scholarly journals Amartya Sen. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books Ltd. 2009. 468 pages. Hardback. £ 25.00.

2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-175
Author(s):  
Mr. Mutee-ul-Rehman
Keyword(s):  
Adam Smith ◽  
Nobel Laureate ◽  
Amartya Sen ◽  
Arbitrary Solution ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Marquis De Condorcet ◽  
Just Society ◽  
The Ideal

Justice is comparative in nature and may have plural impartial dimensions. Provision of justice, in an ‘ideal sense’, is non-pragmatic and is therefore impossible to deliver, argues the Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen. He divides the existing theories of justice into two categories: the transcendental institutionalism and the Comparative School. The transcendental institutionalism, led by eminent enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant holds that a just society can be maintained by ensuring justice in the ‘ideal sense’. The provision of ‘ideal justice’ is based on the notion of either right or wrong. To provide justice in the ‘ideal sense’ the society must enjoy access to ‘just institutions’. John Rawl, the more recent contributor to transcendental tradition, came up with his theory of ‘justice as fairness’ in the mid twentieth century. The comparative school of justice propagated by Adam Smith, Marquis de Condorcet, Carl Marx and Stuart Mill lays emphasis upon looking at ‘justice’ in a comparative sense and on the basis of what the society is actually able to realise.Sen, disagreeing with both the schools of thought, however, is seen leaning towards the comparative school. The author gives the example of three children and a single flute to demonstrate how the ‘ideal justice’ and the ‘comparative’ school fail to hold water in certain situations. Three children—Carla, Anne and Bob, claim their right to a specific flute on different but competing principles. Carla manufactured the flute, Anne is the only one among the three who can play the flute, while Bob is the poorest of the three and does not have any toy to play with. Sen questions how ‘ideal justice’ may be provided with the transcendental approach, or how the ‘comparative assessment’ would lead to an impartial and non-arbitrary solution, in the case of the ‘three children and a flute’. Despite his disagreement with both the schools of thought, Sen aligns himself with the comparative school. However he believes that for provision of ‘impartial justice’ competing principles need not essentially be unique; these could be plural as well. The plurality of competing principles is the essence of Sen’s ‘idea of Justice’.

9. Theories of justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 251-296
Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks
Keyword(s):  
Global Justice ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Entitlement Theory ◽  
Practical Concern ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Just Society

Theories of justice are at the heart of any serious analysis of law and the legal system. They are an important feature of moral, political, and legal theory. From the Greeks to the present day the question of what constitutes a just society is a fundamental philosophical and practical concern. The disparities in wealth and living conditions between rich and poor countries generates a need for ‘global justice’ that applies to the world at large. This chapter analyses several theories of justice: utilitarianism; the related economic analysis of law; John Rawls’s influential theory of ‘justice as fairness’; Robert Nozick’s ‘entitlement theory’ of justice; the concept of equality; and the novel ‘capability’ approach.

The Tyranny of the Ideal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Gaus
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Moral Life ◽  
Moral Inquiry ◽  
Open Society ◽  
The Past ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
The World ◽  
Diverse Society ◽  
Just Society ◽  
The Ideal

This book lays out a vision for how we should theorize about justice in a diverse society. It shows how free and equal people, faced with intractable struggles and irreconcilable conflicts, might share a common moral life shaped by a just framework. The book argues that if we are to take diversity seriously and if moral inquiry is sincere about shaping the world, then the pursuit of idealized and perfect theories of justice—essentially, the entire production of theories of justice that has dominated political philosophy for the past forty years—needs to change. Drawing on recent work in social science and philosophy, the book points to an important paradox: only those in a heterogeneous society—with its various religious, moral, and political perspectives—have a reasonable hope of understanding what an ideally just society would be like. However, due to its very nature, this world could never be collectively devoted to any single ideal. The book defends the moral constitution of this pluralistic, open society, where the very clash and disagreement of ideals spurs all to better understand what their personal ideals of justice happen to be. Presenting an original framework for how we should think about morality, this book rigorously analyzes a theory of ideal justice more suitable for contemporary times.

