CRITIQUE ON THE BOOK OF AMARTYA SEN IDEA OF JUSTICE

In Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen tries to use the basic principles of the social choice theory in order to give his proposition of determining and eventually reducing social injustice. According to Sen, concentrating on the identification of unjust

circumstances and minimizing them are more important than thinking of an ideally just society. Sen has four key points in his writings. First, he points out the significant role of objective reasoning in deciding on the social choices which are fitting for the betterment of justice. Second, he intends to assess the established theories of justice in terms of the reduction of social injustice. One of them is John Rawls Theory of Justice. Third, the theory of social choice and the capability approach as a different method of improving justice are discussed. Fourth, he argues about the various aspects of social justice, which he labels as materials of justice. Highlighting objective reasoning in the discussion of social justice is said to be the greatest contribution Sen has. He states, avoidance of reasoned justification often comes not from indignant protestors but from placid guardians of order and justice. Reticence has appealed throughout the history to those who are unsure of the grounds for action or unwilling to scrutinize the basis of their policy. He mentions about Akbar who examined the socio-political values and legal and cultural practices. According to him, the basis of good and just behavior and of a satisfactory structure of legal rights and responsibilities should be reason. Sen then discusses the how important it is to be

objective in attending to the issues of social justice. He also lauds John Rawls for the latters evaluation of moral and political objectivity and the formulation of justice as fairness. He also comments about Adam Smith in his idea of impartial spectator. Smith argued that people must not consider personal sentiments so decisions might not be influenced by personal agenda and deeply-rooted traditions. Sen also refers to Friedrich Nietzsche on skepticism, ethics and morality. Following those discussions is Sens take on John Rawlss theory of justice. He writes how he was personally affected after having read the book by Rawls. To him, Rawls provided the groundwork in fully grasping the idea of justice. To be fair means keeping away from partiality in ones assessment by considering the interests and concerns of other people so as not to be swayed by personal preferences. This explains the demands for impartiality. In order to attain fairness, Rawls presents the original position. It is described as a made-up situation of primitive equality, in which the members of society do not know their individual characteristics. These people have to choose someone to represent them in deciding on the principles of justice. The

representatives then form the foundation for social institutions for the basic structure of the society basing on the principles they have chosen. Two key principles are then propounded by Rawls. First, members of society have an equal right to access basic liberties. Second, social and economic inequalities have two aspects: one, fair equality of opportunity in terms of career, and two, the greatest benefits of the least privileged constituents. Despite Sens praises for Rawls work on particularly on the principles of fairness, the former observes that the latter falls short on delivering actual justice. He

then starts his proposition of the value of the social choice theory in improving social justice. French mathematicians, JeanCharles de Borda and the Marquis de Condercet, originally thought of the idea of social choice as they were dealing with the group assessment based on priorities of the members. The studies had an unsuccessful outcome, eventually losing the support of the scholars of the field. Kenneth Arrow restructured it into a theory with an analytical form. He declares that a group decision must fulfill some particular minimal conditions of reasonableness. According to Arrow, the ranking and the choices of social states should come from these conditions. Like the pioneers, his investigation also had negative results and thus called Arrows impossibility theorem. It was called such because the study revealed that

minimal conditions of reasonableness decided by the group members cannot be simultaneously fulfilled via rational and democratic processes. Even with the shortcomings of the previous attempts, Sen explains that the unlikelihood and problems could be settled by expanding the information net. Sen proceeds with the discussion of what is lacking in Rawls theory of justice and of how the social choice theory can be an alternative in improving social justice. Sen classifies the approach of the Rawlsian theory as transcendental, while his social choice theory is described as having comparative approach. To him, the transcendental approach is not enough or necessary in order to make the needed social decisions in dealing with the problems of social justice. He states that the question What is just society? asked by Rawls does not fit an applicable theory of justice for it does not need to be answered in a systematic theory of comparative justice. The focus should be development of different

social alternatives which can be prioritized from the alternatives. Considering the basis which is public reasoning, specific alternative could be chosen. Sen highlights the plurality of approaches, role of public reasoning and availability of democratic institutions. Moreover, he contends that the ranked and selected approaches must be evaluated again for their usefulness and actual delivery of justice. To illustrate the plurality of approaches, Sen features Anne, Bob, and Carla, three children who quarrel over a flute. Anne claims the flute is hers because among them she is the only one who can play it. Bob says that he cannot afford to buy any toy, so the flute would be good enough. Carla tells Anne and Bob that she was the one who made the flute so they should not claim it as theirs. Annes point of view is utilitarian, Bobs is egalitarian, and Carlas perspective is libertarian. Apparently, all of these are equally correct; hence, there is no best or worst category. In terms of measuring the actual delivery of justice, Sen favors the use of the capability approach. It is described as a general method that centers on the information of individual advantage gauged according to opportunities instead of a specific policy on how society should operate. The inequalities of capabilities in assessing social disparities are regarded; however there is no suggestion for the method of planning the policies. The human development index is considered as the greatest product of the capability approach. It is concerned with the human welfare rather than the previously well-used indicators such as per capita income and gross domestic product. The other aspects of social justice which are equally important to Sen are also lengthily discussed.

On democracy, Sen argues that public reasoning makes democracy directly associated with justice. Since public reasoning is closely related to essence of democracy and the demands of justice can be evaluated with the help of public reasoning, there is indeed a close link between them. Sen continues that global justice would be enhanced through public discussion of, for and by the people of the world. With the kind of world view today, there is increasing demand for open impartiality when delivering justice in any part of the world. In the first place, democracy has global origins. On media, Sen believes that media serves as an essential instrument for free speech. Also, media has the responsibility of disseminating crucial information and encouraging careful examination of circumstances. It also allows for protective freedom by way of featuring the neglected and the less fortunate. Media can also play a key role in an unrestrained and educated values formation. On the whole, media may function well in enabling public reasoning. On human rights, Sen expresses that these are compelling declarations of the ethical actions and decisions. And everyone has the responsibility to uphold these rights. He compares utility based ethics and human rights ethics, explaining that a utilitarian observes the value of utilities but none in basic liberties; while a human rights advocate sees how important the rights are and thus should be upheld. Generally, the concern of the Idea of Justice is the practicality of the theories of justice. According to Sen, the goal of the theory is to clarify how we can proceed to address questions of enhancing justice and removing injustice, rather than to offer resolutions of questions about the nature of perfect injustice. Presumably, a number of

philosophers do not support this position. To others, political philosophy has the role of finding out the truth and not to find solutions to the any existing problem. That is whether or not the truth influences the actions to be done. However, seeking the truth and being practical are certainly not mutually exclusive because truth regarding the justice should be the basis of the practical approach to justice. In reality though, the whole truth, its details and dimensions may not be required in order to arrive at a just decision, for it wastes a good amount of time that can be spent for something else. I find Sens argument agreeable, that Justice is commonsensical. Instead of dwelling on the ideal notions or idealized conception of justice, which might really not be attainable or realizable, why not consider justice with respect to what actually happens in this world. I cannot help myself but to contrast Sens idea with Rawls. John Rowl pointed out that justice is fairness and in a perfect world each person is on the same standing at birth. Each person is responsible for what happens to him/her in his life. Obviously most people ended up not in equal standing with others. Further on Rawl, a different scenario would allow certain amount of inequality as an ingredient of fairness as long as those worse of in this unequal scenario would be still better off than they would be in the original scenario. John Rawls book is really heavy on ideology and theory, while Amrtya Sens book had it a more real-world perspective. In a nutshell, Sens point is that justice can be found by looking at injustices. And I find this more practical. It gives insights to answer question is it possible in our time today to have a just society when everyone is pursuing his/her own self-interest?

Pondering on the book of Sen, I caught myself in deep reflection, trying to contain the application of his practical theories in the immediate society where I live. I feel that too much politics has eaten up the sense of justice. I can see from here the banner Pasay City, a healthier place to live. The banner tries to impress everyone that you will be more healthy when you are a resident of Pasay City. Moving the direction of your eyes a bit lower, you can see garbage on the floor, dark stinking water even gushing out from the street drainage, motor vehicles spouting pollution while traffic officers who are supposed to reprimand and confiscate their license just cover their nose so as not to inhale that dark pollution. Clearly, the exact opposite of what the banner says. I believe this is a commonplace not only in the Philippines but also in some Asian countries. I wished Sen have considered going over Asian literature, philosophy, and ideas in his book. However, this is quite understandable since Sen, as a Harvard economist would naturally go over American, European Literature and philosophy.