Harvard government professor Sandel (Public Philosophy) dazzles in this sweeping survey of hot topics-the recent government bailouts, the draft, surrogate pregnancies, same-sex marriage, immigration reform and reparations for slavery-that situates various sides in the debates in the context of timeless philosophical questions and movements. Sandel takes utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative and Rawls's theory of justice out of the classroom, dusts them off and reveals how crucial these theories have been in the construction of Western societies-and how they inform almost every issue at the center of our modern-day polis. The content is dense but elegantly presented, and Sandel has a rare gift for making complex issues comprehensible, even entertaining (see his sections entitled "Shakespeare versus the Simpsons and "What Ethics Can Learn from Jack Benny and Miss Manners"), without compromising their gravity. With exegeses of Winnie the Pooh, transcripts of Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing and the works of almost every major political philosopher, Sandel reveals how even our most knee-jerk responses bespeak our personal conceptions of the rights and obligations of the individual and society at large. Erudite, conversational and deeply humane, this is truly transformative reading. (Oct.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

Sandel, a Harvard law professor, effortlessly integrates common concerns of individuals with topics as varied as abortion, affirmative action, and family loyalties within the modern theories and perspectives on freedom. He reviews philosophical thought from the ancient to more modern political philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. Sandel critiques three ways of thinking about justice: a utilitarian perspective that seeks the greatest happiness for the greatest number; the connection of justice to freedom with contrast between what he calls the laissez-faire camp that tends to be market libertarians and the fairness camp with an egalitarian slant that acknowledges the need for market regulation; and justice tied to virtue and pursuit of the good life. Although the last is generally associated with the cultural and political Right, he exposes connections across political lines. Sandel reveals how perspectives on justice are connected to a deeper and reasoned analysis, a moral engagement in politics, and a counterintuitive conclusion in modern politics. Whether or not readers agree with Sandel's conclusions, they will appreciate the encouragement to self-examination on the most mundane topics.--Ford, Vernon Copyright 2010 Booklist

NOT long ago, at a reception in Washington, I found myself talking to a prominent conservative commentator who was spitting mad because, he said, the Obama administration had blatantly, possibly criminally, favored unions over bondholders when dictating bailout terms to the automotive industry. Just the kind of lawless cronyism that had given liberalism a bad name! I found his fury puzzling. After all, if not for the government's rescue, General Motors and Chrysler would have crashed into bankruptcy court and smashed to bits, leaving the unions and the bondholders worse off. In any case, weren't the workers, with their livelihoods at stake and years of labor invested, in a quite different position, morally speaking, from the distant and anonymous bondholders? Was it such a crime for the government to treat differently situated stakeholders differently, even if doing so was unorthodox? We were talking about federal policy, of course; but we were really talking about justice. Is justice absolute and processdriven, so that we should stick to rules, come what may? Or is it situational and outcome-aware, so that we should sometimes improvise to take account of special circumstances? Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are likely to disagree - often without realizing that it is justice, not just politics, that they disagree about. Michael J. Sandel, a professor of government at Harvard University, seeks to bring implicit arguments over justice into the open, and to persuade liberals that there is nothing wrong with being judgmental. In debates ranging from affirmative action and surrogate parenting to abortion and same-sex marriage, we must talk, he says, about virtue and desert, not just compassion and choice. "Justice is inescapably judgmental," he writes. "A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life. It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread." "Justice," the book, is based on a course Sandel teaches at Harvard, which is one of the most popular classes on campus and has been made into a 12-part PBS series. To undergraduates suckled on open-mindedness at any cost, the repudiation of value-free politics may seem surprising, but it is hardly new territory. Almost 20 years ago, in his 1991 book "Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State," William A. Galston - a center-left political theorist and strategist who later served in the Clinton administration - argued, more probingly than Sandel does here, that modern liberalism cannot and should not fix upon neutrality as its pole star. "Like every other political community," Galston wrote, the liberal state "embraces a view of the human good that favors certain ways of life and tilts against others." Partly at the urging of Galston and other "new Democrats," Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have brought values, and specifically the notion that some values are better than others, back into the mainstream of progressive politics. What "Justice" does, and does very well, is teach. Sandel explains theories of justice based on utilitarianism (minimize social harm), libertarianism (maximize personal freedom) and communitarianism (cultivate civic virtue) with clarity and immediacy honed by years of classroom presentation; the ideas of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick and John Rawls have rarely, if ever, been set out as accessibly. Sandel's virtuosic untangling of Kant's notorious knots, in under 40 pages, is worth the price of admission by itself. If "Justice" breaks no new philosophical ground, it succeeds at something perhaps no less important: in terms we can all understand, it confronts us with the concepts that lurk, so often unacknowledged, beneath our conflicts. Liberals and conservatives disagree not just about policy but about justice. Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer with National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.

A Harvard law professor explores the meaning of justice and invites readers on a journey of moral and political reflection, "to figure out what they think, and why." Does a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder "deserve" the Purple Heart? Should the U.S. government formally apologize and make reparations for slavery? Is it wrong to lie to a murderer? Following the taxpayer bailout of the company, are executives at insurance giant A.I.G. still entitled to their bonuses? Should a professional golfer afflicted with a severe circulatory condition be allowed to use a golf cart during tournaments? Are you obliged to surrender your criminal brother to the FBI? Although Sandel (The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, 2007, etc.) concedes that answering the many questions he poses, bound up "with competing notions of honor and virtue, pride and recognition," is never easy and inevitably contentious, it's necessary for a healthy democracy. "Justice," he writes, "is inescapably judgmental." Using three approaches to justicemaximizing welfare, respecting freedom and promoting virtuethe author asks readers to ponder the meaning of the good life, the purpose of politics, how laws should be constructed and how society should be organized. Using a compelling, entertaining mix of hypotheticals, news stories, episodes from history, pop-culture tidbits, literary examples, legal cases and teachings from the great philosophersprincipally, Aristotle, Kant, Bentham, Mill and RawlsSandel takes on a variety of controversial issuesabortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative actionand forces us to confront our own assumptions, biases and lazy thought. The author has a talent for making the difficultKant's "categorical imperative" or Rawls's "difference principle"readily comprehensible, and his relentless, though never oppressive, reason shines throughout the narrative. Sparkling commentary from the professor we all wish we had. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.