DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

Critically Examine-Amartya Sen idea of justice

JURISPRUDENCE

Mr. P. BAYOLA KIRAN

ASHIRBAD SAHOO
2019082
3rd SEM

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I genuinely want to advance my sincere gratefulness to our regarded, Mr P.Bayola Kiran for giving me a golden chance to take up this research
project that is- “Critically examine-Amartya Sen idea of justice”. I have attempted my best to gather data about the task in different potential
manners to portray clear picture about the given project.

Contents

2|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................................................................................................2
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Objective of the study.............................................................................................................................................................................................6
Scope of the study...................................................................................................................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Rawls’s theory of justice in a nutshell......................................................................................................................................................................7
Principles of justice....................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Rawls and beyond- Sen’s critique of Rawlsian’s approach....................................................................................................................................8
Niti over nyaya – The cornerstone of Sen’s idea of justice.....................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................................................................................10

3|Page
4|Page
ABSTRACT
“The Idea of Justice” by Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen could be a path breaking work on the concept of justice. His book isn't only an extension
but also a critique of John Rawls work – Theory of Justice. He talks about niti and nyaya, former relates to simply rules, whereas, the latter refers
to realisation. Niti is an abstract exercise, if implemented completely, would end in maximum public welfare and justice. Nyaya, on the opposite
hand, relates to the enforcement of laws and regulations. The concept of justice has been discussed during a very broad manner; to quote Prof.
Sen “...aim is to clarify how we will proceed to deal with questions of enhancing justice and removing injustice, instead of to supply resolutions
of questions about the character of perfect justice”. in keeping with Professor Sen, Rawls’s emphasis on the importance of ‘ideal theory’, which
is universal and applies everywhere, is doubtful. Through the story of Ann, Bob and Carla he beautifully exemplifies the matter of scarcity of
resources and conflicting demands of valid claim".

Objective of the study

The objective of the study is to critically analyse Amartya Sen’s idea of justice and to understand what his concept of justice is .

5|Page
Scope of the study
The scope of the study is limited to Amartya Sen’s idea of justice.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

The researcher has adopted doctrinal method of research. The research is based on secondary sources such as articles, newspaper, books, web
sources.

TYPE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY-

The researcher has used analytical, explanatory and historical method of study for the following research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher has taken help of various books, articles and various websites. All the sources used by the researcher are primary sources.

INTRODUCTION

CONCEPT OF justice has been, one amongst the foremost complex concepts, consuming plenty of scholarly ink, yet remaining enigmatic,
cryptic and imprecise. Justice could be a word of ambiguous import. Even in Bible, Justice is considered a general virtue, but there, the concept
is ambivalent because one can observe that each one the values are rejected in favour of rather vague and general standards.3 Plato’s conception
regarding justice gave more emphasis on the substantive portion instead of the procedural aspect.4 As per the utilitarian, justice lies within the
greatest good done to greatest number of individuals, but the inherent fault lies on what about the fact that justice isn't being done towards those
that don't constitute amongst the greatest number of individuals. Marx considered justice as a sham, a mask which facilitates capitalist
exploitation.5 Some believe justice is equality, but equality is equally a nebulous concept, it's a relative concept, what could also be notion of
equality on behalf of me, might not be adequate to a wage labour so, therefore, it might not appropriate to line standards of justice for the
opposite. But this kind of comparative approach is incredibly necessary when it involves the question of advancement of justice, because the
process of comparing, somehow makes room for debate, thereby admitting multiple sets of opinions and thereby preventing the concept of
justice from a unilateral and unipolar interpretation. The accord theory as propounded by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, concentrated mainly on
the institutional arrangement for a society. This approach, which might be called ‘transcendental institutionalism’, has two distinct features. 1

