Acknowledgement

With the genuine gratitude I wish to thank every person who has come into my life and inspired, touched and illumined me through their presence. I thank almighty God for giving me all the blessings for my life, all for His kind presence in all my activities.

I would like to thank Rev. Dr. Johnson Neelanirappel for his valuable guidance and for generously sharing his time, knowledge, love and energy to guide me in the right path for the completion of this thesis.

I would also like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to the following people for their glorious support and contributions to my journey and the completion of this thesis. I pay homage to the librarian of Santhom library Rev. Dr. Sebastian Chalackal and all other librarians for helping me in the collection of data for the completion of this work.

Fro generously sharing their wisdom, love and time I pay gratitude to my entire batch mates of Dazzlers. Conveying my sincere thanks to all the members of Sevana social group I wind up.

general introduction

Human is a rational and social being. Society is an unavoidable factor for human being. There are a lot of things to keep as a social being to human. To maintain a good relationship with others, there are certain written and unwritten rules. The person who keeps this rules called ‘just man’. There are different faces to the concept ‘justice’. A brief study about the concept ‘justice’ is an important today. Many philosophers have tried to explain the concept ‘justice’ and its features. We can find a lot of features in personal justice. The meaning of justice may change according to the situations. But there should be a common factor; this common factor is the concept of ‘ethics’. In general justice and ethics are co-related. Today the study of justice includes anthropology, sociology, socio-biology and psychology, communication, likewise there are infinite areas which needed the presence of justice. When we pass through these chapters we find the philosophical state of the concept ‘justice’ especially how the great economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, explains the concept of justice and its features. We can see the different aspects or viewpoints of Amartya Sen about the concept of justice and how the actions of human lead to just. In philosophical sense justice is considered as an important factor of human being. Amartya Sen looks justice as the foundation of the society. He argues that it is necessary that the role of justice in the actions of human being. Amartya Sen considered as one of the most important figures in economics and the world of philosophy. Sen promoted the doctrine that impartiality is the core of justice in the society. We will face more about the life history and major works of Amartya Sen. Here chapter one consist general concepts of justice. If we go through this chapter we will meet the features of the theories of Amartya Sen and life and Works of Amartya Sen etc. Second chapter consist Amartya Sen’s concept of Justice. And when we pass through this chapter, we will meet concepts of justice according to Amartya Sen, importance of justice, types of justice, and what is to be justice etc. And at the end of this chapter there is the comparison between ‘idea of justice’ according to Amartya Sen and ‘theory of justice’ according to John Rawls.

Chapter one

GENERAL CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

1.0. Introduction

Justice is a concept of moral rightness. It is a worldwide concept. As a worldwide concept, the study about justice is very relevant today. The meaning of justice may change according to the situations. But there should be a common factor; this common factor is the concept ‘ethics’. Even if it is a wide concept, justice and ethics are co-related. The study about the concept of justice will open a wonderful world of ethical philosophy in front of us. As we go through this chapter, we come across the general concept of justice and the life and works of the great economic ‘Acharya’ Amartya Sen. The role of justice is covered to the entire life of human and his activities, for example, fields of social, financial, cultural, scientific, spiritual etc. Actually this list of the fields serves to make beauty and harmony in the society only by the support of the concept ‘justice’. Here, social justice is more important because it deals with directly to human affairs.

According to John rawl "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[1] For him, laws and institutions of the society work properly only through with the basis of justice. Justice concentrates only on greater good or social good. The dissatisfactions of the some are not important in front of the social good. The idea of justice lies at the heart of moral philosophy. Justice is concerned as virtue because it is necessary to human as a social being for their interaction with others. Then only each one will get what he or she deserves at it due.[2] When we go through the chapters, we will see more about the concept of justice in the view of Amartya Sen and an overall comparison with the theories of John Rawls. The Social and cultural background of the person of Amartya Sen, and the inhuman and unjust practice of the then society had an influence in his late development of thought.

1.1. Social cultural background that formed the person amartyasen

Sen was born on 3rd November 1933 in a Bengali Hindu Vaidya family of Santiniketan, West Bengal, India. In his autobiography, he says that “I was born in a university campus and seem to have lived all my life in one campus or another”.[3] We can assume that his entire life he spent in campus for his studies. And this made him a philosopher and economist. His childhood teach a lot about the society which he live. These life situations formed amartyasen as a well purified economist. For him the unfreedom in the form of extreme poverty makes one person to violate other kinds of social freedoms. His father Ashutosh Sen taught chemistry at Dhaka University. His maternal grandfather was also a teacher of Rabindranath Tagore’s Visva-Barati, Santiniketan. Here he taught Sanskrit as well as ancient and medieval Indian culture. Amartyasen’s mother, Amita Sen and later he himself was a student of Santiniketan. Then he studied at Presidency College in Calcutta and then at Trinity College in Cambridge. The studies in Calcutta gave him an attitude about the cultural identity. All the places he stayed formed him as an integral person. He got the chance to teach in Calcutta, Cambridge, Delhi University, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, and Harvard University, and on a visiting basis, at M.I.T., Stanford, Berkeley, and Cornell. His formal education started from St. Gregory School, Dhaka. Then he moved to Santiniketan it was tagor’s school and this was created a well attitude towards education. For him this school helps him to be with Indian culture. Indian culture and analytical and scientific heritage was part of its curriculum. And it influenced all over the world

1.2 Meaning of justice

Justice is the concept which is related to human being and his affairs. We can’t define it in a single form. In traditional concepts, people did not give any importance to the concept ‘justice’. The actions which are beyond their control were considered as fate or divine providence. Today we can see a lot of schools about the concept ‘justice’. For example, Utilitarianism explains justice as the moral worth of an action. Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received.

1.2.1. Types of justice

Different types of justice are there in traditional concepts. These are retributive justice, distributive justice, formal justice, etc.

1.2.2. Retributive justice

Retributive justice is related with punishment. It concerns when and why a punishment is justified. Here punishment is considered as a morally correct factor. In this type of justice system, a crime is typically seen as being done against the state or government, rather than against an individual or community. As such, it is left to the state to seek justice in terms of punishment against the individual who has perpetrated the crime. Retributive justice is often associated with concepts such as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and similar ideas regarding punishment. In most respects, retributive justice often seeks to punish a person for a crime in a way that is seen as compensatory for the crime. For example, someone who has committed murder may be punished in various ways by different systems that all utilize retributive justice. In some systems a person who takes a life forfeits his or her own life and may be put to death as punishment. Other systems may see lifelong imprisonment as sufficient punishment, since it often takes away all the potential a person had in his or her life much as someone else’s potential was taken away by the murder. One of the major criticisms against retributive justice is that it often creates a system in which abuses can occur, and punishment may not be proportionate for the crime committed. Actually this problem cannot solve permanently. Because equal is not always fair and the same fine levied against someone who is wealthy and someone who is poor rarely creates the same severity of punishment for each person. [4]

1.2.3. Distributive justice

Distributive justice means as the word mention that, the fairness of the distribution of resources. For example, fairness in the distribution of wages, salaries and other types of remunerations or rewards etc. John Rawl’s theories focus on distributive justice. It deals with what is the ethically correct way to distribute benefits and burdens in society. The Four classic theories of distributive justice are Egalitarian theory, Capitalist theory, Socialist theory, and Libertarian theory.[5]

1.2.4. Formal justice

Formal justice is considered as the application of the principles of justice. Here impartiality is very relevant.[6] Many other types of justice are there. But these are the most relevant division of justice.

As we have seen earlier, the features of the concept ‘justice’ may change according to the situations. Social culture is one of the important factors which make influence over the concept of justice. This phenomenon is only because every cultural circumstance depends on that particular society’s history, faith, mythology, etc. here we can find out a common factor. That is what we saw in the introductory part about the concept ‘ethics’. Existence of a society is only through ethics. This ethically well structured society comes from an ethical background and fair practices. That is what Jesus says “no good trees bear bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil”[7]

The concept ‘justice’ mainly covers three areas of human life. These areas are social, personal, and spiritual. Here social justice is most important because it deals with the activities of society. For example a government’s legal system, social systems and every activities which is influenced in society. The benefit of this social justice goes to ordinary people. Because it helps to establish an ethical governance and to keep the laws. By these activities society knows what is right and what is wrong.[8]

Personal justice covers individual care for each person. Here it includes the person’s own ethics. Here the importance goes to the moral values. The values which according to each human makes him more valuable. It creates a moral and just man. Each person is a brick of the society. Here in personal justice, responsibility of one’s action is only to that particular person. It conforms a person’s own ethics. Each one is different in the universe. So the graph or the level of values may change according to the difference of individuals. Here a person’s own belief is very important. Because a person’s activities depends upon a person’s own beliefs and faith.[9]

Spiritual justice covers the activities of supreme power or God. Traditional concepts says that the actions which is beyond the hands of human is considered as fate or the punishment of God etc. and this is controlled by God. There is a fear in the society about supernatural justice. Religious boundaries are the basis of this spiritual justice. For Hindu, this spiritual justice is denoted as the concept ‘karma’. For Christians, it is explained with the ‘last judgment day’. For Muslim, they will explain ‘donation to those who need, will prevent accidents’.[10]

Here justice will be served to each and every person in different ways or in different faces. Here every actions of human will be according to the fear of supernatural justice.

