Part 1 - Arguing Affirmative Action: Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action.
Part 2 - What's the Purpose?: Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. Justice is a matter of fitting a person’s virtues with an appropriate role. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue.
Justice is one of the most popular courses in Harvard’s history, having taught more than 14,000 students over the course of two decades.
In this course, Sandel challenges us with difficult moral dilemmas and asks our opinion about the right thing to do. He then asks us to examine our answers in the light of new scenarios. The results are often surprising, revealing that important moral questions are never black and white.
This course also addresses the hot topics of our day—affirmative action, same-sex marriage, patriotism and rights—and Sandel shows us that we can revisit familiar controversies with a fresh perspective.
Each lecture in this course has two parts as well as related readings and discussion guides.
Reading - Aristotle, The Politics | Reading - Hopwood v. State (1996) | Reading - Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) | Discussion Guide, Beginner | Discussion Guide, Advanced