1
www.ili.ac.in

6|Page
“Firstly, it concentrates its attention on what it identifies as perfect justice, instead of on relative comparisons of justice and injustice. Secondly,
within the pursue the perfection, transcendental institutionalism concentrates totally on getting the institutions right rather concentrating on the
particular societies that may ultimately emerge. The buck stops here, what's justice? so as to know it, it's very necessary to understand what
injustice is and the way to mitigate it , men turns to the meaning of justice when they themselves have experienced it, the history is replete with
such instances, even Mahatma Gandhi started his search justice, for independence, when he himself experienced the ignominy, when he himself
felt the brunt of injustice, therefore, injustice is that potent equipment through which an individual understands the importance of justice, he
associates himself to the injustice perpetrated on others and thus prepares himself against injustice, thus we can see that justice is a full of life
process, a decisional process which helps one to bar a course which is wrong, by experiencing injustice someone tries to bring justice by
rectification of that injustice or a minimum of by devising methods through which that injustice could further be prevented. this can be what lies
within the heart of arguments which Professor Amartya Sen has made. He contradicts Rawlsian concept of justice. Rawls attempts to a theory of
justice by proposing a brand-new accord theory, he construed the notion of justice in terms of maximisation of liberty, equality and opportunity
because the central theme seeing ‘justice’ within the light of ‘fairness’. Sen argues that the essential problem related to Rawls concept of justice
is that, it also rests on some pre requisites because the earlier theories of social contract, i.e., on an ideal arrangement, such perfect arrangement
is solely impossible because the plurality of opinions will never allow any arrangement to become perfect, therefore, in absence of such an ideal
arrangement the concept of justice intrinsically may never fructify, it is, therefore, necessary to grasp the ‘idea of justice’ first and so to approach
towards the ‘concept of justice’ subsequently. The aim should be to mitigate injustice and justice shall automatically advance, unfurl and bloom.
the current paper shall cope with these broad frameworks, it'll cope with the Rawlsian’s approach towards justice within the light of the book
‘Idea of justice’ written by Professor Amartya Sen. The paper shall also show that how Sen’s idea of justice completes the concept of justice
propounded by John Rawls.2”

Rawls’s theory of justice in a nutshell

“John Rawls theory of justice had come up at a time when all what everyone talked about was regarding maximising the welfare of society or the
utilitarian concept of maximising the happiness of the bulk of the people, ‘justice’ as an idea was least talked about, least discussed about.
Rawls’s theory of justice was in a very way an alternate to the classical utilitarian. Rawls theory of distributive justice relies on the thought that
society could be a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals. As such, it's marked by both conflicts between differing
individuals’ interests and an identity of shared interest. Principles of justice should ‘define the suitable distribution of the advantages and
burdens of social cooperation. One must not fail to watch the very fact that Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, stretches its roots from the
accord theory, Rawls argues that it's necessary to distinguish between the real judgements about justice (which people have) and their subjective,
self-interested views.” After arriving at those objective principles, it should be measured against our own judgements, there'll be inevitable
distinction when one resorts to such measurement, therefore, it's important to switch our own judgement in such the way that a stage of
equilibrium can be reached during which these two situations are similar; this is often the situation of ‘reflective equilibrium’.7

“In his rather complex theory, Rawls starts with an ethical conjecture, that justice is tied to fairness, with a good society and fair institutions and
people members of the society adopt this situation so as to gain fundamental principles of justice. The ‘original position’ may be a central feature
of John Rawls’s agreement account of justice. within the words of Rawls, the original position is just a hypothetical thought experiment that
seeks to Make vivid to ourselves the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for principles of justice, and, therefore, on
these principles themselves. Rawls imagine people in the hypothetical situation of ‘original position’ and places upon them the restraint of the
‘veil of ignorance’. This veil denies them knowledge of their status (e.g. gender, ethnicity, economic standing, intelligence etc) and their
perception about ‘good living or wellbeing’. In the words of John Rawls’:9 No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status,
nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume
that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind
a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the
contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favour his particular condition, the
principles of justice are the result of a fir agreement or bargain. So basically, in step with Rawls this is often a special sort of arrangement, a
contract where people favour for a method which maximises the prospects of the smallest amount well- off. Once the veil of ignorance is lifted
and once the people leave their original position, the contract shall be maintained, out of respect for every other.” So basically, this is often a
form of radical egalitarian liberalism within which focus is on the very fact that one person mustn't resort to maximising profit so much that it
results in deterioration of the opposite person. Rawls original position has been designed to be a good and impartial point of view that's to be

