Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The pursuit of justice has been a central concern in political philosophy. John Rawls, in his seminal work *A Theory of Justice* (1971), presented a powerful account of ‘justice as fairness’, profoundly influencing contemporary political thought. However, Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, offers a distinct perspective, challenging Rawlsian principles through his ‘capability approach’. While both aim for a just society, their methodologies and ultimate goals diverge significantly. Sen’s critique doesn’t necessarily reject Rawls outright, but rather proposes a more pragmatic and empirically grounded framework for evaluating and achieving social justice, shifting the focus from ideal theory to real-world possibilities.
Rawls’ Justice as Fairness
Rawls’ theory centers on the idea of a ‘veil of ignorance’ – a hypothetical situation where individuals, unaware of their future social position, choose principles of justice. This leads to two core principles: equal basic liberties for all, and the ‘difference principle’ which allows for social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. Rawls’ approach is fundamentally contractualist and prioritizes procedural justice – a fair process leading to just outcomes.
Sen’s Capability Approach
Amartya Sen critiques Rawls for its overreliance on hypothetical contracts and its focus on ‘primary goods’ (rights, liberties, wealth) rather than individuals’ actual ability to achieve well-being. Sen argues that individuals convert primary goods into ‘functionings’ – things people actually *do* and *be* – and these functionings are enabled by ‘capabilities’ – the real opportunities they have. Justice, according to Sen, is about expanding these capabilities, allowing individuals to live lives they have reason to value.
Comparing the Two Approaches
The key differences can be summarized as follows:
| Feature | Rawls’ Justice as Fairness | Sen’s Capability Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology | Contractualist (hypothetical agreement) | Empirical and comparative (actual freedoms) |
| Focus | Fairness of institutions and distribution of primary goods | Expansion of capabilities and functionings |
| Scope | Ideal theory – defining a perfectly just society | Practical ethics – assessing and improving real-world justice |
| Role of Agreement | Central – justice arises from rational agreement | Less central – agreement can be helpful, but not essential |
| Individual vs. Collective | Emphasis on societal structures and principles | Emphasis on individual well-being and agency |
Illustrative Examples
Consider healthcare. Rawls would focus on ensuring equal access to healthcare resources (primary goods). Sen, however, would assess whether individuals have the *capability* to be healthy – access to healthcare is important, but so are factors like nutrition, sanitation, and education. Similarly, in education, Rawls would prioritize equal access to schooling, while Sen would focus on whether individuals have the capability to acquire knowledge and skills, considering factors like quality of education, learning environment, and individual aptitudes.
Limitations and Criticisms
Rawls’ theory has been criticized for being overly idealistic and neglecting the complexities of real-world power dynamics. Sen’s approach, while more pragmatic, has been criticized for being potentially subjective in defining ‘capabilities’ and ‘functionings’ and for lacking a clear decision-making procedure when capabilities conflict. Furthermore, operationalizing the capability approach can be challenging, requiring extensive data collection and analysis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Rawls and Sen contribute significantly to our understanding of justice, their approaches differ fundamentally. Rawls offers a powerful vision of a just society based on fairness and equality, while Sen provides a more nuanced and practical framework focused on expanding individual capabilities and freedoms. Sen’s critique of Rawls highlights the importance of moving beyond ideal theory and engaging with the complexities of real-world justice, emphasizing the need to assess not just the fairness of institutions, but also the actual opportunities available to individuals to live flourishing lives. Ultimately, both perspectives offer valuable insights for policymakers and activists striving to create a more just and equitable world.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.