Philosophers-Citizens

In Our Name ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Beerbohm
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Life Of The Mind ◽  
The Mind ◽  
The Ideal

This chapter challenges an account of citizenship that treats us as political philosophers or perennial deliberators and instead proposes the model of the philosopher-citizen who exhibits a computationally intense life of the mind. It first describes the ideal of the philosopher-citizen before considering how a theory of justice is to be employed by well-intentioned citizens by taking into account the views of John Rawls. It argues that the model of the philosopher-citizens tends to be monistic, collapsing the diversity of moral achievements that citizens can make in a democracy, and that this ideal should be separated from an account of the citizen's decision-making obligations. The chapter also examines the principles for citizens and for representatives in the context of Justice as Fairness and concludes by outlining the essential assumptions of a nonideal democratic theory.

scholarly journals TRANSFORMASI KESETARAAN BURUH: STUDI KRITIS TEORI KEADILAN JOHN RAWLS

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 327
Author(s):  
Mohammad Takdir
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice

This paper aims to change the laborers who are always seen as an underdeveloped and oppressed societies. In looking at the relations of laborers and employers, some people often use the paradigm of slavery rather than the humanitarian paradigm.This research used theory of justice John Rawls’s as an approach in fighting for labor rights in the works system in Indonesia. Justice for Rawlsm defined as a combination of freedom and equality. Rawlsian’s theory of justice often refereed to as “liberal equality”, which emphasizes the justice as fairness aspect. This theory of justice used to offer a new alternative in correcting earlier theories of justice, such as utilitarianism and institutionalism that are perceived as failing in reducing errors to the paradigm of labor. This study showed that injustice in a social structure of society is more due to the loss of deep empathy associated with the argument of equality as a keyword in the conception of justice. Rawls offers the concept of justice as fairness that should be the main foothold in the struggle for equality of laborers in various aspects, especially concerning the fulfillment of rights, obligations, and welfare of life.Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengubah paradigma tentang buruh yang selalu dipandang sebagai sekelompok masyarakat yang terbelakang dan tertindas. Dalam memandang relasi buruh dan majikan, sebagian orang seringkali menggunakan paradigma perbudakan daripada paradigma kemanusiaan (humanitarian paradigm). Penelitian ini menggunakan teori keadilan John Rawls sebagai pendekatan dalam memperjuangkan hak-hak buruh dalam sistem kerja di Indonesia. Keadilan bagi Rawls, diartikan sebagai perpaduan antara kebebasan (freedom) dan kesamaan (fairness). Teori keadilan Rawlsian sering disebut dengan istilah “kesamaan-liberal”, yang menekankan pada aspek justice as fairness.Teori keadilan ini digunakan untuk menawarkan sebuah alternatif baru dalam mengoreksi teori-teori keadilan sebelumnya, seperti utilitarianisme dan institusionalisme yang dianggap gagal dalam mengurangi kesalahan terhadap paradigma buruh. Hasil Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ketidakadilan dalam sebuah struktur sosial masyarakat lebih diakibatkan oleh hilangnya rasa empati yang mendalam terkait dengan argumen kesetaraan (equality) sebagai kata kunci dalam konsepsi keadilan. Rawls menawarkan konsep tentang justice as fairness yang harus menjadi pijakan utama dalam memperjuangkan kesetaraan buruh dalam berbagai aspek, terutama menyangkut pemenuhan hak, kewajiban dan kesejahteraan hidup.

scholarly journals A REVIEW ON RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36
Author(s):  
M.Yasir Said ◽  
Yati Nurhayati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Core ◽  
Theories Of Justice

Justice is an abstract idea and understanding the core concept of various types of justice will help scholars, lawyers and law enforcement to develop and use the theory for legislative drafting, judicial review, case review, in court defense, and legal research and writing. In this paper we discussed the essence of Rawls Justice, the implication and compared it to other theories of justice. Therefore this paper will focused on examining and reviewing John Rawls idea of Justice and how to implement it in society. The method used in this study is doctrinal legal research. The result of this study while we discussed that the three Rawls principles cannot be realized together because one principle collides with another. Rawls prioritizes that the principle of the equal liberty which is lexically maximized precedes the second and third principles. However we believe Justice as Fairness in action should not mean that there is equality but rather emphasizes the concept of balance for the law in providing justice.

scholarly journals AMARTYA SEN’S CRITIQUE OF THE RAWLSIAN THEORY OF JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Dr. Partha Protim Borthakur
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Analytical Methods ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
The Political ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Secondary All ◽  
The Ideal

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.

scholarly journals Diskursus Mengenai Keadilan Sosial: Kajian Teori Keadilan dalam Liberalisme Locke, Persamaan Marx, dan 'Justice as Fairness' Rawls

MELINTAS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Alfensius Alwino
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Abstract Theory ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Through the history of philosophy, the theme of justice has become a very important topic. Thinkers of the theories such as utilitarianism, intuitionism, eudaimonism, perfectionism, liberalism, communitarianism, and socialism have discussed the theme. As French philosopher Alain Badiou has pointed out, the central of political studies from the time of Plato to the present day is justice. The question is what is justice? For John Rawls, justice is the supreme virtue of human. In <em>A Theory of Justice</em>, Rawls asserts that justice is the first priority in social institutions, as is truth in the system of thought. A theory, however elegant and economical, must be rejected or revised if it is not true, so the laws and institutions, however efficient and neat, must be reformed or removed if it is unfair. Rawls criticizes the theory of justice in Lockean liberalism and Marxian socialism. Both theories of justice are very strong colouring the landscape of debate on the roots of thinking about justice. For Rawls, liberalism that accentuates basic freedoms can create inequality between people who have better abilities with less fortunate people. Similarly, socialism which accentuates equality ignores basic freedoms. The two theories of justice are considered ideological in the sense that there are hidden interests behind the jargons of freedom and equality. Rawls then develops an abstract theory of justice, in which the participants depart from a veil of ignorance, so that they are free of any interest and ambition. Here they might build a cooperative contract in a society governed by the principles of justice.

Rawlsians, Pluralists, and Cosmopolitans

1996 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 147-161
Author(s):  
Attracta Ingram
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Rawlsian Justice ◽  
Just Society ◽  
The Right

Some of us were introduced to political philosophy as an activity of identifying, criticising, and revising the moral basis of existing social institutions. We asked questions about the nature of the good or the just society, and some few of us thought that once we knew and advocated the truth, it would win out. We, or some appropriate revolutionary or reforming group or class, would with reason, truth, and history on our side, bring about the society of our ideals. When we first read John Rawls's A Theory of Justice we read it as continuing the traditional tasks of political philosophy. Justice as Fairness was a moral theory which addressed a political subject matter. From the moral point of view it told us what any just society aiming to realise the values of liberty and equality would be like. This comported nicely with liberal cosmopolitanism, and also with more widely shared philosophical views that the task of political philosophy is to construct a vision of an ideal society, perhaps more sensitive to justice in implementation than would be required in pre-modern, pre-democratic societies, but nevertheless an ideal which in the long run we would hope to see all societies converge on. That kind of liberalism gave those of us who think that Rawlsian justice is the right or true justice a license to go on the offensive in promoting liberal ideals and practices in our own society, and, at the very least, a critical vantage point from which to judge other societies.

9. Theories of justice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Political Inequality ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Entitlement Theory ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
World Economic ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Influential Theory

There is considerable injustice in our world: economic, social, and political inequality renders the need for clarity in the formulation of specific theories of justice. The subject is always both contentious and complex. Theories of justice have, since the time of the Greeks been an important element in moral, political, and legal theory which has generated a vast literature. This chapter focuses on four main theories of justice: utilitarianism; the economic analysis of law; John Rawls’s influential theory of ‘justice as fairness’; and Robert Nozick’s ‘entitlement theory’ of justice, equality, and the ‘capability’ approach advanced by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.

scholarly journals Rawls on Markets and Corporate Governance

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Norman
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Regulatory State ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Just Society ◽  
Egalitarian Theory

ABSTRACT:Like most egalitarian political philosophers, John Rawls believes that a just society will rely on markets and business firms for much of its economic activity—despite acknowledging that market systems will tend to create very unequal distributions of goods, opportunities, power, and status. Rawls himself remains one of the few contemporary political philosophers to explore at any length the way an egalitarian theory of justice might deal with fundamental options in political economy. This article examines his arguments and conclusions on these topics. It argues that contemporary Rawlsians will reach different conclusions if they take more seriously than Rawls himself did: (1) the implications, for the political culture and the democratic regulatory state, of large firms competing in adversarial markets characterized by the inevitable “fact of market failure,” and (2) the relevance of ownership and governance relationships involving different kinds of business firms. And with respect to the second point, Rawlsians and other egalitarians have much to learn from contemporary economic, legal, and sociological theories of the firm, and the role of these theories in the structure of and rationale for corporate law. This is the kind of social theory that Rawls believes is relevant to the justification and application of theories of justice, but he himself did not appeal to it in his writings on political economy. Contemporary egalitarians can and should appeal to it now, and in doing so correct errors and omissions in Rawls’s analysis. But taking seriously the two points mentioned above will also force egalitarians who support efficient markets to face difficult dilemmas or compromises of their own.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document