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 framework based on the idea of ‘justice as fairness’, utilizing a thought experiment involving a ‘veil of ignorance’. However, this approach has faced criticism for its abstractness and limited applicability to real-world complexities. Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, offered an alternative perspective with his ‘capability approach’, focusing on individuals’ substantive freedoms to achieve well-being. This essay will discuss whether Sen’s idea of justice represents an improvement upon Rawls’ theory, arguing that it does, due to its greater emphasis on practical realization and contextual understanding of justice.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Justice as Fairness
Rawls’ theory centers around the concept of ‘justice as fairness’. He proposes that principles of justice are those that would be chosen by rational individuals in an ‘original position’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ – where they are unaware of their social status, talents, or beliefs. This ensures impartiality. The two principles derived from this position are: (1) equal basic liberties for all, and (2) the difference principle, which allows for social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls’ focus is on the structure of institutions and ensuring a fair distribution of primary goods – rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth.
Sen’s Capability Approach: Freedom to Achieve Well-being
Amartya Sen critiques Rawls for focusing solely on primary goods, arguing that these do not necessarily translate into actual freedoms or well-being. Sen’s ‘capability approach’ shifts the focus from means (primary goods) to ends – what people are actually able to *do* and *be*. ‘Capabilities’ represent the set of valuable functionings – things people value doing or being – that a person has effective opportunities to achieve. For example, being adequately nourished, being able to participate in political life, or being able to live a life of normal length. Sen emphasizes the importance of individual heterogeneity and contextual factors in assessing justice.
Comparing and Contrasting Rawls and Sen
The key differences between the two theories can be summarized as follows:
| Feature | Rawls’ Justice as Fairness | Sen’s Capability Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Institutional structure & primary goods | Individual capabilities & functionings |
| Methodology | Thought experiment (veil of ignorance) | Empirical assessment of freedoms & well-being |
| Scope | Idealized, universal principles | Contextual, comparative assessment |
| Equality | Equality of primary goods, difference principle | Equality of capabilities, removing capability deprivation |
Strengths of Sen’s Approach
- Addresses Real-World Inequalities: Sen’s approach is better equipped to address the complexities of real-world inequalities, considering factors like disability, gender, and social norms that affect people’s ability to convert primary goods into well-being.
- Emphasis on Agency: Sen’s focus on capabilities recognizes the importance of individual agency and the ability to choose a life one has reason to value.
- Comparative Perspective: The capability approach allows for a comparative assessment of justice across different societies and cultures, recognizing that what constitutes a ‘good life’ may vary.
- Practical Applicability: The capability approach lends itself more readily to policy formulation and evaluation, as it focuses on measurable outcomes related to human well-being.
Limitations of Rawls’ Approach
- Idealized and Abstract: Critics argue that Rawls’ theory is too abstract and idealized, making it difficult to apply to real-world situations.
- Neglect of Individual Differences: The assumption of rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance overlooks the significant impact of individual differences and social contexts.
- Focus on Distribution, Not Functioning: Rawls’ emphasis on distributing primary goods does not guarantee that these goods will be effectively used to enhance people’s lives.
Is Sen’s Approach an Improvement?
While Rawls’ theory provides a valuable framework for thinking about justice, Sen’s capability approach represents a significant improvement. Sen’s focus on actual freedoms and capabilities offers a more nuanced and practical understanding of justice, better suited to addressing the complexities of human well-being and inequality. Rawls’ theory, while providing a strong foundation for principles of fairness, can be seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving a just society. Sen’s approach complements Rawls by providing a framework for evaluating whether those principles are actually translating into meaningful improvements in people’s lives. It moves beyond a purely structural focus to consider the lived experiences and capabilities of individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Rawls’ ‘justice as fairness’ remains a landmark contribution to political philosophy, Amartya Sen’s capability approach offers a more robust and practically relevant framework for understanding and achieving justice. By shifting the focus from abstract principles to concrete capabilities, Sen provides a more nuanced and effective approach to addressing real-world inequalities and promoting human well-being. The capability approach doesn’t necessarily invalidate Rawls’ work, but rather builds upon it, offering a more comprehensive and context-sensitive understanding of what it means to live a just life.
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.