2
www.asiasociety.org

7|Page
adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice and exclude personal interest when choosing the ‘basic principles of justice’ so
on ensure generality and validity.3”

Principles of justice
Rawls’s basic principles of justice are generalised means of securing generalised ends. It primarily deals with the aspect of distribution of
wealth, if behind the veil of ignorance, the people are confronted with the question on whether or not they will accept the utilitarian principle f
distribution of wealth. the solution is going to be a specific no, because anyone under the veil of ignorance will prefer to be treated with dignity,
once the veil of ignorance goes up. He will stipulate basic liberties like right to life, liberty, freedom of consciousness and religion, assembly etc
and these basic liberties will similarly be demanded by a member of minority community similarly, he won't take chance of ending up a member
of oppressed minority being tyrannized by a majority. This brings us before the ‘first principle’ of Rawls i.e., the ‘Liberty Principle’. Rawls in
his book Political Liberalism included this principle in a very form of guarantee of fair value of the political liberties. The fair value of political
liberties requires that “citizens similarly gifted and motivated have roughly an equal chance of influencing the government’s policy and of
achieving positions of authority no matter their economic and social class. Thus, ensuring that members of a group are ready to participate within
the political process which conforms to the principle of equality.” Now coming to the ‘second principle’, which proposes that “social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged in such a way so that they are both

i. Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and

ii. ii. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

“According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities should be so arranged in order that they’re for the best good thing about the smallest
amount advantaged persons, also referred to as the ‘difference principle’. The people under the veil of ignorance don’t know that under what
system are they visiting be placed in, if the veil is lifted, whether or not they are healthy or unhealthy, rich or poor. Therefore, it's advisable to
own a meeting, whereby there's an equal distribution of wealth so on make sure that each member is on a secure side. Or the members can go for
a unique setup, on a certified principle of equality (difference principle), according to which, only those social and economic inequalities are
permitted that employment to the benefit or advantage of the smallest amount worst off. Fair equality of opportunity maintains that “offices and
positions” should be hospitable individual, no matter his/her social background, ethnicity or sex. Rawls rejects the concept of feudal aristocracy.
Rawls argues that a private mustn't only have the correct to opportunities, but also a good equal chance as another of comparable aptitude.
Formal equality of opportunity is satisfied if there are not any discrimination legal barriers that bar some groups in society from access to social
institutions and offices.4”

“Rawls don't overrule the chance that these two primary principles are going to be in conflict with each other. to satisfy this difficulty Rawls
proposes certain ‘Principles of Priority’. Such priority is ‘lexical’, i.e., the primary needs to be fully satisfied before the second is to be
considered. These principles are arranged lexicographically which implies that the primary principle of justice takes priority over the second and
therefore the principle of fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle. this suggests that the equality of basic liberties
and rights, including the fair value of the political liberties, isn't to be overridden by other considerations.”

