September 27, 2011
Book Of The Week: The Idea of Justice, By Amartya Sen
Reviewed by Ziauddin Sardar (08-21-09)
Take three kids and a flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her because she is the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the flute should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Carla says the flute is hers because it is the fruit of her own labour. How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?
There are no institutional arrangements that can help us resolve this dispute in a universally
accepted just manner. Conceptions of what constitutes a “just society”, argues the Nobel Prize-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen (right) in this majestic book, will not help us decide who should have the flute. A one-dimensional notion of reason is not much help either, for it does not provide us with a feasible method of arriving at a choice.
What really enables us to resolve the dispute between the three children is the value we attach to the pursuit of human fulfilment, removal of poverty, and the entitlement to enjoy the products of one’s own labour.
Who gets the flute depends on your philosophy of justice. Bob, the poorest, will have the immediate support of the economic egalitarian. The libertarian would opt for Carla. The utilitarian hedonist will bicker a bit but will eventually settle for Anne because she will get the maximum pleasure, as she can actually play the instrument. While all three decisions are based on rational arguments and correct within their own perspective, they lead to totally different resolutions.
Thus justice is not a monolithic ideal but a pluralistic notion with many dimensions. Yet Western philosophers have seen justice largely in singular, utopian terms. Hobbes, Locke and Kant, for example, wove their notions of justice around an imaginary “social contract” between the citizens and the state. A “just society” is produced through perfectly just state institutions and social arrangements and the right behaviour of the citizens.
Sen identifies two serious problems with this “arrangement focussed” approach. First, there is no reasoned agreement on the nature of a “just society”. Second, how would we actually recognise a “just society” if we saw one? Without some framework of comparison it is not possible to identify the ideal we need to pursue.
Furthermore, this approach is of no help in resolving basic issues of injustice. How would you reason, for example, that slavery was an intolerable injustice in a framework that concerned itself with right institutions and right behaviour? How would we ensure that well-established and cheaply producible drugs were available to the poor patients of Aids in developing countries? When faced with stark injustice, the contractual approach turns out to be both redundant and unfeasible.
Much of Sen’s criticism is directed towards the liberal philosopher John Rawls, whose 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, has acquired the status of a classic. Sen’s gentle and polite deconstruction of Rawls shows him to be rather shallow and irrelevant. Rawls’s approach, based on specific institutions that firmly anchor society, demand a single, explicit resolution to the principle of justice. Stalin had similar ideas.
Rawls is not just authoritarian but also elitist and Eurocentric. Just as Mill had excluded “the backward nations”, women and children from his Essay on Liberty, Rawls openly acknowledges that the world’s poor have no place in his theory of justice. Indeed, the very “idea of global justice” is dismissed by Rawls and his cohorts as totally irrelevant. Moreover, the kind of “reasonable person” needed to produce a just society is found only in democratic, Western societies.
Given the limitations of Rawls’s theory of justice, why has he been turned into a demi-god? Sen does not tackle this question. But a viable answer is provided by the classical Muslim philosopher al-Razi, who declared that “the acquisition of knowledge and the practice of justice” go hand in hand. Justice acquires meaning and relevance, al-Razi argued, within socially conscious epistemologies. The opposite is equally true.
Theories of justice that exclude, by definition, the poor or issues of global injustices only perpetuate injustice. The main function of Rawls’s theory of justice, it seems, is to maintain the status quo, where injustice is not just simply a part of the system, but the system itself. That’s exactly why he is force-fed to students of social sciences.
Sen’s alternative is a realisation-focused approach to justice which concentrates on the real behaviour of people and its actual outcomes. Taking a cue from “social choice theory”, he wants us to focus on removing injustices on which we can all rationally agree.
There is nothing we can do about people dying of starvation beyond anyone’s control. But we can choose to do something about injustices that emerge from a conscious “design of those wanting to bring about that outcome”.
I see two problems with this. The “we” who choose must include those who consciously perpetuate injustice in the first place – ruthless corporations, hedge-fund managers and the like. Moreover, design need not be conscious. It can, for example, be unconsciously intrinsic in the theory itself.
Indeed, theory does sometimes serve as an instrument of injustice. Think of free-market capitalism, along with its theoretical underpinnings, including the mathematical modelling of sub-prime derivatives, where huge profits for the few are produced from the misery of others. To do something about the injustices perpetuated by the dominant model of economy, we need to tackle the tyranny of the discipline of economics itself.
