As a college student I dabbled in political philosophy - something I ought to do (ask the big questions). The courses examined texts from key thinkers, and traced ideas over the generations. I found this approach difficult: though often interesting, I soon forgot most of the content.

Sandel's book is different. Although referring to key thinkers, he links their ideas to current political and social issues (affirmative action, laissez-faire economics, etc.). This not only drew my interest, but helped me retain content (related to the abstraction called "justice"). While I sometimes disagree with Sandel's conclusions, I found his material provocative, relevant, and interesting.

I admire the author's ability to make political philosophy more accessible. However, as evidenced particularly by the case of reparations, I think some of his conclusions are too ivory-tower. Let's say we give $20,000 to every African-American as compensation for historical offenses. Where will that money go, and WHAT GOOD WILL COME OF IT? For too many beneficiaries I fear it will bolster an already troublesome sense of entitlement, linked to passivity; the funds might better be targeted to (e.g.) education and public health. Sandel does not move beyond abstract thinking to deal with this issue on-the-ground. (In my own defense, let it be known that I worked in government for an African-American congressman, on many community development issues.) In recent years I have changed my thinking on affirmative action: we need it for POOR PEOPLE of any color or ethnicity, and not for the already well-born and/or successful.

I highly recommend this book, especially for the non-specialist reader for whom "political philosophy" normally would be as welcome as castor oil.

Michael Sandel teaches the "Justice" class at Harvard University, which is one of the most well attended classes at Harvard. This book (and the audio CD which I am reviewing) are essentially abridged versions of that class. This is essentially an introductory primer on philosophical discourse. Sandel discusses some of the basic theories of justice and ethics, covering utilitarianism, libertarianism, Aristotle's teleological reasoning, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls. Sandel does a very good job of distilling these philosophies in a way that is easily understandable to a mass audience. While the Philosophy majors out there may find this approach to be simplistic, this is clearly not the intended audience for this book.

Sandel also goes over several contemporary debates (abortion, gay marriage, disability accommodations, affirmative action, etc.), and shows how these debates are, at their core, fundamental philosophical disagreements between dueling philosophical and moral frameworks. This is perhaps the most valuable part of the book, because it forces the audience to abandon the political rhetoric that surrounds these issues in contemporary culture, and instead think critically about these issues in light of deeper concerns.

Sandel is even-handed in his approach, and points out strengths and weaknesses in all of the ideas he presents without taking sides. It isn't until the end that he presents his personal philosophy.

My two major complaints are this - firstly that the audio CD which I listened to is abridged, and it seems that some very interesting debates are left out. (He mentions some of them in his conclusion). My second issue is that in some of the issues he discusses he does not delve into as much depth as I might have liked. Again though, this is clearly aimed at an audience that has little knowledge or exposure to the ideas it contains and should be considered an introductory text, not an advanced one. If you would like a fuller and more in-depth experience, the author has also turned his class into a series of videos complete with additional readings that can be accessed for free on the web at [...]

Sandel's survey of moral philosophy that hits on Bentham's Utilitarianism, Kant's Categorical Imperative, Mills' libertarianism, Rawls' Selective Morality and Aristotle's Golden Mean is concise and but thoroughly fascinating. Each player in his debate unique and interesting, but while the libertarian ideas are the most compelling, it appears that Sandel rests his final agreement on Aristotle's philosophy of the philosopher-shaped society being the best.

This is unfortunate and casts a shadow on an otherwise brilliant audio program. The results of Sandel's conclusion is that he promotes a strong political leader that would shape society. But he fails to realize that once we have a strongman with the power to shape society, there is no way to ensure that it will be for the best. The speaker ultimately says that the ultimate good is the good of society; that to decide if something is good, there must be confirmation from an outside source and that the libertarian idea of a self-consistent good is insufficient. But Sandel fails in this leap; as I describe in Everyone Agrees: Book I: Words, Ideas, and a Universal Morality, self-consistency is the only true judge of whether an act is good. Otherwise, it's just the whim of the majority or a central bureaucrat.

This program is highly recommended with the caveat that Sandel's survey of philosophy is superb, but his conclusions seem to ignore that very survery.

I defy anyone to sit through this entire reading in one sitting. I respect the author for having the gumption to read it all, but wow, can it be boring. The points the author makes are great, and he justifies his comments with proof throughout. He really doesn't mention anything you wouldn't already know if you keep on top of the news, but has enough intelligent opinions to make this interesting. I might recommend the book over the audio as his voice is about as monotone as it gets.

Many people automatically assume that there is a clear "Right or Wrong", but there are so many examples in this book that make you think about the moral decisions we make every day. As everyone knows, there's a lot of shades of grey between "right or wrong". This book reminded me of that old party book that everyone owned in the 80's, "The Book of Questions" where you ask all these difficult questions and no one comes up with the same answer. Except this book really explores the answers.

Sandel asks tough questions. For example, is it EVER acceptable to kill an totally innocent person? What's my first reaction? No! Then, he elaborates-- what if that innocent person is in a war zone, and they are going to alert their tribal leaders that you are there. You will likely die if you are discovered, and all of your men might die, too. How about now? Is it okay NOW to kill an innocent person?

Sandel explores one difficult topic after another-- it's uncomfortable but very thought-provoking. This book is so well-written and engaging that I found it impossible to put down. And I actually dog-eared several pages because I wanted to discuss many of the questions with my family, which I haven't done with any other book in years.