1.3. Importance of justice

As we know the importance of justice is very relevant not only today but forever. Because human cannot exist without a social institution and the existence of this institution is only by the basis of justice. In a common sense we can say justice stands for truth. So the existence is possible only through truthful actions. However there is no perfect just system on earth only because of the imperfect people. Justice is the right decision. We can’t find justice as it is, but only the idea or the application. Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and it makes harmony in persons within a society. As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection. It holds us responsible for our actions and allows us to see that our decisions whether it was good or not. A civilized society is a just society. Justice in a society depends on the concept, ‘social justice’. In the context of India, economic justice is very relevant when the society meets the challenge of socio-economic inequality. Social justice is not a blind concept or a preposterous dogma. It seeks to do justice to all the citizen of the state. The Constitution of India has solemnly promised to all its citizens justices-social, economic and political; liberty of thought expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among the all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation. The Constitution has attempted to standardize all the violations of socio-economic justice, individual liberty and fundamental rights of each citizen in our nation.[11]

The solution to social injustice lies within us only. We and the government should be aware with the poor, the backwards, and also the persons who violate social justice to build up their own edipas. We should care when we take decision whether it is made for the name of the poor and the backward. That means a rational examination is needed prior to every decision. “Those who hold different conceptions of justice can, then, still agree that institutions are just when no arbitrary distinctions are made between persons in the assigning of basic rights and duties and when the rules determine a proper balance between competing claims to the advantages of social life”.[12] So we can assume that justice balances everything.

1.4. What is to be just?

To be just means the actions which according to justice. In the holy bible in the book of Isaiah, chapter 56th, worse 1st quotes likes this “Thus says the LORD: Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed”. The real justice inheres in the rightful actions. Actions can speak louder than words. To examine one’s speech whether it is genuinely or not, it only needs to check his actions. An action shows that whether someone is genuine or not. Someone may say that they will help the hungry people of the world, but the words get its credibility only when they actually get out there and feed them.

In the modern society we can see countless applications in the concept ‘justice’. Business is the most relevant place to apply the concept ‘justice’. We can’t define the term business in a single definition. That is only because it involves in every interactions of human being. So the application of justice in business is very important. We can also say that the existence of business will be only through keeping just in business. The application of justice addresses the moral features of commercial activity. The applications of justice in the field of business will go on likewise. The activities which helps to keep justice in the society by Government consists of various welfare schemes, law, legal literacy, administrative forms of arbitration such as tribunals, boards, courts, public interest litigation, new legal education, protection of weaker sections of the society etc… The existence of human being is only through morality. Morality makes harmony in the society. Human being is a social animal. Justice is the moral rightness. It is based on all the features of human being. So we can say all the features of justice can interrelated with human being. Rationality is one of the important factors which link with these features.

1.5. Conclusion

As we see the features of the concept ‘justice’, we could realise that justice is very relevant today. As a social and rational being, human cannot exist without justice in the society. Justice can be exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, mutual understandings, keeping values, concern human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being. In the view of Plato, a just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. So when I conclude this chapter with the idea of justice which involves every human affair makes an ideal human.

CHAPTER TWO

JUSTICE IN THE VIEW OF AMARTYA SEN

2.0. Introduction

This chapter deals with the concept of justice in the view of Amartya Sen. Justice is more than a concept. It exists only when it deals with practice. There is no question of justice in the ideal world. The practical realm means the area which the actions are done on the basis of reason. So we can say, the concept Justice deals with human action.

In simple words, we can say that justice is to do what ought to be done. The action on the right time, right place, and right order become justice. Here there arise one question that when the judgments are just even if it does not come directly from the practical realm, can we say categorically it is not a theory but only practical? Here we should know one thing that every judgment is directly related with practice. It checks one’s actions whether it is right or not on the basis of proper reasoning.

When the justice comes in the realm of human action, normally by their very nature, the range of justice will lay down on the basis of freedom. Freedom is an unavoidable feature in every judgment. Actually justice is defined on the basis of freedom. Freedom is the only mode of justice. For Amartya Sen “freedom is the foundation of justice”[13]. Prior to the judgment of a thing, there should be the relevant facts to take a decision. These relevant or supporting facts are the foundation of justice. Here the human freedom comes to choose which relevant facts are more apt or which makes more coherent to do that action not for the interest of some, but for the social interest. In this situation, Amartya Sen introduces a term, which is justice according to “informational basis”[14] In this situation; the ultimate judgment comes according to the betterment or the interest of the whole.

Amartya Sen’s discussions are very much related to Rawlsian Theory of justice. He emphasized (1) “the general question of the importance of the informational basis for evaluative judgments and (2) the particular issue of the adequacy of the respective informational basis of some standard theories of social ethics and justice, in particular utilitarianism, libertarianism and Rawlsian theory of justice.” [15]

So the study of the concept ‘justice’ makes a diversion for a short time to the concept of man and the society. Let us see more about the society which is the horizon of human and how it is related to the concept ‘justice’.

2.1. Justice and society

A person is the smallest form of a society. A society is build up with individuals. So the concept ‘justice’ spread to the whole. Here there is no individual decision but the power will spread to the whole. The mental pulse of an individual and the society are entirely different. The social concept of a particular subject will be different from the individual vision of the same particular subject. Here all the process of making judgment may rather be the same. But the outcome will be different. According to Amartya Sen, “most of the mechanical procedures of political choice or economic assessment can accommodate rather little information”[16] . For him the outcome of the social decision will be very little. But it seems to be rather strong than the individual decision. The decision of a society is more powerful than the judgments of an individual. Voting result can be the best example for this phenomenon. Even if the social decisions are strong, it is very less informative.[17] “A voting result, in itself, revals nothing much except that one candidate got more votes than another”[18]. Another example is the economic procedure of the national income aggregation. “It draws only on information about what was bought and sold at what price and nothing else”[19].