Reading The Idea of Justice is like attending a master class in practical reasoning. You can’t help noticing you are engaging with a great, deeply pluralistic, mind. There were times, however, when I felt a bit unfulfilled. For example, we are temptingly informed that classical Sanskrit has two words for justice: niti, organisational propriety and behavioural correctness; and nyaya, which stands for realised justice.
In the Indian context, the role of the institutions, rules and organisations have to be assessed in the broader and more inclusive perspective of the world as it actually emerges. We are also told of Mughal Emperor Akbar’s idea that justice should be based on rational endeavour. But this is not elaborated. I also wanted to see some comparatively material on Islamic, Chinese and Latin American ideas on justice.
But these quibbles apart, this is a monumental work. “When people across the world agitate to get more global justice”, Sen writes, “they are not clamouring for some kind of ‘minimal humanitarianism”‘. They are sensible enough to know that a “perfectly just” world is a utopian dream. All they want is “the elimination of some outrageously unjust arrangement to enhance global justice”.
Ziauddin Sardar is the author of Reading The Quran (2011)
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
Local Philosopher CLF, our Jurist resident in New York, Mongkut Bean and Bohemian Semper Fi in Los Angeles, are you are ready to deal with this rather complicated subject? –Din Merican
But before that we must give the opening salvo a local flavor.
Maniam says the ‘seluring’ should be given to him because he is the only man who knows how to use. Mamat says the seluring should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Ah Chong says the ‘seluring’ is his because it is the fruit of his labor. How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?
The UMNO philosophy of justice is to take the seluring away from all three and make it their own.
The only just solution would be to take the seluring apart and fashion three separates ones from the original. Since that is not possible, perhaps the only just way out is to throw away the seluring so all three could be happy or equally unhappy?
Good one Bean.
Just like the 3 kids above should give it to their mutt, since the pariah dog will enjoy it the most by sensibly chewing on the flute. I believe the ‘social contract’ would be similarly stumped. So I’ll go with King Solomon’s solution – split it three ways. Whoever loves it most will vamoose/migrate. The Loser will keep the Prize.
Ideas of Justice change with time, knowledge and thus the availability of the internet. As Utilitarian J.S. Mill’s would say, it should be Justice practiced for “greatest good for the greater number of people.” Yes, i would agree that Justice (or at the very least, virtue ethics and consequentialism) should suit local socio-cultural mores/values at a point in time, conditional to evolution of that society.
Certainly a Western educated wog would not agree with someone steeped in Confucian ideals or Islamic Syariah fundamentalist. For the time being, it is hard enough to agree on ‘virtues’ and ethics. Justice is on a different level and requires a different mode of resolution.
Amartya Sen probably has not said anything new, but I’ll leave that for some other day.. My question to him would be: How would one become a Hindu, and apply the niti and nyaya, if one isn’t born Indian?
__________
CLF,
Sen thinks both niti and nyaya transcend ethnicity and nationality.Both terms stand for justice in Classical Sanskrit. Early in his book, he say that while niti embraces the idea of organisational propriety and behavioural correctness, nyaya stands for a comprehensive concept of realized justice. He prefers to use the more inclusive nyaya when dealing with his idea of justice.–Din Merican
Ah Chong should go and make more and sell the serulings, while Maniam play the seruling and become a mega seruling recording artist and Mamat be the Manager and collect the profit – Justice Malaysian style.
I think semper has the NEP (read: UMNO) version right – not necessarily on all fours with most on the concept of justice.
But for as long as our concept of justice is to rob Ah Chong, ignore the plight from Maniam and give it to Mamat, there will always be resentment and cries of injustice. The UMNO way is to manage this resentment, anger and feeling of abuse. But like all conflict management theories demonstrate, the best approach is to do away with the conflict itself so we don’t have to deal with the different conflict situations. Duh … !
Mamat can go to government to get a contract to supply seruling to all schools (all school children will have to learn to play the seruling) do an Ali Baba with Ah Chong and then establish a production house to promote Maniam or establish a tuition center with Maniam as the tutor. Win win.
Not worth fighting over justice, when Law is all we got.
When Law practiced here is all about profits, who needs reason, virtue, ethics and morality?
It’s something supraluminal – faster than light – while justice is blind, Law sees 20/20. Mamat the Loser, will win an empty house full of glitter without the gold.
