The Idea of Justice

This is an accessible yet dense book. Sen essentially argues that it is extremely difficult and likely past the ability of people to start axiomatically about how a justice system should be formed and deduce the practical results. This stems from the fact that the elements that people define as the parameters of their freedom are multidimensional versus something reducible to say utility, or even a ranking system of priorities that Rawls prioritized on. The repurcussion of this lack of strict relationships between the various degrees of "freedom" that people live under he reasons (along the lines of mathematical economists) there dont exist strict "optimal" solutions. He makes the point clear by referring to self referential utility and the fact that in such systems and especially the real world, our freedoms are all interconnected and thus there are sometimes no way to go about ranking justice from a bottom up perspective.I think its hard to not agree with that as a thesis. An obvious example of an incredibly difficult practical problem to solve via ranking individual freedoms would be something like the environment and global warming. Another current example is solving moral hazard problems, especially within finance- there are a MASS of perspectives of right and wrong depending on how one weighs aggregate policy repurcussions against the need to promote lesson learning. Sen argues that problems which involve large systems need to be looked at as a complex system and judged by the repurcussions of the social architecture and then the "wisdom of crowds" both local and global shed light on the greatest injustices which should then be dealt with. Sen takes a very practical approach to justice as the complexities of trying to actually define a system of justice in a philosophical axiomatic way is unlikely to yield the results that are hoped for due to the multitude of priorities and competing interests. He doubts the philosophical exercises that give weight to the conclusion that our measures of right and wrong are all on the same side of the scale that we define as right and wrong (ie right is right wrong is wrong under veil of ignorance) and articulates this with one of his opening example of the kids and what their rights/entitlements are. To be honest, i would doubt that justice philosophers dont readily acknowledge a lot of what Sen says, but defer to the fact that one cannot define justice in a philophical sense from the top down. That is what things like common law and political lawmaking have evolved from (one can debate whether this is effective but our institutions allow for bottom up modification based off top down repurcussions), our inherint understanding that as things evolve, so does the justice system. Things that shape judges and political opinions are often intellectual movements that originated via people doing thought experiments of how we might be biased and what are ways to remove that (veil of ignorance).Im surprised at the dissillusionment in the theory of rawls. It has served an extremely valuable service, and i think those people who work on describing new social contract ideas have the potential to be very influential on institutional arragnement. Similarly so will social choice theorists as they will counterbalance some of the over deduction used from foundational exploration by philosophers. Its hard not to see how both are necessary places for people to be working. One reviewer critiques the lack of embracing behavioral economics and the leaning on more walrusian style actors. I personally dont get that at all, and see the whole thesis as evidence that people cant be reduced to agents operating under utility maximization. One cant start from a framework of behavioural finance because it has no assumption basis from which results follow, its primarily a results based field for which results are used to work out internal dynamics- which is what Sen is saying we need to adopt.All in all, the book has a LOT of material and ideas, it gets you interested in more, but is really far from complete. I didnt get a sense of chapters following one another particularly, but perhaps there is no real way of doing that well either given the amount Sen was trying to cover. I plan on reading more on the subject. The mental prodding the book does is reason enough to buy it, but this book definately wont leave one feeling like, ah, this is the final chapter, not even close. This sort of book really should open up debate, in a constructive way, but is unable to make one feel like we have the tools to measure justice in a more fair way.

The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen is a very smart and distinguished man, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, an eminent political theorist, and an effective advocate of global human rights. I came to this book familiar with just some of his writing, only a small part of it, and I sought to refine my understanding of key contours of his thought. In spite of some shortcomings, I found The Idea of Justice satisfying in that regard. It is reflective of the scope and depth of his interests cultivated over the past 50 plus years. It is one book where the "Acknowledgements" section (a full eight pages) alone is instructive, suggesting how his thinking has been shaped through collaboration with dozens of other intellectual high achievers at the finest of the world's universities.Here Sen inquires why we need a theory of justice and asks what such a theory might do. He criticizes certain notable theories and outlines his own. His chief target is contract theories, what he calls "arrangement-focused" conceptions of justice. According to Sen such theories are not an especially useful guide to practical reasoning, they do not help much to resolve the claims of competing values, and they focus exclusively on institutions and not on actual behavior.He faults John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness for these and other reasons. He considers Rawls' ideal to be "transcendental," the specification of a perfect world based on a fiction. In contrast, Sen argues that we do not need an answer to the question of "what is a just society" in order to have a systematic theory of comparative justice.He advocates a "realization-focused" approach to justice, one which stresses actual behavior and comparative choices among ways to live. He relies on certain core concepts drawn from his lifetime body of work, notably social choice theory and the human capabilities perspective on desired outcomes.The capabilities perspective, as Sen frames it, differs from utilitarianism because it considers people's freedoms and obligations, not just the utilities they enjoy. People have agency interests and values, he says -- the ability to reason, appraise, choose, participate, and act -- not just needs for well-being.While Sen describes these and other features of his desired theory of justice, he does not pull them together here into a rigorous comprehensive statement in the manner that we find in Rawls, for example. Instead, he seems to suggest that the details in any given circumstance might be worked out through reasoned discussion. Human rights are ethical claims that hold up to unobstructed public scrutiny, he contends. He recognizes that in many cases conflicts among competing values will remain after considering all of the arguments, but proposes that many cases will also lead to resolution.I was left with the sense that Sen has spent too many years in seminar rooms too little exposed to the level of public policy debates portrayed in the popular media, that he himself has a transcendental expectation. It may be revealing of his unfounded confidence in open public debate that he offers universal health care as the example of where we can make progress even though there is disagreement on the means to achieve it.So, while many elements of Sen's ideas about justice have appeal, do not expect a tidy and fully persuasive theory of his own to emerge. You will also need to tolerate repetition (introduction of an idea, later development of it, and then further references back to it) and either have some willingness to be side-tracked by substantive footnotes or possess the ability to remain oblivious to them.