Even if this social judgment makes only little information, it becomes the way to know more about the subject. That means this social decision play the role as the core of further investigation. This social evidence is very strong from individual decision. “When all the information that we can put into the system of evaluation or decision making takes such an emaciated form, then we have to be reconciled to those pessimistic results”.[20] Then he says that before making a social decision or public policy we have to seek much more information and scrutinized evidence. A thorough study is needed before making a social judgment. A social justice is fulfilled only through the concrete decision. There are also a lot of features about the social judgment. These decisions should be ethical, moral, impartial etc. and this should be for the betterment of the whole. Actually the ‘Idea of Justice’ according to Amartya Sen is considered as the Magna Carta to the rulers of the country. Through the work ‘Idea of Justice’ Amartya Sen introduces the concept ‘social choice’[21]. He proposed some points to the theory of justice.[22]

First point he started from the comparative assessment. This comparative assessment is centered on the practical reason. It speaks of what is to be chosen and which decision should be taken. The theory of justice should be the back bone of every practical action. This theory should be plausible.[23]

Second point he illustrates of the, “recognition of the inescapable plurality of competing principles”. Here he says about the plurality of reasons. There are different basis for an action. These different bases are considered as the different kinds of reason for a particular action. For him this plurality of reason may conflict with each other. It may lead to impossibility. Another feature creates reassessment and further scrutiny. This feature of social choice theory says that the plausibility of an action makes to reassessment and further investigation.[24]

Another point he says that “permissibility of partial resolution”. Here he says about the incomplete ranking of justice. He argued that we cannot rank everything in terms of justice. Here in this situation, the judgment will be done through the help of some supplementary criteria. This theory of justice makes two types of incompleteness. 1. Assertive 2. Tentative. The tentative incompleteness is about the operational difficulties. It may relate to the limitation of knowledge and it helps the re-examination and possible extension. But assertive incompleteness is the concluding part of justice. At the same time it creates the path to further investigation and revision.[25]

Next point he says about the diversity of interpretations and inputs. This diversity of interpretations is only because of the diversity of human being. All the creatures in the world are unique. So those, the interest of each creature are different. This differences will reflected in every actions of human being. In the society, a person’s decision making power will be dominated only when his judgment became valuable or reasonable.[26]

Another point is emphasis on precise articulation and reasoning. It says about the importance of the style of presentation of a judgment. It needs ‘fully stated actions and carefully established derivation’[27]. This type of presentation helps to understand very easily about what exactly they entail.

The social choice theory was very much associated with public reason. So the last point says about the role of public reasoning in social choice. Every person is the core of society. They are the bricks to construct a society. So let’s go through the concept of personal justice.

2.2. Personal justice

Personal justice means justice that happen in the actions of one’s personal life. Here in this personal justice, there are no big principles. Here the important thing is the person’s own ethics. Personal justice occurs only when a person has an emotional response to their actions as a result of a person’s upbringing and their learned ethics.[28]

As the core of the society, it is very important to have justice in personal level. Every change in individuals both mental and emotional will reflect very much in the society. Individuals are considered as the mirror of society. Amartya Sen quoted a lot about the personal justice in his ‘idea of justice’. In his famous work, ‘Idea Of Justice’ he quoted the history of Ashoka, the emperor of India in the third century BC and his inscriptions on good and just behaviour. His concept of social justice is not only a general welfare and freedom of society but also welfare of each citizen in the society.

Asoka’s thinking on social justice included not only his conviction that advancing the welfare and freedom of people in general is an important role for the state as well as of the individuals in society, but also that this social enrichment could be achieved through the voluntary good behaviour of the citizens themselves, without being compelled through force.[29]

This voluntary good behaviour is called justice. When this habit is personalised, it becomes personal justice. It shows that from ancient history also says about the importance of justice. Here Asoka tried a lot to promote good and spontaneous behaviour between his people. We understood that personal justice is the core of social justice. This personal justice is considered as the unique feature of human being. So let’s check what all the features make a man became just.

2.3. Justice as the feature of human being

Before knowing more about justice as the feature of human being, we have to know more about the features of human being. That means the study about the factors which make a man different from other creatures of the world. Actually the study about the features of human being is a vast area. The concept ‘human’ itself is mysterious and complex.

Here according to Amartya Sen, rationality is an important factor which makes human being what he is. For him, another feature is the ability to choose. The ability to choose is the central theme of every justice. The essence of justice lays in his freedom to choose. The good choice will appear only through good reasoning.

To explain this thought, Amartya Sen uses the theories of Wittginstein. Here ‘being good’ means the moral quality of a thing. But Wittginstein used this as ‘being smarter’. It includes rationality, morality, justice, etc. for him; lack of smartness can certainly be one source of moral laxity in good behaviour. When one investigate about the concept ‘smarter’, help one act better towards others. One can achieve this smartness through prudential reasoning.