Rawls and beyond- Sen’s critique of Rawlsian’s approach

“Sen’s chief argument against Rawls theory is that the ‘transcendental institutionalism’ is nothing quite an ethical conjecture, a hypothesis, on
which he progresses his theory and which subsequently gets infested with certain limitations. The first objection which Sen raises is that the
‘original position’ which Rawls is talking about, creates a hypothetical situation, in practicality it should never be ready to incorporate
multifaceted, diverse, variegated, conflicting but very genuine and cogent demands of an oversized plurality. Sen beautifully exemplifies his
point with the assistance of the instance of the illustration of three children and a flute. With resources being limited we might not be able to
meet the plurality of genuine voices airing their genuine demands. Anne, Bob and Clara are all well raising their genuine arguments and these
genuine demands can't be dismissed by giving a superficial argument of being foundation less which is predicated on the pursuit of human
fulfilment, or removal of poverty, or entitlement to enjoy the products of one’s own labour. So during a way transcendental theories of justice
don't resort to comparative assessment between pair of alternatives, what Prof. Sen wants to propose is that idea of justice should not be
indifferent to the lives of individuals which they're actually living. Discussing further about his ‘principles of justice’, Sen argues that there's an
inner dichotomy in Rawls’s liberty principle. As said before, priority has been given to the freedom principle over the second principle which
relates to the equality of certain general opportunities and to equity within the distribution of general – purpose resources.14 In other words
liberty is that sacrosanct principle which individuals won't prefer to compromise about whether or not it's related to better distribution of wealth
or maybe if it facilitates furtherance of wealth i.e., the concept of liberty cannot be reduced to the amount of a mere facility, but if we see when

3
www.hup.harvard.edu
4
www.theguardian.com

8|Page
Rawls deals with the ‘primary goods’ then it includes things like rights, liberties and opportunities, income and wealth, and therefore the social
bases of self-respect”.5

“We are able to see that liberty though has entered but just in from of a mere facility. One can see that the concept of liberty is being treated sort
of a king and a slave simultaneously. Again, why such reasonably unrestrained priority is being given to liberty, aren’t hunger, starvation and
medical neglect etc less significant than personal liberty? It is important to work out that in his pursuit of advancing his principles of justice he
excluded the idea of merits and poetic justice, or on ownership of property. He allows room for under those inequalities that will help the worst
off. could also be incentives may be given in order that it instils amongst the member a brand-new vigour and new vitality which may catapult
them to try to to their work more efficiently. Here Sen argues that ought to not the principles adopted at the first position eliminate the
requirement for incentives? Somehow, we are able to see that Rawls is taking one step forward and so simultaneously going back two steps”.6

Niti over nyaya – The cornerstone of Sen’s idea of justice

“It has been managed that how Sen think about the ideal model of justice as excess, he accepts that all these transcendental arrangements of
justice are impregnated with an essential imperfection that don't underlines on reduction of justice and rather stresses on progression of justice
without contemplating that plurality of demands won't allow this to consummate arrangement of justice to remain on its feet. As per Sen,
presence of remediable injustice likely could be associated with social transgressions as opposed to with institutional weaknesses. Justice is at
last associated with the manner in which individuals' lives go, and not just with the idea of the institutions encompassing them. Teacher Sen took
signal of the early Indian statute to reveal insight into the extraordinary concepts of justice, 'Niti' and the 'Nyaya'. The possibility of niti identifies
with authoritative respectability just as social correctness, while the last mentioned, nyaya, is worried about what arises furthermore, how, and
specifically the lives that individuals are really ready to lead. all in all it is important to survey the jobs of institutions based on truth that how
much inclusiveness is reflected in them i.e., in the more extensive point of view of nyaya, which relates to the world that as a matter of fact
arises and not simply choked to the institutions that we have.7”

