Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T17:29:16.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THEORIZING ABOUT JUSTICE? A CRITIQUE OF SEN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2011

Laura Valentini
Laura Valentini*
Affiliation:
The Queen's College, Oxford, UKl.valentini@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his recent book The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen suggests that political philosophy should move beyond the dominant, Rawls-inspired, methodological paradigm – what Sen calls ‘transcendental institutionalism’ – towards a more practically oriented approach to justice: ‘realization-focused comparison’. In this article, I argue that Sen's call for a paradigm shift in thinking about justice is unwarranted. I show that his criticisms of the Rawlsian approach are either based on misunderstandings, or correct but of little consequence, and conclude that the Rawlsian approach already delivers much of what Sen himself wants from a theory of justice.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 297 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abizadeh, A. 2007. Cooperation, pervasive impact, and coercion: on the scope (not site) of distributive justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 35: 318–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, A. 1985. Theory and reflective practices. In Postures of the Mind. Essays on Mind and Morals, 207–227. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2003. Facts and principles. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, G. F. 1999. Reasonable pluralism and the domain of the political: how the weaknesses of John Rawls's political liberalism can be overcome by a justificatory liberalism. Inquiry 42: 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, P. forthcoming. Comparative assessments of justice, political feasibility, and ideal theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.Google Scholar
James, A. 2005. Constructing justice for existing practice: Rawls and the status quo. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 281–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, T. 2004. Political philosophy and racial injustice: from normative to critical theory. In Pragmatism, Critique, Judgment, ed. Benhabib, S. and Fraser, N., 147–170. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meckled-Garcia, S. 2008. On the very idea of cosmopolitan justice: constructivism and international agency. Journal of Political Philosophy 16: 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1985 [1859]. On Liberty. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mills, C.W. 2005. ‘Ideal theory’ as ideology. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 20: 165–184.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 2005. The problem of global justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33: 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T.W. 1989. Realizing Rawls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pogge, T.W. 2000. On the site of distributive justice: reflections on Cohen and Murphy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29: 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T.W. 2004. The incoherence between Rawls's theories of justice. Fordham Law Review 72: 1739–1759.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999a (rev. ed.). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999b. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. 2006. Rawlsian social-contract theory and the severely disabled. The Journal of Ethics 10: 419–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangiovanni, A. 2007. Global justice, reciprocity, and the state. Philosophy and Public Affairs 35: 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2006. What do we want from a theory of justice? Journal of Philosophy 103: 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Simmons, A.J. 2010. Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, A. 2008. The value of philosophy in non-ideal circumstances. Social Theory and Practice 34: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, K-C. 1998. Liberal toleration in Rawls's law of peoples. Ethics 108: 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, L. 2009. On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 332–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar