SUMMARY ETHICS ECONOMETRICS VU
Chapter 1. Doing the Right Thing.
Chapter 1 of Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael Sandel serves as an introduction
to moral and political philosophy by exploring the meaning of justice and moral decision-
making. Sandel sets the stage for the rest of the book by presenting real-life dilemmas,
philosophical debates, and three primary approaches to justice.
1. Three Approaches to Justice
Sandel introduces three major perspectives on justice that will be explored throughout the book:
1. Maximizing Welfare (Utilitarianism) – Justice is about maximizing happiness and
reducing suffering.
Welfare: Justice as maximizing overall well-being (e.g. utilitarianism)
Example: Allowing price gouging might be good because it increases supply and
benefits more people.
2. Respecting Freedom (Libertarianism/Kantian Ethics) – Justice requires protecting
individual rights and freedoms.
Freedom: Justice as respecting individual rights and choices (e.g. libertarianism)
Example: The government should not interfere with voluntary transactions (like
price gouging).
3. Promoting Virtue (Aristotelian Ethics) – Justice should be concerned with what kind of
society we want to create.
Virtue: Justice as cultivating moral character and promoting the common good
(e.g. Aristotle’s virtue ethics)
Example: The Purple Heart debate is about what kind of honor military service
should recognize.
Each of these approaches will be examined in later chapters, but Sandel introduces them here as
competing theories that influence laws, policies, and moral debates.
2. Moral Dilemmas: Real-Life Cases
(A) Price Gouging After a Hurricane
Following Hurricane Charley (2004) in Florida, businesses raised prices on essential goods, such
as:
Generators: Normally $250 but sold for $2,000.
Bags of ice: Normally a few dollars but sold for $10 or more.
Hotel rooms: Prices tripled overnight.
This sparked public outrage, and Florida’s Attorney General Charlie Crist vowed to punish
price gouging.
,Moral Perspectives on Price Gouging
One view: Price gouging is unfair and exploits vulnerable people.
o Laws should prevent such behavior.
Another view: Raising prices is natural in a free market.
o Higher prices encourage suppliers to bring more goods to the area, benefiting
everyone.
This debate reflects the conflict between free-market principles (libertarianism) and fairness-
based approaches to justice.
(B) The Purple Heart Debate
The Purple Heart is a military medal awarded to soldiers wounded in combat. A debate arose over
whether soldiers with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) should receive the award.
Competing Arguments
Against awarding it to PTSD victims:
o The Purple Heart should go to physically wounded soldiers, not psychological
injuries.
o PTSD, while serious, is not a visible battlefield injury.
In favor of awarding it to PTSD victims:
o PTSD is a real consequence of combat and affects a soldier’s ability to function.
o The stigma against mental health issues in the military should be addressed.
This debate reflects different views on what counts as a "sacrifice" in war and what justice
demands for wounded soldiers.
(C) The AIG Bonus Scandal (2008 Financial Crisis)
During the 2008 economic collapse, the U.S. government bailed out AIG (an insurance company)
with taxpayer money. AIG then paid executives millions in bonuses, despite their role in the
financial crisis.
Moral Questions Raised
Was it fair for AIG executives to receive bonuses after a government bailout?
Were these bonuses justified by contracts and free-market principles?
Should taxpayers have a say in how bailout money is used?
,This example highlights the tension between market freedom, fairness, and government
intervention.
These dilemmas show that justice is not just about individual preferences—it requires moral
reasoning. He challenges the idea that public policies can be "value-neutral". Instead, he argues
that political decisions always reflect moral and ethical values.
For example:
Laws against price gouging reflect a belief in fairness over market freedom.
The Purple Heart debate involves what we value in military service.
The AIG bailout raises questions about economic justice and responsibility
Chapter 2. The Greatest Happiness Principle – Utilitarianism
This chapter delves into the ethical theory of utilitarianism, primarily through the lens of Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and examines its implications through various thought experiments
and real-life scenarios.
1. The Case of the Mignonette: A Utilitarian Thought Experiment
Sandel introduces the case of the Mignonette, a famous 1884 legal case involving four
shipwrecked sailors stranded at sea. Facing starvation, they killed and ate the weakest member,
a young cabin boy, to survive. Upon rescue, the remaining sailors were put on trial for murder.
