Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content.
AMARTYA SEN’S CRITIQUE OF THE RAWLSIAN THEORY OF JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS
Corresponding Author(s) : Dr. Partha Protim Borthakur
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews,
Vol. 7 No. 2 (2019): March
Purpose: The present paper tries to cross-examine Sen’s notion of justice and to find a midway between the ideal and non-ideal theorizing of justice. Besides, searching for reconciliation between Rawls and Sen, the present paper also attempts to go beyond Sen, while critically engaging with his idea of justice.
Methodology: This study has applied qualitative method; however, both the historical and analytical methods are employed for reaching out the conclusive findings of the study. As the sources of this paper are basically secondary, all necessary and relevant materials are collected from a range of related books, articles, journals, newspapers, and reports of various seminars and conferences that fall within the domain of the study area.
Main Findings: While analyzing Sen’s critique of Rawlsian theory, the study finds that the Rawlsian theory cannot be discarded only as a theory that formulates ideal justice and is not redundant. The study while revisiting Sen’s notion finds that there is also a possibility of reconciliation between ideal and non-ideal theorizing of justice.
Application: This study will be useful in understanding the debate between ideal versus non-ideal theories of justice that has lately been haunting the political philosophy. Besides, it will also be useful in searching for reconciliation between Rawls’ and Sen’s paradigms of justice and thereby offering a conception of justice that is reasonable and true in assessing issues of justice in the present scenario.
Novelty/ Originality: Revisiting Sen’s notion of justice and analyzing such dimensions of politics, the study will benefit the reader to evaluate the debate between ideal versus non-ideal theorizing of justice. Moreover, by searching for a possibility between Rawls and Sen, the study will contribute towards developing an alternative approach and understanding of justice.
- Bakshi, P.M. (2010). The Constitution of India. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
- Bhagawati, D. (2015). Beyond a Deontological Theory of Freedom. Journal of Politics, 50-54.
- Burke, J. F. (2010). Multiple Rationalities of Justice. The Review of Politics , 72 (3), 540-542.
- Cohen, G.A. (2003). Facts and Principles. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 31 (3), 211-245.
- Freeman, S. (2012). Ideal Theory and The Justice of Institutions vs. Comprehensive Outcomes. Rutgers Law Journal , 43 (2), 169-209.
- Hinsch, W. (2011). Ideal Justice and Rational Dissent: A Critique of Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Analyse and Critique , 33 (2), 371-386.
- Lucca-Silveria, M. P. (2016). The Subject of Social Justice: A Defence of the Basic Structure of Society. Brazilian Political Science Review , 10 (2), 1-26.
- Maffettone, S. (2011). Sen's Idea of Justiceversus Rawls' Theory of Justice. Indian Journal of Human Development , 5 (1), 119-132.
- Miller, D. (1976). Social Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- O'Neill, O. (2004). Towards Justice and Virtue: Bounds of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Osmani, S.R. (2010). Theory of Justice for an Imperfect World: Exploring Amartya Sen's Idea of Justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities , 11 (4), 599-607.
- Parr, S. F. (2003). The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen's Ideas on Capabilities. Feminist Economics , 9 (3), 304-305.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness, A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Satz, D. (2012). Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice: What Approach, Which Capabilities. Rutgers Law Journal , 43 (2), 277-293.
- Sen, A. (1982). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Sen, A. (1985). Well- Being Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy , 82 (4), 169-221.
- Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means vs. Freedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 24 (3), 111-121.
- Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.
- Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 32 (4), 315-356.
- Sen, A. (2006). What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice? The Journal of Philosophy , 103 (5), 215-238.
- Sen, A. (2007). Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
- Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. New Delhi: Penguin Books Ltd.
- Sen, A. (2015). The Country of First Boys. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Simmons, A. (2010). Ideal and Nonideal Theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 38 (1), 5-36.
- Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New Delhi: Penguin Books Ltd.
- Thaler, M. (2011). Comment on WIlfried Hinsch, Ideal Justice and Rational Dissent: A Critique of Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Analyse and Kritik , 33 (2), 387-393.
- Valentini, L. (2009). On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory. Journal of Political Philosophy , 17 (3), 332-355.
- Valentini, L. (2011). A Paradigm Shift in Theorizing about Justice? A Critique of Sen. Economics and Philosophy , 27, 305-306.
- Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.