The fundamental conflict between liberal and communitarian thought arises in fundamental philosophical views on concepts such as right-good, individual-society, and subject-purpose. This situation also creates the problem of the balance between individual rights and social values, and this balance becomes increasingly difficult to establish. In fact, from Sandel's perspective, liberals who believe that moral and religious doctrines should be neutral and communitarians who believe that rights should be based on dominant social values make a similar mistake. According to him, a third and more plausible possibility is that rights should be based on the moral significance of the purposes/goals they serve in terms of their justification. This study examines Sandel’s deliberative approach as a middle ground between liberal and communitarian theories of justice. It also considers the possibility that Sandel’s emphasis on moral discourse, developed through his dual critique of Rawlsian liberalism and communitarianism, may offer a compelling third way for contemporary political philosophy. The methodology combines textual analysis of Sandel’s work with a comparative assessment of liberal and communitarian arguments. Ultimately, the conclusion is that Sandel's framework, while compelling, offers a nuanced way to balance individual rights and communal values through participatory democracy, but overlooks the need for cultural internalization of universal values.