Amartya sen’s Idea of Justice – A criticize on John Rawls theory of justice

Dr. Mugdha Saptnekar.
Guided by : Dr. Asmita A. Vaidya.
Email- saptnekar31@gmail.com
Mobile no- 9404789720
Abstract-
In 2009 Amartya sen’s Book The Idea of Justice was published. The book was a highlight on Economic reasoning and a critique of John Rawls Theory of Justice written in 1971. Sen in his Idea of justice has established the importance of objective reasoning. He states that justice is not a singular term but a pluralistic notion with many Dimensions. He criticizes John Rawls Theory of justice for its inadequacy in delivering actual justice. According to him concepts and principles of justice should change as per the changing needs of the society. In Idea of justice Sen makes an attempt to use basic tenets of the Theory of the Theory of Social choice to suggest possibilities that could be adopted in identification and minimization of injustice

Key words: Economic reasoning, objective reasoning, utilitarian, egalitarian, libertarian, monolithic ideal, pluralistic notion

Introduction-

Amartya Sen is a much admired, award winning economist, writer and philosopher. A voice of the poor, and malnourished, tirelessly engrossed in the problems of the society’s poorest people. Born in West Bengal in 1933, Amartya Sen studied at Presidency college, Calcutta and Trinity college, Cambridge. He taught economics in Delhi

then at Oxford, the LSE and Harvard. In 1998 became Master of Trinity, and in 2004 returned to Harvard. His major previous books include ‘Collective Choice and Social Welfare’ (1970), ‘Poverty and Famines’ (1981), ‘Development as Freedom’ (1999),and ‘Identity and violence’ (2006). A Nobel laureate, he is also a companion of Honour and hold India’s Bharat Ratna. Sen in his book The Idea of Justice states that justice is not a monolithic ideal but a pluralistic notion with many Dimensions. According to him a just society is produced through perfectly just state institutions and social arrangements and the right behavior of the citizens. He criticizes John Rawls theory of justice for its inadequacy in delivering actual justice. Sen’s alternative is a realization- focused approach to justice which concentrates on the real behavior of people and its actual outcomes. Taking a cue from “social choice theory”, he wants us to focus on removing injustices on which we can all rationally agree. There is nothing we can do about people dying of starvation beyond anyone’s control. But we can choose to do something about injustices that emerge from a conscious “design of those wanting to bring about that outcome”.

Objectives- 1. To study Amartya sen’s Idea of justice 2. To study the criticizes made by him on western philosophers. 3. To study his criticizes on John Rawls theoty of justice written in 1971.

Scope of study-It is a study regarding the concepts and principles of justice laid down by Amartya sen in his Book Idea of justice. The study is also about criticisms that are made by him on western philosophers in his book Idea of justice. A limited overview is also taken on John Rawls Theory of Justice which has been severally criticize by Amartya sen for its inadequacy in delivering actual justice.

Research Methodology- The research is fundamental or basic research and is based on pure and applied research. The research has Doctrinal method where researcher has relied on library assistance, law books, law journals, e- journals and legal web sites.

Hypothesis- Principles and concepts of law should change as per the changing needs of the society.

Significance of study- The significance of study is to highlight the various principles laid down by Amartya Sen in his Book ‘The Idea of Justice’, to minimize injustice from the society.

Amartya sen’s Idea of Justice- In Idea of Justice, sen makes an attempt to use basic tenets of the theory of social choice to suggest possibilities that could be adopted in identification and minimization of social injustice. For Sen it is more important to focus on the manifest instances of injustice and minimize them rather than to speculate on the ideal form of a just society that has no room for injustice. Book, therefore contains following broad arguments:

1. To emphasize the important role played by objective reasoning in arriving at the appropriate social choices for enhancement of justice.

2. Evaluate and bring out the inadequacy of prevailing theories of justice in reducing the social injustice, specifically of John Rawl’s ‘Theory of Justice’ (1971).

3. Discuss social choice theory and capability approach as an alternative approach for enhancement of justice.

4. Discuss different aspects of social justice, which sen calls as materials of justice.

Sen states that ‘ What is a just society is not a good starting point for the useful theory of justice. A systematic theory of comparative justice does not need, nor does necessarily yield an answer to this question. what is important is the Idea of justice of emergence of various social alternatives ( not just one) which can be ranked based on priorities and from among those alternatives, based on public reasoning, some alternative could be selected. Sen thus gives importance to the plurality of approaches, role of public reasoning and availability of democratic institutions. Sen also argues tha thus ranked and selected approaches also must be re- examined if need be for their effectiveness and actual delivery of justice.

