Exposition of Michael Sandel’s Fairness and Corruption Objections (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Institution
Date of Submission
Exposition of Michael Sandel’s Fairness and Corruption Objections
Introduction
Michael Sandel's "What Money Can't Buy" raises two concerns about using money to distribute goods and services: fairness and corruption. Sandel argues that monetary compensation in exchange for goods and services violates the notion of fairness by allowing people to pay for what they want. Furthermore, he argues that the use of money corrupts the meaning of specific goods and services (Sandel, p. 11). Rawls' social contract theory would address both issues raised by Sandel's objections. According to Rawls, a just society is one where individuals are given equal rights and opportunities to achieve their conception of the good life. Thus, if people believe that receiving monetary compensation for a good or service will help them achieve their conception of the good life, then it is not unfair for them to do so. Furthermore, since Rawls believes that everyone has equal rights and opportunities within society, it follows that everyone has equal access to resources needed for achieving their conception of the good life; thus, no one should be denied access to those resources based on their ability or willingness to pay for them. In contrast, Nozick's entitlement theory would address only one of these two concerns: whether paying for goods or services can be considered fair by individuals who do not have adequate funds.
Exposition
In his book What Money Can’t Buy, Michael Sandel presents two objections to markets in social life. The first is that markets are unfair. They do not treat people equally; instead, they privilege money over others without it (Sandel, p. 11). For example, in an education market, those who can afford to purchase it will have access to better learning opportunities than those who cannot.
The second objection is that markets corrupt society. Markets encourage people to think only of what they want from each other and not about the good of society as a whole. For example, if there were a market for organ transplants, people would think only about how much money they could make by selling their organs rather than how such a practice might impact society and whether it is ethical for them to do so.
In their book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls and Robert Nozick offer competing distributive justice accounts. These theories are meant to describe how we should distribute goods and resources in society. Rawls’s Social Contract Theory argues that the distribution of goods should be based on what he calls the Difference Principle: “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society and (b) attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 1971). This is meant to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity in life regardless of their social class or race.
Nozick’s Entitlement Theory argues for a much more laissez-faire approach in which people can keep whatever they earn. He claims that this is fair because people have worked hard for what they have: “All persons are entitled to liberty so long as they do not violate the rights of others…and each person has an equal right to liberty and thus an equal claim against others on the grounds of this right” (Nozick, 1974).
Explanation
Sandel’s objections to the marketization of everything are convincing, but they can be addressed by John Rawls’s social contract theory and Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory. Rawls’s social contract theory would address Sandel's objection that money can buy happiness by arguing that people have a right to pursue their conception of the good life, even if it does not conform to what society considers a “good life.” For example, if someone wants to spend their money on drugs or prostitutes, that is their choice—and it does not violate anyone else's rights.
Nozick’s entitlement theory would address Sandel's objections that money can buy happiness by arguing that there is nothing wrong with any particular exchange. All parties in the transaction are satisfied, and no harm has been done. In other words, if someone wants their money to buy a sex toy for themselves and their partner, they should be able to do so without being criticized or judged for it.
While Sandel's objections to Rawls' social contract theory were compelling, Nozick's entitlement theory provides the best response. Sandel's main objection to Rawls' social contract theory was that it relies on an overly simplistic description of human nature and the role of government. He argued that this kind of universal account fails because it ignores that people