Book Review : The idea of justice by Amartya Sen

Against Transcendental Theory

akhil

PP0002214

The epicentre of Sens approach to justice is based on the John

Rawls 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 Rawls
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
Rawls 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.
Rawlss 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.
Sens claim that what distinguish his approach from Rawlss 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.