Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 39–56 | Cite as

Comparative Assessments of Justice, Political Feasibility, and Ideal Theory

Article

Abstract

What should our theorizing about social justice aim at? Many political philosophers think that a crucial goal is to identify a perfectly just society. Amartya Sen disagrees. In The Idea of Justice, he argues that the proper goal of an inquiry about justice is to undertake comparative assessments of feasible social scenarios in order to identify reforms that involve justice-enhancement, or injustice-reduction, even if the results fall short of perfect justice. Sen calls this the “comparative approach” to the theory of justice. He urges its adoption on the basis of a sustained critique of the former approach, which he calls “transcendental.” In this paper I pursue two tasks, one critical and the other constructive. First, I argue that Sen’s account of the contrast between the transcendental and the comparative approaches is not convincing, and second, I suggest what I take to be a broader and more plausible account of comparative assessments of justice. The core claim is that political philosophers should not shy away from the pursuit of ambitious theories of justice (including, for example, ideal theories of perfect justice), although they should engage in careful consideration of issues of political feasibility bearing on their practical implementation.

Keywords

Amartya Sen Justice Ideal and nonideal theory Political feasibility Capabilities 

References

  1. Beitz C (1999) Political theory and international relations, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Caney S (2006) Cosmopolitan justice and institutional design: an egalitarian liberal conception of global governance. Soc Theory Pract 32:725–756Google Scholar
  3. Cohen GA (2008) Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen J, Sabel C (2006) Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia? Philos Public Aff 34:147–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrely C (2007) Justice in ideal theory: a refutation. Polit Stud 55:844–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fromm E (1955) The sane society. Fawcett Premier, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilabert P (2008) Global justice and poverty relief in nonideal circumstances. Soc Theory Pract 34:411–438Google Scholar
  8. Gilabert P (2009) The feasibility of basic socioeconomic human rights. A conceptual exploration. Philos Q 59:559–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilabert P (2011) Feasibility and socialism. J Polit Philos 19:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodin R (1995) Political ideals and political practice. Br J Polit Sci 25:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Pogge T (1989) Realizing rawls. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  13. Rawls J (1999a) A theory of justice, rev.ed. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls J (1999b) The law of peoples. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness. A restatement. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Robeyns I (2009) Justice as fairness and the capability approach. In: Basu K, Kanbur R (eds) Arguments for a better world. Essays in honor of Amartya Sen, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 397–413Google Scholar
  17. Robeyns I (2006) The capability approach in practice. J Polit Philos 17:341–362Google Scholar
  18. Scanlon TM (2003) Rawls and justification. In: Freeman S (ed) The Cambridge companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 139–167Google Scholar
  19. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Simmons AJ (2010) Ideal and nonideal theory. Philos Public Aff 38:5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stemplowska Z (2008) What’s ideal about ideal theory? Soc Theory Pract 34:319–340Google Scholar
  23. Swift A (2008) The value of philosophy in nonideal circumstances. Soc Theory Pract 34:363–387Google Scholar
  24. Valentini L (2009) On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. J Polit Philos 17:332–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright E (2010) Envisioning real utopias. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations