I found the reading by Michael Sandel to be both interesting and frustrating. Perhaps because the section we read was taken from a much larger work, I found some of his points and comments to clutter his overall argument. Such discussions would make sense to include in a book but not so much a critical essay, which was the style in which I was reading it. Despite this, I think that the crux of Sandel’s work is clear and which is best described in his own words, “A politics of moral engagement is not only a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance. It is also a more promising basis for a just society.” What I think Sandel means is that it is ignorant to believe that we can separate morals from politics, and in fact morals need to be a part of politics so that the systems in which we live in can be supported by a backbone of morally defined justice. I agree with Sandel to a point, especially when thinking that how we define justice, what we consider to be just, is inseparable from what society values. To create a just society, we need to work in collaboration to define what is valuable to us as a society and that cannot be achieved without the inclusion of every individual’s morality because morality for the most part is intrinsic. I think that this reading connects to the work I am doing at APC because I am working towards moral engagement. I am creating a definition of justice that includes the voices of those who need it the most.