Here in this smartness, Amartya Sen gives a new dimension that “being smarter can also give us the ability to think more clearly about our goals, objectives and values. If self interest is ultimately a primitive thought, clarity about the sophisticated priorities and obligations that we would want to cherish and pursue would tend to depend on our power of reasoning”[30]. The concept ‘being smarter’ is not only dominated to the self interest but also it investigates how one’s own action affects others as a result of our social nature. By criticizing the rational choice theory, Amartya Sen explains all about both this social and personal interest and how it leads to justice.

2.4. Theory of rational choice

Rational choice is the function of choice by the public which benefits them. According to Amartya Sen, rational choice is based on the idea that people only act out of self-interest. Here individual calculate the costs and benefits of possible actions. They choose to take the action, which has the best results for them. According to Adam Smith, “each individual have the power to act according to self interest”.[31] According to Lewin, “rational choice theory is defined as a rational political action as a process of choosing between different policies given certain preferences and constraints.”[32] Rational choice theory is the decision making theory. Here the importance goes to the freedom of the individual. Today the rational choice theory became prominent not only in economics but also in social sciences, like psychology, sociology and geography.[33]

Sen’s critique on rational choice includes the reflection that an individual rational action would not lead to a group rational outcome. Sen tries to express that an individual’s rational action does not lead to a general balance. He says that, economic agents should not be acting on the basis of greed, but on moral choice, based on the moral interactions with the nearest surroundings. For him, moral choice is based on universalized moral systems. He tries to compare public goods with private goods. For him, the allocation of those public goods is problematic. By these criticisms he explains all about social and personal interest and how it leads to justice.

2.5. Revealed Preference theory and Choice Function

After criticizing the rational choice theory, his arguments turn to the revealed preference theory and choice function. For him preference stands prior to choice. We can choose one thing only from our preferences. Through this study, he tries to express that even if the choice comes from freedom, the freedom to choose is restricted with preferences. Our freedom ends with preferences. He addressed the revealed preference theory with a problem. By the first argument, he says that, “choice restricted to certain distinguished subsets of alternatives”.[34] Even if there is a choice, there should be restrictions through the preferences. For him, this restriction must have a rational basis. So in his view, it is necessary for a restriction to every choice. For example, freedom in India means there is no absolute freedom. Freedom includes some restrictions on the basis of rationality.

In second argument, he divided the function of choice in to two. One is element-valued choice function and another one is set-valued choice function. In the next point, he explains these two types of choice functions. The third point he expressed that when the revealed preference theory became prominent, there are some other requirements appeared. Amartya Sen tries to represent this choice function by a binary relation of preference. For him, “every choice function generated by a binary relation R satisfies property ∞, and it satisfies property β if and only if R is an ordering”.[35] He presented his arguments effectively in mathematical form.

In his work ‘choice, welfare and measurement’, he presented the revealed preference theory in a systematic way. He introduces new definitions to present this theory systematically. He is divided this chapter into ten points. These points are the following.

1. Motivation: Here he revealed the systematic treatment of the axiomatic structure of the theory of revealed preference.[36]

2. Choice function and binary relation- here he introduces variables of each function of society. For example, X is the set of all alternatives. ‘Choice set’ can be C(S). ‘Choice function’ can be C (.) etc. Then he formed new definitions for each functions in an economy.[37]

3. Image, normality and binariness- here he said that each choice function may define its ‘image’ like the choice function generated by the binary relation R revealed by C(S).[38]

4. Axioms of revealed preference and congruence- here he said about different axioms of revealed preference.[39]

5. Equivalence of axioms: Here he introduces the possibilities of equivalence of axioms. He said that “the equivalence can be extended to cover all the rationality conditions proposed so far”.[40] He introduced eight conditions to support this argument.[41]

6. The domain of the choice function and the rationality axioms: It is the rational factors which affect the choice function. For example he said that, “it is certainly the case that the observed behaviour of the competitive consumer will include choices only over budget sets”.[42] Here the freedom to choice is restricted with budget the sets.[43]

7. Element-valued choice functions: In some special cases, revealed preference theory has been concerned with element-valued choice function. Here the choice function determined by the value of the element in an economy. To present this situation, he introduced certain scientific points.[44] For example, “a choice function the range of which is restricted to the class of unit sets is normal if and only if R is an ordering”.[45]

8. Transitivity and factorization: Here he deals with the general concept of α. In the element-valued choice function, α implies complete rationality. But for him, “a choice function satisfies the weak congruence axiom if and only if it satisfies properties α and β.[46]

9. Axioms for normality and binariness- here he said about the normal choice function. For him, “a choice function is normal if and only if it satisfies properties α and R.[47]

10. Axioms for quasi-transitivity: This is the middle position between normality and full transitivity. Here we see two best position and choose the best in the best. For him, this position is really difficult to find out what is the best. Here he tries to introduce a new axiom for choice function.[48]

Through the scientific and mathematical explanations, Amartya Sen gives a scientific realm to the concept of justice and the choice theory. This scientific restriction of choice function is not against justice. This explanation is assisting to the concept ‘justice’. This revealed preference theory and choice function helps us to understand choice as the foundation of justice.