The defense argued necessity: sacrificing one life saved three others.
o Killing one was necessary—without his death, they all would have perished.
Utilitarian argument:
o The sacrifice of one life saved three others, thus maximizing overall happiness (or
minimizing suffering).
This dilemma raises a fundamental utilitarian question:
o Should morality be based on maximizing overall happiness?
The court, however, rejected necessity as a justification for murder, arguing that human
life has intrinsic moral worth, not subject to a calculation of social benefits.
The Mignonette case serves as an entry point into the fundamental utilitarian question:
, Should morality be based on maximizing overall happiness, even if it means violating
individual rights?
Are individual rights absolute, or can they be sacrificed for the greater good?
The case illustrates the core principle of utilitarianism—weighing the greatest benefit against
the cost, even if it means violating individual rights.
The case raises profound moral questions: Was their action justified? Does the necessity of
survival override moral prohibitions against killing? The chapter uses this case to explore two
competing approaches to justice:
1. Consequentialism: The morality of an action depends solely on its outcomes. In this
view, killing Parker was justified because it saved three lives.
2. Rights-Based Ethics: Certain moral duties and rights (e.g., the right to life) are
inviolable, regardless of the consequences. From this perspective, killing Parker was
inherently wrong, even if it led to a greater good.
The lifeboat case illustrates the central tension in utilitarianism: the conflict between maximizing
overall happiness and respecting individual rights.
2. Jeremy Bentham: Founder of Utilitarianism
Bentham (1748–1832) believed that the highest principle of morality is utility—that is,
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest number of people.
According to Bentham, people are governed by two sovereign masters:
o pleasure and pain.
Bentham argued all moral decisions should be based on utility.
o The purpose of morality, law, and government should be to maximizing pleasure
and minimizing pain.
Moral rightness is determined by outcomes, not intentions—an action is right if it
produces the best consequences.
He dismissed moral traditions (such as natural rights or religious values), advocating for a
purely consequentialist approach.
His famous idea: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
Bentham even proposed a "felicific calculus"—a system to measure pleasure and pain
quantitatively, using factors like intensity, duration, certainty, and extent.
Example of Bentham's utilitarianism in action:
Legal systems should punish criminals only if the punishment creates greater happiness
for society.
Chapter 1. Doing the Right Thing.
Chapter 1 of Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? by Michael Sandel serves as an introduction
to moral and political philosophy by exploring the meaning of justice and moral decision-
making. Sandel sets the stage for the rest of the book by presenting real-life dilemmas,
philosophical debates, and three primary approaches to justice.
1. Three Approaches to Justice
Sandel introduces three major perspectives on justice that will be explored throughout the book:
1. Maximizing Welfare (Utilitarianism) – Justice is about maximizing happiness and
reducing suffering.
Welfare: Justice as maximizing overall well-being (e.g. utilitarianism)
Example: Allowing price gouging might be good because it increases supply and
benefits more people.
2. Respecting Freedom (Libertarianism/Kantian Ethics) – Justice requires protecting
individual rights and freedoms.
Freedom: Justice as respecting individual rights and choices (e.g. libertarianism)
Example: The government should not interfere with voluntary transactions (like
price gouging).
3. Promoting Virtue (Aristotelian Ethics) – Justice should be concerned with what kind of
society we want to create.
Virtue: Justice as cultivating moral character and promoting the common good
(e.g. Aristotle’s virtue ethics)
Example: The Purple Heart debate is about what kind of honor military service
should recognize.
Each of these approaches will be examined in later chapters, but Sandel introduces them here as
competing theories that influence laws, policies, and moral debates.
2. Moral Dilemmas: Real-Life Cases
(A) Price Gouging After a Hurricane
Following Hurricane Charley (2004) in Florida, businesses raised prices on essential goods, such
as:
Generators: Normally $250 but sold for $2,000.
Bags of ice: Normally a few dollars but sold for $10 or more.
Hotel rooms: Prices tripled overnight.
This sparked public outrage, and Florida’s Attorney General Charlie Crist vowed to punish
price gouging.
,Moral Perspectives on Price Gouging
One view: Price gouging is unfair and exploits vulnerable people.
o Laws should prevent such behavior.
Another view: Raising prices is natural in a free market.
o Higher prices encourage suppliers to bring more goods to the area, benefiting
everyone.
This debate reflects the conflict between free-market principles (libertarianism) and fairness-
based approaches to justice.
