What is Amartya Sen’s Theory of Justice?

By Sahil Kumar 15 Minutes Read

“What is presented here is a theory of Justice in a very broad sense. Its aim 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 Justice.” [1]

Introduction

In the preface of The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen articulates his aim to diverge from the “transcendental institutionalism” of enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Rousseau. He critiques their focus on establishing ideal institutional frameworks for a perfect society, which he believes falls short of addressing practical issues of enhancing Justice and eliminating injustice. Sen extends this critique to include Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, acknowledging their contributions to Justice but noting that their approaches are still fundamentally centered on ideal institutional arrangements.

Sen argues that while these approaches focus on creating just institutions and behaviours, they do not adequately address the practical challenges of improving Justice in the real world. He proposes a “Comparative Approach” to Justice, which shifts the focus from abstract ideals of perfect Justice to practical methods for assessing and advancing Justice. By emphasizing “comparative justice,” Sen aims to develop a theory that not only engages with the theoretical aspects of Justice but also provides actionable insights for addressing real-world injustices. This approach seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical ideals and practical applications, making Justice both theoretically sound and practically relevant.

Transcendental Approach to Justice

The transcendental approach to Justice posits that an ideal society can be achieved by identifying a single, perfect set of institutions that ensure absolute Social Justice. This approach assumes that such an ideal is both achievable and applicable universally. Sen critiques this view by highlighting two main issues.

• First, he argues that the notion of absolute social Justice is elusive because institutions are shaped by human behaviour, which is inherently variable. Therefore, institutions and their Justice can change as people’s behavioursevolve.
• Second, Sen challenges the idea that people can come together impartially to determine an ideal society. He critiques Rawls’ concept of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” as unrealistic, using an anecdote about three children competing for a single flute to illustrate the complexities of making impartial decisions in situations with multiple competing claims to Justice. Sen’s point is that in a world with diverse and conflicting perspectives on Justice, achieving a single, ideal resolution is impractical and overly simplistic.

Sen critiques the transcendental approach to Justice for pursuing an unattainable ideal of theoretical completeness and consistency. He argues that such an ideal is inherently perfect and conflict-free, which does not align with the reality of diverse and unavoidable conflicts over values in real-world situations. The anecdote about the three children and the single flute illustrates that there is no singular, universally correct method for ranking competing claims of ownership, ability, or need because different people bring different values and perspectives to the issue of Justice.

Sen emphasizes that attempting to resolve these conflicts with a total hypothetical theory of ideal Justice can lead to endless and unresolvable disputes. Instead, he argues that the transcendental approach fails to provide practical guidance for real-life decisions. For example, choosing between a Picasso and a Dali painting illustrates the problem: transcendental theories do not help in making such choices but rather focus on abstract ideals. According to Sen, understanding and addressing tangible issues like poverty and malnutrition does not require an idealized theory of Justice but rather a practical approach to improving real-world conditions.

Social Choice as a Framework for Justice

Sen’s “Social Choice” framework contrasts with transcendental theories by focusing on comparative rather than ideal principles. Social choice theory examines how individual preferences, opinions, and interests can be combined to make collective decisions and achieve social welfare. According to Arrow, this approach analyzes the impact of individual choices on the overall welfare of society.

Sen argues that while he shares Rawls’s emphasis on the priority of liberty, he contends that real-life Justice cannot be solely assessed through the collective outcomes of freedom. Instead, it must consider both the outcomes of freedom and the process of agency involved. Social choice theory provides a framework for evaluating Justice not only by examining the results of social policies but also by involving public reasoning—meaning the engagement of people in the policymaking process. This approach emphasizes practical involvement and public deliberation as integral to achieving Justice and improving societal conditions.

Relevance of Social Choice Theory

Social choice theory is indeed more inclusive and comprehensive compared to the contractarian approach. It captures the diversity of choices and preferences of individuals involved in decision-making, reflecting a broader range of perspectives. This inclusivity is particularly evident in Sen’s notion of “impartiality.”

Sen’s concept of impartiality emphasizes that the reasoning used to evaluate Justice and injustice must be unbiased and objective. This approach aims to address the nature of a just society by thoroughly comparing both just and unjust outcomes. By incorporating a wide array of individual preferences and ensuring that reasoning is impartial, social choice theory provides a more nuanced and reflective framework for understanding and achieving Justice.

Sen’s approach to Justice through social choice theory indeed offers a more open and inclusive perspective compared toRawls’ original position. Rawls’ original position, with its “veil of ignorance,” aims to create impartiality by removing knowledge of personal circumstances, but it can be criticized for being too closed and restrictive. This veil effectively prevents participants from considering the real-world implications of their choices and understanding the diverse values and conditions of others.

In contrast, Sen’s social choice theory allows for a more open examination of people’s backgrounds, values, and circumstances. This approach recognizes that understanding individuals’ specific situations and inspirations can be crucial for making just decisions. By not obscuring this information, social choice theory fosters a more comprehensive and practical understanding of Justice. It allows for a nuanced evaluation of choices, taking into account the real-life conditions and preferences of all involved, thereby better addressing the complexities of Justice in both societal and personal contexts.

