Book Review : The idea of justice by Amartya Sen

Against Transcendental Theory akhil PP0002214

The epicentre of Sen’s approach to justice is based on the John Rawl’s theory of justice who identifies justice as ‘fairness’ with the support of the social contract theory modified by him by emphasizing upon the principles of equality and liberty to be achieved through just institutions. His work is unique in the sense that it is comparative rather than ideal or transcendental and it lays emphasis on human lives and on the behaviours of the people rather than some just institutions. John Rawl’s identification of justice through the prism of Fairness wants to create perfect society through the means of just institutions which are universally applicable at all times. He observes that such universal application is impossible and too ideal to achieve. He has laid emphasis on reason rather than perfection.His work is based upon comparative theory and he has opposed the ‘transcendental theory’ propounded by Rawl wherein the aim is to create and identify perfect society. According to Sen, such identification is not possible there are many theories of justice. He has given an apt and simple story of three children Ann, Bob and Carla quarrelling as to who should get a flute. Anne claims the flute on the ground that she is the only one of the three who knows how to play it. Bob claims that he is the only one among the three who is so poor that he has no toys of his own and that the flute would give him something to play with. Carla claims that she has the right over the flute as she had made the flute in the first place. The transcendentalist or Rawl’s follower approach will be to seek as to which one of these is a right answers. Sen wants to point out that sometime there are many or plural right answers and that there are many plausible reasons for handing over the flute to any of the children.

Rawls’s ideal theory had three distinctive features:

According to him that one should reason about justice under relatively favourable conditions; he believe that we should mostly avoid enforcement problems until we have clear idea about what justice requires; and he thought that, if we do this, we will be able to decide which of the various theories of justice is best suitable for conditions.Rawls tried to defend his idea against criticism by suggesting that helping people at the bottom would have positive impact throughout the system, a kind of multiplier effect that would benefit everyone in society. But he was aware that the ripple effects might not surface in fact, maintaining that in that eventuality he would nonetheless cling with his difference principle.

When Rawls speaks of a perfectly just society, this is does not mean a world without conflict, scarcity, or self-interested people. It is a world who operates to the benefit of the least advantaged whose condition might be so dreadful that failing to protect them would be irrational for someone who might turn out to be one of them. In that scenario, Rawls relays heavily on comparative reasoning and incomplete orderings, with the result that there is a good affirmation less disagreement between him and Sen than Sen seems to realize. Indeed, Rawls does not have faith in capitalism and socialism on the grounds that it is vague which of these systems, or possibly some hybrid typology, best meets the requirements of justice. Sen’s claim that what distinguish his approach from Rawls’s is his application of comparative reasoning rather than a transcendental deduction designed to come up with a perfect idea of justice. Sen insists that, if we accept his comparative approach, we need not solve every question about justice to settle any question about justice. Through examples of paintings and mountains he suggests that, we can work with incomplete orderings.

Rawls coin the term comparative reasoning and incomplete orderings in arguing for his principles of justice. His intent was to put a condition that, behind the mask of ignorance, rational people would prefer his account of justice over rather than relying on perfectionism and, most importantly, utilitarianism. Rawls justify it by showing that, from the perspective of the most adversely affected person, the principles he defends would be more appealing than the others. It follows a fortiori that, if someone could demonstrate that some unexamined principle would do even better than his from that point of view, Rawls would support the new idea. So it is inappropriate for Sen to say that Rawls aimed to offer an account of “perfectly just institutions in a world where all options are available”.Sen overstates his differences with Rawls on account of both method and substance, and that his alternative appeal to a comparative outlook cannot do the philosophical work that is needed to protect his vision of justice.