Sen vs. Rawls: Comparative Justice Theory Examined
This paper analyzes Amartya Sen's article "What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?" in which Sen challenges John Rawls' transcendental approach to justice and argues instead for a comparative framework. The paper reviews Sen's key positions, including his rejection of the "perfectly just society" premise, his engagement with Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, and his advocacy for assessing justice through real-world comparisons rather than idealized endpoints. The author evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Sen's argument, offering personal commentary on Sen's rhetorical strategy and concluding with a reflection on the contemporary relevance of a new theory of justice.
- Introduction: Sen's Challenge to Rawls: Sen departs from Rawls' transcendental justice framework
- Reviewing Sen's Core Positions: Sen's comparative approach versus Rawlsian transcendentalism
- Taking Positions on Sen's Argument: Author evaluates Sen's logic and rhetorical strategy
- Strengths and Weaknesses of Sen's Theory: Sen's use of Smith, Rawls, and historical examples
- Conclusion: Contemporary relevance of a new theory of justice
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper engages directly with Sen's primary text, citing specific page numbers and quotations to anchor each analytical point.
- The author is transparent about personal opinion, clearly signaling when claims are interpretive rather than textual, which keeps the analysis honest and readable.
- The contrast between Sen's comparative approach and Rawls' transcendental approach is consistently maintained throughout, giving the essay a clear organizing tension.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates close reading combined with evaluative commentary. Rather than merely summarizing Sen, the author repeatedly pauses to assess whether Sen's moves are persuasive, weak, or strategically motivated — for example, questioning whether Sen's extended engagement with the transcendental approach on pages 219–222 is a substantive defense or a rhetorical gesture. This evaluative stance distinguishes analysis from summary.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by situating Sen's project relative to Rawls, then moves through a section reviewing Sen's core arguments, followed by the author's personal position on those arguments. A dedicated strengths-and-weaknesses section addresses Sen's use of Adam Smith and Rawls' own contributions. The conclusion connects Sen's framework to contemporary social issues, grounding the abstract philosophical debate in real-world examples.
Introduction: Sen's Challenge to Rawls
Amartya Sen, a noted scholar in the world of philosophical discussion and interpretation, presents counterarguments to John Rawls' approach to a theory of justice. In the process, Sen also works to cement his own approach to the subject. He argues that asking "What is a just society?" is wasteful, and that serious thinkers should instead "concentrate on comparative questions of justice" (Sen, 236). The philosopher thus opens the door to a discussion of what thoughtful people should expect and desire from a theory of justice — which is likely what Sen intended, beyond simply promoting his own philosophical position. Sen begins his article by referencing what he finds difficult to accept within Rawls' foundational view of justice.
The core of Sen's argument comes down to his departure from Rawls' theory of justice — not only the "substantive content of the Rawlsian theory of justice," but also Rawls' approach to "public reasoning" and the "reach and coverage of public participation" (Sen, 2006, p. 216). Moreover, Sen invokes his own approach, a comparative theory of justice, precisely because it does not pretend to offer specific answers to the elusive question he finds misguided: "What is a just society?"
Works Cited
Sen, A. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(5).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.