, comparing and
contrasting several important approaches to justice and applying them to contemporary legal and
political issues.

The approaches to justice presented in the book fall into three categories: theories based on (1)
“maximizing welfare,” (2) “respecting freedom,” and (3) “promoting virtue” (5-6, 18). Sandel
ultimately reveals himself to be in the third category.

Sandel elaborates on the strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories in each chapter of the
book. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss two of the primary approaches to justice covered in the book:
utilitarianism and libertarianism. Chapter 4 then offers a chance to compare and contrast
utilitarianism and libertarianism on the topic of the morality of markets. Sandel frequently returns to
previously-discussed theories when he raises a new hypothetical or an additional example based on
current or historical events.

Throughout the book, Sandel also identifies the primary philosophers who hold each of the views
discussed. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss two of those major philosophers, Kant and Rawls. Both have
views falling in the same overall category as libertarianism: the freedom-based approaches to
justice. Like Chapter 4, which focuses on the morality of markets, Chapter 7 then applies the theories
previously discussed to the question whether affirmative action is just.

The remaining three chapters of the book discuss approaches to justice that incorporate a particular
view of virtue. Chapter 8 is devoted to the last of the important philosophers examined in the book:
Aristotle. Like Chapters 4 and 7, Chapter 9 primarily takes on a particular issue: whether current
generations should apologize or offer reparations for the actions of past generations. Reviewing the
answers that the previously-discussed philosophies would provide, Sandel offers an alternative
based on “obligations of solidarity” (225). Sandel then expands on these “communitarian” views in
the final chapter, arguing for tackling moral issues along with questions of justice–an approach
Sandel views as both inspiring and promising.