Author | Michael Sandel |
---|---|
Language | English |
Subject | Liberalism |
Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
Publication date | 1982 |
Publication place | United States |
Media type | Print (Hardcover and Paperback) |
Pages | 231 |
ISBN | 978-0521567411 |
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982; second edition 1998) is a book by the American political philosopher Michael J. Sandel. The book presents a critique of John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness, as articulated in A Theory of Justice (1971). Sandel challenges Rawls' conception of the self and argues that liberal political philosophy inadequately accounts for the embeddedness of individuals in social and historical contexts. The book is considered a significant contribution to communitarian critiques of liberalism, although Sandel does not fully embrace the communitarian label.
A central argument of the book is that Rawls' theory relies on a conception of the self that is "unencumbered," meaning that individuals are considered as free, rational agents independent of particular social, historical, or communal ties. This notion is exemplified in Rawls' original position , a hypothetical decision-making scenario in which individuals choose principles of justice behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of their personal characteristics, social status, or particular values.
At a basic level, Sandel's critique suggests that Rawls' model does not reflect how people actually conceive of themselves in everyday life. Sandel agrees that people do not make moral and political decisions in a vacuum but rather within the contexts of their relationships, histories, and social roles. Sandel deepens this argument by asserting that an individual’s identity is not merely influenced by external circumstances but is constitutively shaped by them. That is, who we are is inextricably tied to the particular communities, traditions, and histories that form us. To assume a person can abstract from these defining features is to misrepresent the nature of human selfhood.
Sandel further critiques Rawls by questioning whether the liberal self, as depicted in A Theory of Justice, can genuinely possess the depth required for moral agency. He argues that if individuals are truly independent of communal ties, they would lack the attachments necessary to develop a coherent moral identity. Moral commitments, in this view, are not merely chosen but are constitutive of who individuals are.
At a surface level, Sandel’s claim is that Rawlsian liberalism risks portraying moral choices as isolated, rational calculations, rather than as deeply embedded in one's existing values and traditions. At a more profound level, Sandel challenges the assumption that moral deliberation occurs within a purely procedural framework. Instead, he suggests that our moral reasoning is inherently situated – it emerges from within a web of pre-existing obligations, narratives, and self-understandings that cannot be bracketed away without distorting the reality of ethical life. By failing to account for this, Rawls' theory presents a vision of justice that is not fully responsive to the ways people actually conceive of their duties and commitments.
Another key argument in the book is that Rawls' emphasis on fairness and individual rights risks neglecting the importance of communal attachments and shared values. Rawls argues that principles of justice should be chosen independently of any particular conception of the good life, ensuring neutrality among different moral and religious doctrines. However, Sandel contends that this neutrality is itself a substantive moral commitment rather than a purely procedural framework.
Initially, Sandel's critique might seem to suggest that Rawls underestimates the role of social relationships in shaping ethical life. However, his argument runs deeper: he asserts that political philosophy cannot avoid substantive moral commitments, even when it claims to be neutral. The effort to construct a just society without endorsing any particular conception of the good, Sandel argues, already assumes a particular liberal ethic—one that prioritizes individual autonomy over more embedded forms of belonging. A truly adequate account of justice must therefore recognize that principles of justice are always informed by deeper conceptions of the good life.
Sandel challenges the liberal claim that justice can be formulated without reference to particular conceptions of the good life. He argues that all political theories, including Rawls', inevitably make implicit assumptions about human flourishing. While Rawls aims to construct a framework that allows individuals to pursue their own conceptions of the good, Sandel maintains that such a framework cannot be truly neutral. Instead, he argues that any theory of justice must engage with substantive questions about what it means to live a good human life.
At first glance, this argument may seem like a call for greater moral engagement in political philosophy. However, Sandel's position extends further: he suggests that the very attempt to avoid substantive moral commitments leads to an internally incoherent liberalism. By refusing to take a stand on what constitutes a good life, liberalism paradoxically ends up imposing its own vision of the good – one rooted in individual autonomy and procedural fairness. Sandel thus invites a rethinking of justice that acknowledges its inherently ethical dimensions rather than treating it as a purely formal or neutral construct.
The book was first published in 1982 and a revised edition was released in 1998 by Cambridge University Press.
The second edition includes a new introduction in which Sandel responds to further developments in political philosophy, particularly the continued influence of Rawls' ideas and the rise of deliberative democracy. Sandel clarifies his critique of Rawls and engages with responses from liberal theorists who sought to defend Rawlsian justice. The revised edition also reflects on the broader implications of the communitarian critique and discusses how debates surrounding liberalism and its alternatives evolved in the years following the book’s original publication. [1]
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice received a positive review from Mark Sagoff in the Yale Law Journal . Sagoff endorsed Sandel's "criticism of contemporary utilitarian and Kantian conceptions of the good". He expressed agreement with Sandel's views of liberalism and the nature of the self. He also agreed with Sandel's criticisms of Rawls's view of the origins of the principles of justice and of "the idea of a social contract dependent on possessive individualism." He compared Sandel's views to those of the philosophers F. H. Bradley, Thomas Hill Green, and Bernard Bosanquet, but believed that his work was open to criticism in that it did not advance sufficiently beyond them and left some questions unresolved. [2]
Norman Care of Oberlin College calls the book "well-written and interesting to read" and compliments it for its extended critique of "deep individualism". He notes that Sandel's assessment of Rawlsian theory is novel due to its focus on the idea of community. [3]
The philosopher Sheldon Wolin called the book "the best political critique of Rawls from a communitarian and participatory perspective." [4] The philosopher Richard Rorty described the book as "clear and forceful". He credited Sandel with providing "very elegant and cogent arguments against the attempt to use a certain conception of the self, a certain metaphysical view of what human beings are like, to legitimize liberal politics." [5] The philosopher Jonathan Wolff wrote that Sandel provides the fullest development of the argument that Rawls bases his political philosophy on an untenable metaphysics of the self. [6] The philosopher Will Kymlicka wrote that Liberalism and the Limits of Justice is Sandel's best-known book, and helped start the liberalism-communitarianism debate that dominated Anglo-American political philosophy in the 1980s. [7]
In its broadest sense, justice is the idea that individuals should be treated fairly. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as "the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due".