Sen’s social choice theory is indeed more reflective of the general will than Rawls’ “veil of ignorance.” While Rawls’ original position aims to ensure impartiality by stripping participants of personal knowledge, it often falls short in fostering open scrutiny of local and potentially parochial values. This limitation arises because the veil of ignorance, though effective in promoting broad impartiality, may not fully address the diverse and specific values and conditions that influence people’s perspectives on Justice.

Sen argues that to achieve fair and just decisions, one must move beyond narrow-minded perspectives. His approach encourages a comprehensive understanding that includes diverse viewpoints and local conditions. By allowing for a more open examination of individual and collective values, Sen’s theory aims to overcome the limitations of abstraction inherent in the veil of ignorance and better capture the complexities of real-world Justice.

Capabilities Approach

The Capability Approach, developed by Amartya Sen, shifts the focus of Justice from traditional metrics like income or wealth to the actual opportunities people have to achieve well-being. Rather than merely evaluating outcomes or processes, this framework emphasizes the capabilities and freedoms individuals possess to lead lives they have reason to value. Sen argues that Justice should be understood through the lens of people’s capabilities—the real freedoms and opportunities they have to pursue different ways of living.

The core of the Capability Approach lies in assessing how individuals’ capacities enable them to effectively achieve their goals. It moves beyond narrow evaluations of material wealth or mental satisfaction, proposing a broader view of freedom that includes both the processes individuals engage in and the opportunities available to them. By focusing on capabilities, Sen highlights the importance of understanding how people value their freedom and the practical ability they have to exercise it in ways that contribute to their well-being. This approach is inclusive and recognizes the diverse ways in which individuals can pursue meaningful lives.

Amartya Sen posits that any substantive theory of Justice must focus on an “informational basis” for assessing Justice or injustice. Utilitarian theories, for instance, use utility—evaluating Justice based on the maximization ofhappiness and satisfaction. Although Sen acknowledges the role of happiness in assessing well-being, he critiques utilitarianism for relying too heavily on it as a measure.

Sen’s approach integrates utilitarian insights but expands beyond them. He recognizes that while happiness can indicate well-being, it should not be seen as an absolute measure. Instead, Sen emphasizes the importance of “valuable functioning,” which refers to the various ways individuals can live and act in ways they have reason to value. Well-being, in Sen’s view, is fundamentally about the capacity to achieve these valuable functions—what people are actuallyable to do and be, rather than solely their subjective happiness. This perspective offers a broader understanding of Justice by focusing on real opportunities and capabilities rather than just material or emotional outcomes.

Amartya Sen’s conception of Justice can be distilled into three key aspects:

1. Comparative Nature: Sen’s approach is fundamentally comparative rather than idealistic. Unlike transcendental approaches that seek a perfect, abstract model of Justice, Sen’s focus is on assessing and improving Justice in real-world contexts by comparing different states of affairs and identifying ways to advance Justice incrementally.

2. Pluralistic Valuation: Sen adopts a pluralistic view of Justice, recognizing the importance of diverse perspectives and choices in the decision-making process. His approach incorporates public reasoning, allowing for a range of values and interests to be considered rather than relying on a singular theoretical model.

3. Capability Approach: Central to Sen’s theory is his capability approach, which emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and opportunities. He argues that Justice should be concerned with the real-life capabilities of individuals to lead lives they value. This approach assesses Justice based on the actual opportunities people have rather than merely material or utilitarian outcomes.

Sen’s framework, therefore, aims to create a just society within existing conditions by focusing on practical, comparative evaluations, inclusive decision-making, and the enhancement of individual capabilities.

Conclusion

In The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen discusses “materials of justice” to highlight the essential elements that underpin a just society. According to Sen, these materials include:

1. Freedom: Sen views freedom as both a means and an end in achieving Justice. Freedom provides individuals with the opportunities to make choices and engage in actions that reflect their values and needs. His work, *Development as Freedom*, underscores that freedom is fundamental for development and Justice, as it facilitates the ability to pursue a range of life options.

2. Capability: Sen’s concept of capability refers to an individual’s actual capacity to achieve valuable functioning and lead a life they have reason to value. This includes the ability to make choices and take actions based on those choices.Capabilities are central to Sen’s understanding of Justice because they reflect the real opportunities available to individuals, which can help address issues like poverty and inequality.

3. Liberty: Liberty is closely related to freedom in Sen’s framework. It encompasses the individual’s right to make personal choices and exercise freedom without undue restrictions. Sen argues that liberty is crucial for ensuring that individuals can fully utilize their capabilities.

4. Equality: Sen emphasizes that equality is a critical component of Justice. He argues that individuals should have equal access to opportunities that allow them to develop their capabilities and exercise their freedom. Equality ensures that all individuals have a fair chance to achieve their desired outcomes and participate fully in society.

In summary, Sen’s materials of Justice—freedom, capability, liberty, and equality—are integral to his theory. They collectively contribute to a more nuanced and practical understanding of how Justice can be achieved and experienced in real-life contexts.

[1] (Sen, The Idea of Justice, 2009, p. ix) 

Sahil Kumar