9/18/14 Kaia Hayes

I found each of  the scenarios and applications discussed in Michael Sandel's Justice, What's the Right Thing To Do very thought provoking. Each presented a different layer of moral conflict-- from the social, political and economic quandaries of price-gouging, bailout and military honor to the fundamental conflicts concerning human life and sacrifice for greater good found in the trolley and goatherd scenarios. While it was interesting to interpret each of these and attempt to resolve them with my own logic, I was most intrigued by what Sandel had to say about the act of moral reasoning and philosophy in general-- that posing questions like these are necessary to spur people into contemplation. When debating viewpoints, we tend to present them as though they are etched in stone, the end-all, be-all. But this is often because the heat of the moment calls for a black and white, condensed argument that can stand against the opponent. The moral dilemma allows one to apply their beliefs to a concrete scenario, and at once find the weaknesses in their argument as the conflicting aspects of the story reveal them. Instead of taking for granted that, because they have always felt a certain way, they will continue to feel this way about an issue, one is forced to rework and justify the tenets of their personal moral logic. For this reason, I believe that a dialectical approach, rather than a traditional volleying of rigid, canned statements, is the best way for two individuals (i.e. politicians, thinkers, colleagues) to truly dissect an issue and work to form a resolution.