Veronica Singh says:

Michael Sandel exhibits a valiant effort at rebuilding the cracking walls of society’s dam of morality. His failure is inevitable, due to the materials he uses – he relies solely on nonreligious arguments.

Now, it is admittedly my own prior conviction that reason alone can never stem the tide of relativism – but Michael Sandel has failed to convince me otherwise.

Sandel lists the norms that he wants to maintain in society: unconditional love, openness to all human life, celebration of natural talents and gifts, humility, and social solidarity. He also believes that we should seek and express our freedom not by changing ourselves to fit the world, but the other way around.

Then he explains how we are to maintain these good things: we must view life as a “gift”, rather than as something in our control. Of course, Sandel doesn’t claim that life really IS a gift – just that we should think of it AS a gift. We should maintain a kind of respect for the near sacredness of the natural – sacredness without a religious basis, giftedness without a giver. He almost seems to be arguing for a kind of primeval respect for the cosmic forces of nature and chance.

I don’t disagree with Sandel’s list of desirable social norms, or with his view that bioengineering would dull our sense of life as a gift. However, I am entirely unconvinced by his suggested cure. Why should we cling to the view that life is a “gift” if this view is in fact mistaken, if it is merely a useful verbal mirage that keeps us well-behaved? If there is no giver, then life cannot truly be a gift; rather, it is a random, chance occurrence that means nothing. And if that is the case, then why should certain social norms be privileged over others? Regardless of how seemingly good Sandel’s norms appear to be, there will always be those who disagree – and who says they can’t be right? Why can’t we change our social norms and courageously progress into a braver, newer society?

Sandel’s prescribed cure falls flat because people aren’t too tempted to delude themselves, even for the common good. In a world without a giver, only we can assign true meaning and value. And so, we can’t really believe that life has meaning or value other than what we choose to assign to it. We tend to sink into utilitarianism and a struggle for power – not to mention individualism and relativism.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of the book was Michael Sandel’s last chapter, which is a defense of embryonic stem cell research. In a book that attempts to convince the reader to respect human beings, this is a disillusioning finish that rather spoils the appetite.

Rating: 2 / 5

J. Davis says:

I was very impressed with the thinking of Professor Sandel in this book. The best part was the last chapter, where in about thirty pages, he makes an eloquent case for embryonic stem cell research. While being respectful of the beliefs of conservatives who oppose it, he shows why their arguments are weak. I liked his analogy of the acorn not being an oak tree just as the embryo is not a baby, even though the oak was an acorn at one time. This is a serious, well-reasoned, intellectual book.
Rating: 4 / 5

BookWormJDC says:

This book is quite interesting, it’s written in a readable style, and it presents lots of “food for thought” if you read it carefully. The author attempts (fairly successfully) to be balanced although he does take a side (obviously, based on the title). It’s probably one of the better presentations on “big ideas” relevant to the future of eugenics. The conclusion is somewhat perfunctory and there is (seemingly extraneous and unconvincing) preaching in favor of stem cell research, but otherwise it’s definitely worth reading if you’re interested in genethics.
Rating: 4 / 5