Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? book club questions

1. 1.

   Sandel says we can't avoid reasoning about the good life when we reason about justice. Do you agree, or do you think liberal neutrality is possible in principle?

2. 2.

   Think of a real policy debate — healthcare, taxation, immigration. Which of the three frameworks — utilitarian, Kantian, virtue-based — most shapes your own intuitions about it?

3. 3.

   The trolley problem separates two versions of utilitarian reasoning. Does the distinction between pulling a lever and pushing someone onto tracks feel morally significant to you? Why?

4. 4.

   Rawls's veil of ignorance is designed to produce fair principles by stripping out self-interest. Does ignorance of your position really produce fairness, or does it just produce risk-aversion?

5. 5.

   Sandel argues that markets can corrupt certain goods — that some things should not be for sale. What are two or three examples from your own experience where marketization felt wrong?

6. 6.

   Kant insists moral worth comes from acting from duty, not inclination. If someone is generous by nature, does their generosity count morally? What do you make of Kant's answer?

7. 7.

   Sandel argues that communal obligations can bind us without our consent. Do you feel obligations to your country, your profession, or your ancestors that you didn't choose?

8. 8.

   The book defends a more robust civic republicanism. Does that vision feel achievable in politically polarized societies, or is liberal neutrality a necessary compromise?

9. 9.

   Military service and civic obligation: Sandel argues a just war may require more than a professional army drawn from those with fewer options. What do you think a just military obligation looks like?

10. 10.

    Sandel draws on Aristotle's notion that institutions have purposes and goods should honor those purposes. Apply this to one institution you know well — a school, a firm, a hospital. Does purpose determine fair distribution within it?

11. 11.

    Who in public life do you consider a genuinely good public reasoner — someone who engages hard moral questions rather than avoiding them? What makes them distinctive?

12. 12.

    Sandel ends by calling for a politics of the common good. What would that look like in practice, and what would it require people to give up?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.