¶ … Amartya Sen, a noted scholar in the world of philosophical discussions and interpretations, is presenting counter arguments to John Rawls' approach to a theory of justice. In the process, Sen is also trying to cement his own approach to a theory of justice. He argues that asking, "What is a just society?" is wasteful and rather, serious thinkers should "concentrate on comparative questions of justice" (Sen, 236). The philosopher thus opens the door to a discussion of what should bright, thinking people expect and desire from a theory of justice, which is likely what Sen intended, beyond tooting his own philosophical horn. Sen begins his article by referencing what he finds difficult to accept within iconic philosopher Rawls' view of justice.
The nuts and bolts of what Sen is arguing comes down to his departure from Rawls' theory of justice, not only the "substantive contend of the Rawlsian theory of justice," but also he takes issue with Rawls' approach to "public reasoning" and the "reach and coverage of public participation" (Sen, 2006, p. 216). But moreover, the theory Sen invokes his approach, a comparative theory of justice, because it does not contain specific answers to the elusive question (which he mocks), "What is a just society?"
Reviewing / Analyzing Positions Taken in Sen's Narrative
In the first place, once a student -- who is essentially a lay person -- reads through Sen's article published in The Journal of Philosophy, the student realizes his everyday concept of justice -- what he has learned at the university level, through the popular press, and perhaps through his own interaction with law enforcement and the courts -- is being seriously challenged. The student might be hearing a voice in the back of his head saying, "Who really cares about a theory of justice as long as criminals, terrorists, and other wrongdoers are punished for the unjust things they have done to others?" But another voice inside the student's head may be saying, "That's why you're in higher education, to step outside your comfort zone and see the world from a more intellectual...
There will always be some level of unfairness and injustice. So, given this, Sen is taking the
position that since there is no perfect system of justice, a theory of justice should be adopted. This is a reasonable approach, and it is also reasonable for Sen to pick apart an existing theory of justice, in this case, Rawls' theory. Clearly, Sen finds Rawls' theory objectionable, because Rawls' theory is produced from the position of a "fully just society" (217) -- and this is called the "transcendental" approach. I agree with Sen because I believe the transcendental approach is a wrongheaded approach given the earlier points made in this paragraph.
Taking Positions on Sen's Article
Moreover, Sen's indifference to the transcendental approach is balanced by Sen's approval of the comparative approach, and I can see the
logic in this here in the year 2017, when the word "justice" is overused and often misunderstood in the U.S., and in some cases justice has become meaningless. Sen hits the nail on the head on page 217 when he uses the example of how many people are fortunate to have public health insurance -- a political hot button issue in the United States. Even if a system were created where most Americans would have health insurance, there would be no "just society," Sen continues, because hundreds of other "transgressions" would remain that are not remedied. Hence, Sen argues, the transcendental approach has serious flaws when creating a theory of justice.
Personally I think Sen is wasting time when, on pages 219-222, he seems to go to great lengths to either defend the transcendental approach, or at lease examine it closely. Is he just giving a bit of
love to Rawls, perhaps a backhanded compliment, so he (Sen) doesn't seem mean spirited in denouncing the transcendental approach by a well-respected philosopher? Using the
analogy of trying to identify…