Political philosophy, or political theory, is the philosophical study of government, addressing questions about the nature, scope, and legitimacy of public agents and institutions and the relationships between them. Its topics include politics, justice, liberty, property, rights, law, and authority: what they are, if they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect, what form it should take, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever.
Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. Its overriding philosophy is based on the belief that a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being placed on individualism. Although the community might be a family, communitarianism usually is understood, in the wider, philosophical sense, as a collection of interactions, among a community of people in a given place, or among a community who share an interest or who share a history. Communitarianism is often contrasted with individualism, and opposes laissez-faire policies that deprioritize the stability of the overall community.
John Bordley Rawls was an American moral, legal and political philosopher in the modern liberal tradition. Rawls has been described as one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century.
The original position (OP), often referred to as the veil of ignorance, is a thought experiment often associated with the works of American philosopher John Rawls. In the original position, one is asked to consider which principles they would select for the basic structure of society, but they must select as if they had no knowledge ahead of time what position they would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents them from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender, and their or anyone else's ideas of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.
Richard McKay Rorty was an American philosopher and historian of ideas. Educated at the University of Chicago and Yale University, Rorty's academic career included appointments as the Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University, the Kenan Professor of Humanities at the University of Virginia, and as a professor of comparative literature at Stanford University. Among his most influential books are Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Consequences of Pragmatism (1982), and Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (1989).
A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by the philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) in which the author attempts to provide a moral theory alternative to utilitarianism and that addresses the problem of distributive justice . The theory uses an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other disciplines and contexts.
"Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in 1985. In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
Public reason requires that the moral or political rules that regulate our common life be, in some sense, justifiable or acceptable to all those persons over whom the rules purport to have authority. It is an idea with roots in the work of Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and has become increasingly influential in contemporary moral and political philosophy as a result of its development in the work of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, and Gerald Gaus, among others.
Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher and the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where his course Justice was the university's first course to be made freely available online and on television. It has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world, including in China, where Sandel was named the 2011's "most influential foreign figure of the year".
Michael Laban Walzer is an American political theorist and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor emeritus of the left-wing magazine Dissent, which he has been affiliated with since his years as an undergraduate at Brandeis University, an advisory editor of the Jewish journal Fathom, and sits on the editorial board of the Jewish Review of Books.
Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge is a German philosopher and is the Director of the Global Justice Program and Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University, United States. In addition to his Yale appointment, he is the Research Director of the Centre for the Study of the Mind in Nature at the University of Oslo, Norway, a Professorial Research Fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, Australia, and Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire's Centre for Professional Ethics, England. Pogge is also an editor for social and political philosophy for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
Political Liberalism is a 1993 book by the American philosopher John Rawls, an update to his earlier A Theory of Justice (1971). In it, he attempts to show that his theory of justice is not a "comprehensive conception of the good" but is instead compatible with a liberal conception of the role of justice, namely, that government should be neutral between competing conceptions of the good. Rawls tries to show that his two principles of justice, properly understood, form a "theory of the right" which would be supported by all reasonable individuals, even under conditions of reasonable pluralism. The mechanism by which he demonstrates this is called "overlapping consensus". Here he also develops his idea of public reason.
Desert in philosophy is the condition of being deserving of something, whether good or bad. It is sometimes called moral desert to clarify the intended usage and distinguish it from the dry desert biome. It is a concept often associated with justice and morality: that good deeds should be rewarded and evil deeds punished.
Robert B. Talisse is an American philosopher and political theorist. He is currently Professor of Philosophy and former Chair of the Philosophy Department at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, where he is also a Professor of Political Science. Talisse is a former editor of the academic journal Public Affairs Quarterly, and a regular contributor to the blog 3 Quarks Daily, where he posts a monthly column with his frequent co-author and fellow Vanderbilt philosopher Scott Aikin. He earned his PhD in Philosophy from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York in 2001. His principal area of research is political philosophy, with an emphasis on democratic theory and liberalism.
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? is a 2009 book on political philosophy by Michael J. Sandel.
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a 2010 textbook by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane. It is the first book in the publisher Palgrave Macmillan's Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn. Cochrane's book examines five schools of political theory—utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism—and their respective relationships with questions concerning animal rights and the political status of (non-human) animals. Cochrane concludes that each tradition has something to offer to these issues, but ultimately presents his own account of interest-based animal rights as preferable to any. His account, though drawing from all examined traditions, builds primarily upon liberalism and utilitarianism.
Alasdair Cochrane is a British political theorist and ethicist who is currently Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. He is known for his work on animal rights from the perspective of political theory, which is the subject of his two books: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Animal Rights Without Liberation. His third book, Sentientist Politics, was published by Oxford University Press in 2018. He is a founding member of the Centre for Animals and Social Justice, a UK-based think tank focused on furthering the social and political status of nonhuman animals. He joined the Department at Sheffield in 2012, having previously been a faculty member at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics. Cochrane is a sentientist. Sentientism is a naturalistic worldview that grants moral consideration to all sentient beings.
Free Market Fairness is a 2012 book of political philosophy written by John Tomasi, president of the Heterodox Academy and former Professor of Political Philosophy at Brown University. Tomasi presents the concept of "free market fairness" or "market democracy," a middle ground between Friedrich Hayek and John Rawls's ideas. The book was widely reviewed.