While making point that there may not be consensus on a single approach towards justice that can be called ‘Best’, Sen provides a classical illustration.

Suppose there are three children Anne, Bob and Carla- quarrel over a flute. Anne says its hers because she’s the only one who knows how to play it. Bob counters that he’s the poorest and has no toys, so the flute would at least give him something to play with. Carla reminds Anne and Bob that she built the darn thing. All these arguments, Anne from utilitarian perspective, Bob’s from egalitarian perspective and Carla from libertarian point of view are correct. From among those, no single decision could be termed as best or worst. How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?

There are no institutional arrangements that can help us resolve this dispute in a universally just manner. Conceptions of what constitutes a “just society”, will not help us decide who should have the flute. A one dimensional of reason is not much help either, for it does not provides with feasible method of arriving at a choice.

What really enables us to resolve the dispute between the three children is the value we attach to the pursuit of human fulfillment, removal of poverty and the entitlement to enjoy the products of one’s own labour.

Thus according to Amartya Sen Justice is not a monolithic ideal but a pluralisticnotion with many dimensions.

Amartya Sen’s criticism on western philosophers- Amartya sen states that Justice is not a monolithic ideal but a pluralistic notion with many dimensions. Yet western philosophers have seen justice largely in singular terms. Hobbes, Locke and Kant, for example, wove their notions of justice around an imaginary “social contract” between the citizens and the state. A “just society” is produced through perfectly just state institutions and the right behavior of the citizens.

Sen identifies two serious problems with this “arrangement focused” approach. First, there is no reasoned agreement on the nature of a “just society”. Second, how would we actually recognize a “just society” if we saw one? Without some framework of comparison it is not possible to identify the ideal we need to pursue.

Furthermore, this approach is of no help in resolving basic issues of injustice. How would you reason, for example, that slavery was an

intolerable injustice in a framework that concerned itself with right institutions and right behavior? How would we ensure that well- established and cheaply producible drugs were available to the poor patients of Aids in developing countries?

Therefore, sen states that this “arrangement focused” approach is of no help in solving the basic issues of injustice in the society. The greatest contribution sen makes to the area of social justice is by underscoring the importance of the Objective reasoning. As sen observes ‘avoidance of reasoned justification often comes not from indignant protestors but from placid guardians of order and justice.

Criticism on John Rawl’s ‘Theory of Justice (1971) – After having established the importance of objective reasoning in the idea of justice, sen criticizes John Rawl’s theory of justice.

John Rawl’s foundational idea was that justice has to be seen in terms of demands of fairness. To achieve impartiality, Rawls propose an imaginary position called ‘original position’, which is a imagined situation of primordial equality, in which parties involved have no knowledge of their personal identities. Under this ‘veil of ignorance’ group of people have to select their representatives who in that state of ignorance chose the principles of justice unanimously:

a. Each person has an equal right to fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.

b. social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. first, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Sen discusses many positives of Rawls theory of justice such as establishing the foundational priority to the idea of fairness in the Idea of justice, importance of objectivity in practical reasoning, pointing out and underscoring the importance of moral power people have which bestows them with capacity foe sense of justice and for conception of the good,

and finally establishing pre- eminence of liberty al welfare in person’s life.

However, sen severely attacks Rawl’s theory of justice by bringing out its inadequacy .0to deliver the actual justice.

Recommendations-

* There should be adoption of various social alternatives to minimize injustice from the society.

* citizens should be aware of their personal identities and vested interests.

* Every person of the society should make an endeavor to minimize injustice. A society is ideal when there is justice and each person is treated equally.

* The rights of minorities should be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities.

* Those regions and groups which have not fully shared in country’s affluence will be given a better opportunity.

* Indian population should be encouraged to assume the full rights of citizenship through policies which will give them both greater responsibility for their own future and more meaningful equality of opportunity.

* All citizens should be actively involved in the development of a country where equality of opportunity is ensured.

References:

1. Myneni Legal theory
2.Ghormade legal theory and jurisprudence
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org
4.www.carnegiecouncil.org
5.www.economist.com
6.home.sandiego.edu
7.lawjournal.rutgers.edu

Library research paper

Amartya sen’s Idea of Justice

students name- Vinita vinayak waje class- LL.M 1st year subject- Legal theory

Dr. Mugdha M Sapatnekar.
Email- sapatnekar31@gmail.co
Mob- 09404789720.

Guided by- Dr. Asmita A. Vaidya.