“Sen gives a guide to show the distinction between niti and nyaya. Ferdinand I, roman sovereign in the sixteenth century guaranteed: 'Fiat
Justitia , et pereat mundus', which can be interpreted as 'Let justice be done , though the world perish'. This is an illustration of a very austere
form of niti which promoters in any event, bringing of catastrophe, yet without considering the way that how justice will be done if world will
perish? As indicated by Professor Sen, a realization-focussed perspective likewise makes it more obvious the significance of the counteraction of
show injustice in the world, rather than looking for the perfectly just. He further gave a model that the unsettling against slavery in the eighteenth
and the nineteenth century was not effective because they were working under the belief that abolition of slavery will prompt a perfectly just
society. It was insufferably sickening injustice that made abolition of slavery a priority. Even though the arrangement – focused perspective of
niti is frequently deciphered in manners that make the presence of suitable establishments themselves satisfactory to fulfil the requests of justice,
the more extensive perspective of nyaya would show the need of inspecting what social realizations are really produced through that institutional
base. Such a framework can assist with consolidating and oblige dissimilar focuses of view. Sen likewise envisions a bunch of standards for
justice for the cutting edge world that will maintain a strategic distance from parochialism and address the imperative inquiries of worldwide
injustice Sen recognizes the way that institutions assume a significant job in honing our capacity to examine the values and needs that we can
consider , particularly through open conversations and vote based system is such an establishment, which is evaluated regarding public
thinking , an establishment of majority rules system should be decided on the standard of the degree, as to how various voices from different
segments can advance their voice and their voice all things considered been heard and not just about the formal presence of the foundation,
because a popularity based organization, if neglects to give representation to the individuals, neglects to give the truly necessary occasion to
advance their voice then the foundation is characterless.”

Conclusion
Sen's work though censures the thought of perfect justice and rather advocates removal of injustice; however, this general thought can be
debated. “The quest for perfect justice tries to an unattainable completeness however the issue is that numerous conceivable instances of
injustice are a lot more complicated. If we investigate the complex inquiry of gender inequality, we may get conflicting opinion regarding what
truly is unjust as our origination may vary regarding what should be considered as injustice pertaining to gender. Today questions are coming
before society that whether men should likewise be given incentives on the line of women as a man likewise involves his work in child rearing
and domestic care, ought to there be an idea of paternity leave? A few people think that in request to guarantee equality in circumstance between
men and women, legal barrier should be lifted. These inquiries are extremely hard to reply the two men and women may reason that injustice is
5
www.asiasociety.org
6
www.ili.ac.in
7
www.hup.harvard.edu

9|Page
being done to them. The point is that there are times when an individual can't sort out what comprises a transition to an unrivalled, all the more
just position without reflecting upon and working out her own origination of what "perfect" justice entails. There are times when we need a
Mona Lisa to moor our judgements about Picasso and Dali.8”

“A dream of just society advances before an existing society such a dream, an honourable pursuit which a society ought to try to achieve, it isn't
important that the vision comes into the real world however in any event it prompts fulfilment of certain precepts of that vision. Karl Marx
theory was likewise regarding a perfect society where laborers were not any more the enslaved class, the theory was dismissed as being
hypothetical and not valid but then it has not prompted the establishment of arrangement which Marx imagined, yet it cleared a way, where
financial reforms were moved down, legislatures, for example, workmen compensation act, work laws and so forth were conceivable. A dream
for perfect society likewise prompts lessening of injustice. Be that as it may, both Rawls and Amartya Sen are traversing on a similar way and
they have comparative opinion in such manner that utilitarianism or a conception of framework which just advances welfare of majority or
happiness of most prominent number isn't right. Sen utilizes a relationship of old Hindu law regarding the Matsyanyaya or the judgements of the
fishes, where enormous fish ate up little fish, is to some degree indistinguishable from the utilitarian principle that exists today, also, can't be
supposed to be sans chink. It is difficult to presume that whether Rawls' 'Concept of Justice' is better or Sen's 'Idea of justice' and this would not
be a valid statement to examine about. In any case, it tends to be to advanced that Sen's 'Idea of Justice' in a way completes and pushes ahead
Rawls' 'Concept of Justice'. Along these lines, Sen's work should be viewed as fulfilling the sections of Rawls' concept and not an alternate
view.9”

Bibliography
http://www.ili.ac.in/pdf/p11_dhawal.pdf
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/amartya-sen-and-idea-of-justice/
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/31273/1/On_Amartya_Sen_(LSERO_version).pdf
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674060470&content=reviews

8
www.asiasociety.org
9
www.hup.harvard.edu

10 | P a g e