Not if there is no open tender and Rosmah Mansor becomes the winner who takes all.
Esp anything 24 carat.
All those cool gilded mega portraits of her, don’t do justice to Reality. Yet there are complaints about Jabba the Hutt dancing in a bus stop in front of another mega portrait in the Undi-lah vid. Subliminal messages most evil – not realizing it’s Not Cool having One’s mugshot in a bus stop. Personality cult gone haywire and definitely wasting taxpayers money.
In today’s world, justice starts with sharing the cake equally. Most other issues fall in place quite easily.
___________
Isa, you have an egalitarian philosophy. I think Muthu, Mamat and Ah Chong should compete for the seruling. Losers will be given a token (certificate for participation) with a message from the sponsors which should be read as: Try harder and better luck next time.
It is different with UMNO. Mamat will enter into direct nego with UMNO, and asked what kind a seruling he wants and how much is the commission he prepared to give to the party.To enhance his chances of getting a good deal, he must be an UMNO party member with an important leader as his patron. Sakit, duit rakyat habis. Any Benthamite around?–Din Merican
Isa from his postings on this blog does not subscribe to the egalitarian approach. His approach is the NEP approach of equitable distribution of the economic pie as defined by UMNO.
When you use principles of equity to define what is fair and just you will then have to rob Ah Chong so that Mamat would not go amok and kill Maniam.
Maniam would then run to Her Majesty the Queen to ask for papers so he could reside in the old country permanently.
For 3 decades and more, the Utilitarian model has been used by the Establishment for lubrication. The problem with a lot of Ah Chongs is that they have demonstrated dogged acquiescence to the ‘seruling dogma’; and are lost when it comes to an alien concept of a truly open tender. The confusion arises as to whom and what to approach, for greasing purposes. They try anyway. Being pragmatically corrupt by nurture, they will of course remain anti-Establishment.
Due this surreptitious loss of lubricity, Mamat takes it out on Maimun. Domestic bliss interrupted. Cuckolding however is not permitted, thus the comic-tragedy we are now witnessing. My guess is that Maimum is 50:50 in danger of khalwat.
Meanwhile, Maniam is agog at his Bollywood status – leading to specious demands of more temples, sewing machines, bell bottomed sequined pants etc., instead of seruling. What boils beneath the surface, only Queen E can tell.
Just don’t forget though, the Sun always rises in the East. And make or break is dependent on what is actually happening over where the head-hunters descendants roam. Unhygienic place.
Hello CL Famlliaris,
Whatever it is that you’re smokin’ can I have some?
Dato, my question to Sen was framed in the context of ‘manifest destiny’ in the pervasive Caste system, wherein neither niti or nyaya can be realized, if any form of egalitarianism (modern or archaic) is applied. This concept transcends even religion and remains a stubborn stratification of society.
A non-Indian cannot ‘convert’ to Hinduism, no matter what the air heads in Hollywood say or do. He has to deal with the reality of this conundrum in the subcontinent, before he lectures about the need for ‘realized’ inclusiveness in Justice.
However, I’ve not read the book, and may have been too quick to prejudge.
Shrooms, my dear scarlet. With a dash of gin.
Seriously though, we are watching the wrong geographical area, ‘cuz we don’t know what’s happening in Borneo. My guess is an early GE, and PR is in disarray over the hudud, although there will be some form of consensus. Your avowed ‘weak link’ from years back is playing out, my friend.
OMG !! Magic Mushrooms !!
Egalitarian principles and UMNO. Mr. Bean? Nothing could have been further from my mind.
Egalitarian ideas combined with socialism will have the last laugh – mark my words.
Your approach despite your exhortations to the contrary is not the use of egalitarian principles pure and simple. Yours is the re-distribution of wealth according to equitable principles as defined by UMNO. It is the equitable distribution of the economic pie as a trade-off to political stability.
Now here’s the flaw. UMNO leaders abuse the principle to enrich themselves translating equitable to greater share to themselves, families and cronies and lackeys.
Mr. Bean : I am afraid you have read far too much into my postings and attribute to me points I have never said. What has UMNO got to do with egalitarian principles?
Egalitarianism., as I understand it, is about equal RIGHTS. Not economic or other pies.
Egalitarianism with socialism… these are the links between current extreme economic practice that is everywhere imploding and the earlier communism. Europe was going along quite nicely with both E and S until lunatic politicians allowed themselves to be seduced by the market view.