Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory
Amartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comp...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Ethics & Global Politics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398 |
| _version_ | 1819276712029978624 |
|---|---|
| author | Kristina Meshelski |
| author_facet | Kristina Meshelski |
| author_sort | Kristina Meshelski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Amartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comparative’ theory of justice. Sen’s negative point has been widely discussed, but here I develop a reconstruction of Sen’s positive theory (a combination of Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator, Social Choice Theory, and the Capabilities Approach) in order to evaluate it on its own terms. I find that the theory is technocratic, despite Sen’s insistence to the contrary. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T23:44:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ed306038b67e4f679f7f78392c3b6365 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1654-4951 1654-6369 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T23:44:34Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ethics & Global Politics |
| spelling | doaj.art-ed306038b67e4f679f7f78392c3b63652022-12-21T17:25:34ZengTaylor & Francis GroupEthics & Global Politics1654-49511654-63692019-12-01122314510.1080/16544951.2019.16223981622398Amartya Sen’s nonideal theoryKristina Meshelski0California State UniversityAmartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comparative’ theory of justice. Sen’s negative point has been widely discussed, but here I develop a reconstruction of Sen’s positive theory (a combination of Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator, Social Choice Theory, and the Capabilities Approach) in order to evaluate it on its own terms. I find that the theory is technocratic, despite Sen’s insistence to the contrary.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398Amartya Sennonideal theoryJohn Rawlstechnocracy |
| spellingShingle | Kristina Meshelski Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory Ethics & Global Politics Amartya Sen nonideal theory John Rawls technocracy |
| title | Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory |
| title_full | Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory |
| title_fullStr | Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory |
| title_full_unstemmed | Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory |
| title_short | Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory |
| title_sort | amartya sen s nonideal theory |
| topic | Amartya Sen nonideal theory John Rawls technocracy |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kristinameshelski amartyasensnonidealtheory |