2.6. Basis of justice

The basis of justice is different. For Amartya Sen, it includes impartiality, communication, public reasoning, etc. This basis of justice can also be called demands of justice. That means the things have to be done for a just action.

2.6.1. Impartiality and Justice

Amartya Sen starts his arguments on ‘impartiality’ with a question, why some people are relevant while others simply are not? This question has the power to make a contrivers issue in the society. It is questioning against the present structure of society. Famous political philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft demands that “everyone is seen as morally and politically relevant”.[49] She said that the modern trend of the society is to concentrating on the freedom of a particular group of people. Amartya Sen quoted the words of Sidgwick “that whatever is right for me must be right for all persons in similar circumstances”[50] Application of ethics is very relevant in impartiality. Here he discussed how the impartiality of evaluation can provide an understandable and plausible idea of objectivity in moral and political philosophy.

2.6.1.1. Types of impartiality

Impartiality is the central concept of social justice and social arrangements. Amartya Sen divided impartiality into two.

1. Closed Impartiality.

It means “the procedure of making impartial judgements invoke only the members of a given society or nation for whom the judgements are being made”.[51] As the name represent, here the impartiality is within a boundary.

2. Open Impartiality.

In the case of open impartiality, the activities are just opposite from the closed impartiality. He said that “the procedure of making impartial assessment can invoke judgments, among others, from outside the focal group, to avoid parochial bias”.[52]

2.6.2. Communication and Justice

There are a lot of difference between behaviour of community and behaviour of an individual. Communication and interpersonal comprehension are central to public reasoning. The ethical assessment is laid in the language. It is the medium to present an argument. So the style of using language is very relevant in ethical assessment. According to Amartya Sen, “the role that an understanding of conventions plays in making sense of our social and ethical inquiries is particularly worth emphasizing here.”[53] For example, all the cases are presented in front of the court by the advocates is through the proper use of language. The successes of a case depends how to use the language. Here communication style has an important role to present a theme. Effective reasoning is only through effective communication e.g., speeches of Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Antony’s speech, etc.

2.6.3. Public Reasoning and Justice

Mode of communication is very relevant for any judgement. The communication style has the ability to change the situation. Communication to an individual is different from communication to the public. Conformism is needed in every field to understand the facts.[54] After understanding the facts, there arises not only acceptance but also disagreements. Here he said about the dual task of language. That means using language and imagery to communicate effectively. The object of this presentation is the acceptance of public. According to Amartya Sen, “the relevance of this dual task is easy to see when pursuing established ideas of justice and at the same time proposing additional ideas that a theory of justice needs to take into account.”[55] Public reasoning and debates are central to the pursuit of justice. The correctness of an ethical proposal is based on the acceptability of the public. The impartial nature of the proposed position is the basis of justice. Proper ethical evaluation is done only by the public reasoning through language and communication.[56]

2.6.3. Justice and the World

World is the battle field of justice. Justice is not merely a concept. But its existence is very much evident in the practical life. So justice is something that must be seen as to be done. His arguments started with a question that “why should a publicly reasoned agreement be seen as having any particular status in the soundness of a theory of justice?”[57] Here he quoted the example of ‘the rights of women’. He says that, there is a general agreement on the importance of rights of the women. This agreement is only by checking whether that really would be an enhancement of social justice.[58] This agreement helps to understand something about what is happening. For him, “that is recognition of practical relevance.”[59] He gives the example of practicing of law. “It is frequently asserted that justice should not only be done, but also be ‘seen to be done’”.[60] He emphasized ‘justice being seen to be done’. That means justice became valuable only when it accepted by the public. Even if there is personal justice, as a social being, public justice is also important.

There should be some reason for every action. Reason is the basis of justice. Proper evaluation is done through reasoning. According to Amartya Sen, plurality of reasons helps to sensible assessments. In this plurality of reason, it is very difficult and challenging to take a decision. Plausible movements are very relevant to take a decision.[61]

Human knowledge is fallible. This fallibility may reflect in his actions too. This plays an important role in public reasoning. When we deal with a group, the agreement of different types of peoples will be there. In this case there be agreements and disagreements. For him, the disagreements can be remove by reasoning. This disagreement may exist by unexamined preconceptions.[62] Here in this public, there will be plurality of reasons. Sometimes this will not make any problems. But sometimes this will become a great challenge.

In another statement he states that, the broad theory of justice will not make any change. In the plurality of reasons, there should be simple, concrete and justified conclusion. But at the same time the extreme position may not be applicable in every situation. “The competing criteria will yield different rankings of alternatives, with some shared elements and some divergent ones”.[63] In some cases, the impartial reasoning cannot applicable in justice. Thus Sen introduces the concept of ‘partial ordering’. This partial ordering helps to the complete theory of justice.

The important question raised here is, “is the exercise of impartiality of fairness to be confined within the borders of a country with a shared sovereignty or within a culture with shared attitude and priorities”.[64] As an answer to this question, Amartya Sen argued that, “the encounter of public reasoning about justice should go beyond the boundaries of a state or a region, and these are based respectively on the relevance of other people’s interest for the sake of avoiding under-scrutinized parochialism of values and presumptions in the local community”.[65] Here the main ground is related to interdependence of interest.