(B) The Purple Heart Debate
The Purple Heart is a military medal awarded to soldiers wounded in combat. A debate arose over
whether soldiers with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) should receive the award.
Competing Arguments
Against awarding it to PTSD victims:
o The Purple Heart should go to physically wounded soldiers, not psychological
injuries.
o PTSD, while serious, is not a visible battlefield injury.
In favor of awarding it to PTSD victims:
o PTSD is a real consequence of combat and affects a soldier’s ability to function.
o The stigma against mental health issues in the military should be addressed.
This debate reflects different views on what counts as a "sacrifice" in war and what justice
demands for wounded soldiers.
(C) The AIG Bonus Scandal (2008 Financial Crisis)
During the 2008 economic collapse, the U.S. government bailed out AIG (an insurance company)
with taxpayer money. AIG then paid executives millions in bonuses, despite their role in the
financial crisis.
Moral Questions Raised
Was it fair for AIG executives to receive bonuses after a government bailout?
Were these bonuses justified by contracts and free-market principles?
Should taxpayers have a say in how bailout money is used?
,This example highlights the tension between market freedom, fairness, and government
intervention.
These dilemmas show that justice is not just about individual preferences—it requires moral
reasoning. He challenges the idea that public policies can be "value-neutral". Instead, he argues
that political decisions always reflect moral and ethical values.
For example:
Laws against price gouging reflect a belief in fairness over market freedom.
The Purple Heart debate involves what we value in military service.
The AIG bailout raises questions about economic justice and responsibility
Chapter 2. The Greatest Happiness Principle – Utilitarianism
This chapter delves into the ethical theory of utilitarianism, primarily through the lens of Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and examines its implications through various thought experiments
and real-life scenarios.
1. The Case of the Mignonette: A Utilitarian Thought Experiment
Sandel introduces the case of the Mignonette, a famous 1884 legal case involving four
shipwrecked sailors stranded at sea. Facing starvation, they killed and ate the weakest member,
a young cabin boy, to survive. Upon rescue, the remaining sailors were put on trial for murder.
The defense argued necessity: sacrificing one life saved three others.
o Killing one was necessary—without his death, they all would have perished.
Utilitarian argument:
o The sacrifice of one life saved three others, thus maximizing overall happiness (or
minimizing suffering).
This dilemma raises a fundamental utilitarian question:
o Should morality be based on maximizing overall happiness?
The court, however, rejected necessity as a justification for murder, arguing that human
life has intrinsic moral worth, not subject to a calculation of social benefits.
The Mignonette case serves as an entry point into the fundamental utilitarian question:
, Should morality be based on maximizing overall happiness, even if it means violating
individual rights?
Are individual rights absolute, or can they be sacrificed for the greater good?
The case illustrates the core principle of utilitarianism—weighing the greatest benefit against
the cost, even if it means violating individual rights.
The case raises profound moral questions: Was their action justified? Does the necessity of
survival override moral prohibitions against killing? The chapter uses this case to explore two
competing approaches to justice:
1. Consequentialism: The morality of an action depends solely on its outcomes. In this
view, killing Parker was justified because it saved three lives.
2. Rights-Based Ethics: Certain moral duties and rights (e.g., the right to life) are
inviolable, regardless of the consequences. From this perspective, killing Parker was
inherently wrong, even if it led to a greater good.
The lifeboat case illustrates the central tension in utilitarianism: the conflict between maximizing
overall happiness and respecting individual rights.
2. Jeremy Bentham: Founder of Utilitarianism
Bentham (1748–1832) believed that the highest principle of morality is utility—that is,
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest number of people.
According to Bentham, people are governed by two sovereign masters:
o pleasure and pain.
Bentham argued all moral decisions should be based on utility.
o The purpose of morality, law, and government should be to maximizing pleasure
and minimizing pain.
Moral rightness is determined by outcomes, not intentions—an action is right if it
produces the best consequences.
He dismissed moral traditions (such as natural rights or religious values), advocating for a
purely consequentialist approach.
His famous idea: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
Bentham even proposed a "felicific calculus"—a system to measure pleasure and pain
quantitatively, using factors like intensity, duration, certainty, and extent.
Example of Bentham's utilitarianism in action:
Legal systems should punish criminals only if the punishment creates greater happiness
for society.
