Renowned for his musings on conceptions of justice, Sandel has been dubbed the ‘Public Philosopher’, and on this reputation he was very much true to form. Discussing his most recent book, ‘What Money Can’t Buy’, Sandel did not proceed to lecture on what illusory things money couldn’t buy, but embarked on a discussion and invited debate on whether, in fact, there are any such things.

After a lighthearted anecdote about his Oxford days, we delved into the realm of social values and the market mechanism. Presenting scenarios ranging from countries paying to outsource asylum quotas, to motivating poor students with cash incentives for learning, we were led to consider the possibility of an all-out clash between moral and monetary incentives. The idea that the market mechanism may be permeating social life to too great a degree was at the heart of the discussion. Threatening to distort how we conceive of, and deal with, social and civic matters, Sandel was keen to highlight its potential implications; that we will unquestioningly see the solution in sticking a price tag on them.

Sandel is certainly not against the market mechanism. Not only did he encourage lively debate within the chamber, but was in fact selling his book on the night - a clear endorsement of the mechanism if ever there was one. Rather, what Sandel seeks is pragmatism in how we assess and award value to social life and its practices. Concluding that there are indeed certain things that money can’t buy, Sandel held that love, altruism and general goodwill are ‘not depleted by use, but enlarged by practice’. Drawing on the analogy of a muscle, he claimed that the more we allow market mechanisms to govern socially, the more we allow this muscle to ‘languish’ and these values to wane as we increasingly put a price on them. What he prescribes is that we engage in public debate on where exactly the market mechanism belongs.

On reflection, what was particularly noteworthy was Sandel’s skill at seamlessly weaving audience responses in with the talk he intended on delivering. Indeed it left one feeling that perhaps they had been masterfully steered along the course of discussion toward a particular point. If one happened to agree with the concluding line of argument this was, of course, not an unpleasant experience. If however, you were not so inclined, this was a rather unsettling one. Whichever camp you fall into though, one thing is for sure; Sandel manages to make matters of moral and political philosophy accessible to all, and moreover makes them relevant, topical and ultimately engaging. Whether in agreement or not, the ‘Public Philosopher’ sought to provoke thought, dialogue and debate, and in doing so he most certainly succeeded.