For him, public reasoning is an important aspect of the approach to justice. The argument of Amartya Sen about the concept ‘justice’ is similar to the arguments of John Rawls in his ‘justice as fairness’. Here in his ‘justice as fairness’ he concerned directly to the identification of just institutions.[66]

2.7. A Short Comparison Between Sen’s ‘Idea Of Justice’ And Rawl’s ‘Theory Of Justice’

John Rawls, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, is the author of the well-known work ‘A Theory of Justice’. This work is known as ‘path breaking’. This work helps to assigning basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits in a society. Rawls argues that the two principles that would be reached through an agreement in an original position of fairness and equality are the following:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

2. Social and economic impartial arrangement. It helps to both,

a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage.

b) Attached to positions and offices open to all.

The foundational idea of justice according to John Rawls is fairness. By presenting justice as fairness, he carries this concept to a higher level. For him, justice has to be seen in terms of the demands of fairness. In his ‘Justice as Fairness’, he introduces the concept ‘original position’. In the theories of Amartya Sen, impartiality is the foundational concept of justice. Here the ‘original position’ is an imagined situation of primordial equality or impartiality.[67] According to John Rawls, the aim of the principles of justice is to formulate basic social institution. The purpose of this social institution is to govern the society. In the view of Rawls, the original position demands fairness and impartiality. He tries to link original position, impartiality and fairness in his famous work ‘A Theory of Justice’. The basic question that John Rawls argues here is “how people can cooperate with each other in a society despite subscribing to deeply opposed though reasonable comprehensive doctrines”.[68] In the ‘Theory of Justice’, he gives the best answer when he argued his position to the concept ‘original position’. For him, the basic structure of the society is fulfilled by the object of the original agreement. “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association”[69]. The coordination of different kinds of people in a society is only through the principle of ‘original position’ that means the existence of the society is only through the basis of justice. Choice of the appropriate principles of justice is needed in a just institution. According to John Rawls, “these principles would be the unanimous choice that would emerge from the political conception of justice as fairness”.[70] This fairness of choice is considered as ‘justice as fairness’. Rawlsian idea of fairness is central to justice. For him, the principle of justice is identified liberty as the first principle. It provides paximal liberty for each person. The second principle is considered as equality. That means equality in the distribution of public resources, so that everybody can enjoy it equally. For him, the personal liberty is more general. The first principle is concerned with the institutional requirement of making sure that public opportunities are open to all.[71]

Rawl’s analysis of equity is the distribution of resources. But here according to Amartya Sen, “productivities do, however, get indirect recognition through their role in advancing efficiency and equity, so that inequalities related to them are allowed and defended in Rawlsian distributive theory if those inequalities help the worst- off people to be better off as a result, for example through the operation of incentives.”[72] Here Amartya Sen argued against the equality of distribution of resources. For this he gives example about the operation of incentives. Individual behaviour cannot be moulded by the concept of ‘justice’. We cannot keep ‘original position’ in every case. Here in this situation, people will spontaneously do what they agreed to do in the original position. Here Rawls prioritize the liberty.

The principle of justice is identified in economic or social equity. Here the equality or impartiality is important. John Rawls also emphasised personal liberty in human lives. The freedom to choose is the concept which emphasised by both Amartya Sen and John Rawls.[73] For him, Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is for systems of thought. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

2.8. Conclusion

Everybody would agree that justice is important in our lives regardless of the form it takes. It becomes important when a society finds a system of justice to function properly and prevent disorder. Here we need a systematic study about the concept ‘justice’. The concept ‘justice’ is applicable not only in the public level but also in the personal level. The application of justice is wide. Where were there is human being there will be justice. Rationality is the basis of justice. Society is the birth place of justice. The harmonious existence of a society is possible only through justice.

General conclusion

Justice is one of the most fundamental concepts of study to the philosophers in the world of philosophy. The term justice is a vast concept. The name of Amartya Sen is very famous in the world of economics as well as philosophy. Sen’s understanding of justice which he expressed through his work ‘idea of justice’ is a way breaking to the social and economic systems. As a contribution of Amartya Sen, the concept of justice gets a meaningful state and a systematic study. The systematic study of justice first established that impartiality and equality are the foundations of justice. As we know man is considered as the higher being in the world. It is because of his rationality. So the actions of human should be rational. We can judge that one is a just man, is only by evaluating the actions of him. It is possible only through the actions became reasonable. Here we need an agreement of public. In Sen’s view, real justice comes from the foundation of ethics. Justice is the part of social nature. And our action is determined by this reasonable ethics. As a social animal another feature of human being is his morality. Morality is based on the actions which we would certainly make as a reaction to a certain set of circumstances, and is therefore natural. When this natural action co-related with morality, it became justice. After pass through these chapters, we can identify that the identifying factors of human nature from animals are justice and fairness. Knowledge means power of reasoning. The factor which makes human is his rationality. So be just to be a human.

