David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):7-21 (2012)
Amartya Sen argues that for the advancement of justice identification of ‘perfect’ justice is neither necessary nor sufficient. He replaces ‘perfect’ justice with comparative justice. Comparative justice limits itself to comparing social states with respect to degrees of justice. Sen’s central thesis is that identifying ‘perfect’ justice and comparing imperfect social states are ‘analytically disjoined’. This essay refutes Sen’s thesis by demonstrating that to be able to make adequate comparisons we need to identify and integrate criteria of comparison. This is precisely the aim of a theory of justice (such as John Rawls’s theory): identifying, integrating and ordering relevant principles of justice. The same integrated criteria that determine ‘perfect’ justice are needed to be able to adequately compare imperfect social states. Sen’s alternative approach, which is based on social choice theory, is incapable of avoiding contrary, indeterminate or incoherent directives where plural principles of justice conflict
|Keywords||Theory of justice Social choice theory Comparative justice Incomplete ordering Impossibility theorem Ideal theory John Rawls Amartya Sen|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Ruth Chang (ed.) (1997). Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press.
Ruth Chang (2002). The Possibility of Parity. Ethics 112 (4):659-688.
S. L. Hurley (1989). Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. Oxford University Press.
Lewis A. Kornhauser & Lawrence G. Sager (2004). The Many as One: Integrity and Group Choice in Paradoxical Cases. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (3):249–276.
David Miller (2003). Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Pablo Gilabert (2012). Comparative Assessments of Justice, Political Feasibility, and Ideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):39-56.
Martin Gustafsson (2004). On Rawls’s Distinction Between Perfect and Imperfect Procedural Justice. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2):300-305.
Amartya Sen (2009). The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Evan Riley (2011). Against Sen Against Rawls On Justice. Indian Journal of Human Development 5 (1):211-221.
Wojciech Sadurski (1984). Social Justice and Legal Justice. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):329 - 354.
David Johnston (2011). A Brief History of Justice. Wiley-Blackwell.
Brian E. Butler (2010). Sen's The Idea of Justice: Back to the (Pragmatic) Future. Contemporary Pragmatism 7 (2):219-229.
Joshua Anderson (2012). Sen and the Bhagavad Gita: Lessons for a Theory of Justice. Asian Philosophy 22 (1):63-74.
Hennie Lötter (1999). Rawls, Young, and the Scope of Justice. Theoria 46 (94):90-107.
Steven Wall (2012). Backing Away From Equality. Criminal Justice Ethics 31 (2):96-105.
Nuno Ornelas Martins (2012). Sen, Sraffa and the Revival of Classical Political Economy. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (2):143 - 157.
Fabienne Peter (2009). Rawlsian Justice. In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press. 433--456.
Shawna Gutfreund, Doing Justice Justice : Distinguishing Social Justice From Distributive Justice and the Implications for Bioethics.
J. S. Dryzek (2013). The Deliberative Democrat's Idea of Justice. European Journal of Political Theory 12 (4):329-346.
Added to index2011-10-08
Total downloads92 ( #19,747 of 1,696,461 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #68,915 of 1,696,461 )
How can I increase my downloads?