My solution would be for Carla to keep the flute. However she could then sell the flute to Anne, reinvesting the proceeds to make more flutes. Anne's competant flute playing would create demand for Carla's flutes allowing her to sell more flutes and employ more people who she could train in flute manufacture. (if Bob is genuinely interested in flutes maybe he could apply for the job and buy his own flute out of his earnings, thus averting the need for a charitable solution). In the fullness of time Anna can buy another flute from Carla to give to Bob out of her earnings as a concert flautist, or Carla can use some of her retained earnings as a flute manufacturer, or dividend income if the company has gone public and she has retained a share, to buy a flute from her stock for Bob (or more realistically for one of Bob's kids). If one feels sorry for Bob there are probably a lot of things that could help him out of poverty more quickly than than a flute that he cant play.

This is a great book for anyone interested in philosophy or economics!

Learned the method of analysis of John Rawls' "Theory of Justice" and the way of application by expanding the meaning of justice since the justice concept is important. Globalization has been developed after the last war with process of well-ordered society valued by Western value which is now facing the majority of the members of UN and WTO is developing countries. Amartya Sen gives us a hint how to apply and how to think the value of Western to the present world and the globalization process.

Excellent critique to the institutional approach to justice.However the arguments can be understood in the introduction. The rest of the book feels redundant.

This is the first book by Amartya Sen I have read. I respect the guy hugely as an intellectual, but as an engaging writer not at all. I think you could sum up what he says in this book in 4 pages, and detail it enough in 40 pages - but he writes it in 400 pages. He rambles - a lot - gets caught up in minor technicalities and repeats himself over and over. On top of that, his writing is so full of Sahara-dry academic terms that you can read some sentences 20 or 25 times and still not get any meaning out of them. In his defence, it seems he knows personally most of the people whose theories he criticises, so, nice guy that he is, he treats them with kid gloves, first praising their work and then gently saying what's wrong with it.This is a book by an academic for academics, not for interested lay readers. I think someone else will come along and write an accessible coverage of Sen's work which will be much more readable.(Sorry for not covering the content of the book, but other reviewers have done that.)

Some interesting and important points made here, I found a pleasing contrast by also reading 'Freedom from the Known' by Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Amartya Sen's depth and range of knowledge is simply magnificent. In this book, it is more than amply clear. Drawing from insights into fields such as Economics, History, Philosophy, Politics etc., he does not give us the definition or meaning of 'Justice', bur rather, provides frameworks for how to think about what Justice is. He is not interested in single ideals of justice; rather, he says that the reasons for why one should be just actually may be many. He flips the concept on its head, and in the subsequent chapters (which may be read as discrete essays), he analyses various aspects of the concept from a variety of perspectives.It is surely a dense read, and also, I believe, would be a better read if the reader is already familiar with the mainstream thinkers and theories of Philosophy and Politics. Otherwise, it may be hard to follow sometimes. That may surely be one criticism of the book. If the book was one to be published for the general reader, it should have been simpler and written in an easier way. But overall, it is truly brilliant in its depth, range and vision.

The book discusses justice in length and breadth. It does not only give you a theoretical approach but enlighten you to recognise practical challenges in applying those theoretical understanding in a social and political sphere of life.It starts reflecting India's philosophical ground of justice and moves to global understanding. It discusses redistribution, recognition, and representation in-depth. Finally, it stresses the capability approach and its relevance in ensuring justice for the marginalised and disadvantaged section of the society.I would say that this book is a 'must read book' for everyone those who wish to understand the relevance of justice and reflecting upon the present development agenda. Go for it.

Yes it is quite repetitive, Sen really wants you to actually understand his ideas, so repeats his key messages quite a lot. Perhaps too often. But I'll forgive this as it convincingly demolishes some of the standard ideas in political philosophy. There is a nice irony in an Economist (an academic field largely filled with irrelevant work) showing that political philosophy is an academic field largely filled with irrelevant work.Sen's Idea of Justice, isn't so much a concept of Justice, but a framework in which to think about justice. One should reject any form of transcendental institutionalism (we just need to figure out what the perfect institutions are) and instead urges us to ask "how do we change society for the better?" He doesn't so much propose an answer to this question, but that this should be the question we ask (and respond to from varying perspectives).We will often have multiple conflicting objectives but perhaps in practice this isn't a problem, after there are many banal decisions we make everyday which have multiple objectives (cost/time/hunger/thirst/...). An important book, one of the best I've read in a long time.