Bibliography

SEN A., The Idea of Justice, (London 2009)
RAWLS J., Theory of Justice, (Oxford 1972)
SEN A., Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999)
SEN A., Development as freedom, (oxford 2000)
CRAIG E., Routledg encyclopaedia of philosophy, (London 1998)
AUDI R., the Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, (Cambridge 1999)
HOLY BIBLE, Luke. 6, 43.
Amartyasen and RationAL CHOICE, http:// socgeo.ruhosting.nl/ html/files/geoapp / Werkstukken /Sen.pdf
Amartyasen Autobiography, http:// www.nobelprize.org/ nobel_prizes/ economics/ laureates/ 1998/sen.html

Table of contents

Acknowledgement 1 general introduction 2
Chapter one
General concept of justice
1.0. Introduction 3
1.1. Social cultural background that formed the person amartyasen 4
1.2 Meaning of justice 4 1.2.1. Types of justice 5 1.2.2. Retributive justice 5 1.2.3. Distributive justice 6 1.2.4. Formal justice 6
1.3. Importance of justice 7
1.4. What is to be just? 9
1.5. Conclusion 10 chapter two
Justice in the view of amartyasen
2.0. Introduction 11
2.1. Justice and society 12
2.2. Personal justice 14
2.3. Justice as the feature of human being 15
2.4. Theory of rational choice 16
2.5. Revealed Preference theory and Choice Function 17
2.6. Basis of justice 20 2.6.1. Impartiality and Justice 20 2.6.1.1. Types of impartiality 20 2.6.2. Communication and Justice 21 2.6.3. Public Reasoning and Justice 21 2.6.3. Justice and the World 22
2.7. A Short Comparison Between Sen’s ‘Idea Of Justice’ And Rawl’s ‘Theory Of Justice’ 24
2.8. Conclusion 25
General conclusion 27
Bibliography 28

-----------------------
[1] J. RAWLS, A Theory Of Justice, (Oxford 1976) 3
[2] Cf. E. CRAIG, Routledg Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy, (London 1998) 140
[3] Amartyasen Autobiography, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1998/sen.html (acc 10-9-2012)

[4] Cf. E. CRAIG, Routledg Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy, (London 1998) 141
[5] Cf. E. CRAIG, Routledg Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy, (London 1998) 141
[6] Cf. R. AUDI, the Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy, (Cambridge 1999) 456
[7] Luke. 6,43.
[8] Cf. R. AUDI, the Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy, (Cambridge 1999) 457
[9] Cf. R. AUDI, the Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy, (Cambridge 1999) 457
[10] Cf. R. AUDI, the Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy, (Cambridge 1999) 457
[11] Cf. E. CRAIG, Routledg Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy, (London 1998) 143
[12] J. RAWLS, A THOERY OF JUSTICE, (Oxford 1976), 5
[13] A. SEN, Development as Freedom, (oxford 2000) 55.
[14] A. SEN, Development as Freedom, (oxford 2000) 55. It is the judgment from maximum alternatives. From maximum information, the judgment became more valuable and plausible.
[15] A. SEN, Development as Freedom, (oxford 2000) 56.
[16] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 93.
[17] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 93.
[18] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 94.
[19] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 94.
[20] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 94.
[21] Social choice is the choice function according to the interest of public. Here there is no personal favour. It is considered as public interest.
[22] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 94.
[23] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 94.
[24] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 96.
[25] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 96.
[26] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 96.
[27] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 109
[28] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 75
[29] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 76
[30] A. SEN, The idea of justice, (London 2009) 32
[31] Amartyasen and Rational Choice,(acc,20-11-12),http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html /files /geoapp /Werkstukken /Sen.pdf
[32]Amartyasen and Rational Choice,(acc,20-11-12),http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html /files /geoapp /Werkstukken /Sen.pdf
[33] Cf. Amartyasen and Rational Choice,(acc,20-11-12),http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html /files /geoapp /Werkstukken /Sen.pdf
[34] A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 41
[35] A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 42
[36] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 41
[37] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 41
[38] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 41
[39] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 42
[40] A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 45
[41] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 45
[42] A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 47
[43] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 47
[44] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999)49
[45] A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 49
[46] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 49
[47] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 50
[48] Cf. A. SEN, Choice, Welfare and Measurement, (Oxford 1999) 50
[49] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 117
[50] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 118
[51] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 123
[52] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 123
[53] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 119
[54] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 121
[55] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 122
[56] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 122
[57] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 392
[58] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 393
[59] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 393
[60] A. SEN, 5 < J |
-
%
7
8
@
A d w
…
± å ö
+
;
=
Ï
Ð
ü ý ÿ
!"#jkwxz{¼½ÆÇÉThe Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 393
[61] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 394
[62] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 396
[63] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 397
[64] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 402
[65] A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 402
[66] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea Of Justice, (London 2009) 402
[67] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 54
[68] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 55
[69] J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, (Oxford 1972) 11
[70] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 56
[71] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 60
[72] A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 60
[73] Cf. A. SEN, The Idea of Justice, (London 2009) 61