Michael Sandel's Analysis

It has been said “ancient political theory held that the purpose of politics was to cultivate the virtue, or moral excellence of citizens.” This is a claim made by Aristotle ultimately saying that he believes the goal of the government or “polis” is to teach what it means to be good similarly to how a parent teaches a child in order to promote happiness for all. As individuals, the identities that we possess are ultimately comprised in large by the social ties that we make. Our identical make up is based off of the actions of our ancestors and the ideals that they have passed down to us over the years. Michael Sandel states that:
“we cannot regard ourselves as independents… without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral …show more content…
It’s composed of a world of “unencumbered” selves choosing the greatest amount of good for themselves, no emotional ties of commitment prior to making these decisions. In such a place as this, the only obligations we truly have as human beings are to respect other people and the choices they make. We don’t necessarily have to agree to choices made by others, but we must respect them. In life I believe we all have choices; it’s what we do with those choices that ultimately define who we are as individuals and how we will live our lives. I chose to come to Manhattanville in order to receive as education in order to better me in the long run so that I will have a chance to succeed in life and accomplish all the things I want to do. This is a different choice than say a person who decided against going to college because they have decided that they want a different life, one in which they work at a drive through for example. This is okay, because this is the choice that they made and they have to freewill to do so, and there is nothing wrong with it. This just further proves my point that free will and choice are individualistic acts and they cannot depend upon a group of people to set a standard for all, which would be unfair. I believe that part of being a libertarian is having the understanding that people are going to think, believe, act, associate and disassociate in ways that others will most likely disapprove of. It is precisely in these situations where we must stand firm in support of the non-aggression principle. One of the main issues I see with libertarianism being too “thin” is that thin libertarians see any justification of liberty as acceptable; it’s as if liberty is a contingent matter for them. If we use the example of racial discrimination or bigotry, libertarians who are accepting of these issues, are ultimately setting back all of the ideals associated with