AGAINST INJUSTICE
The passage introduces Reiko Gotoh and Paul Dumouchel's discussion on injustices that often occur within established legal and political frameworks. It highlights the unsettling fact that, in many instances, the very authorities tasked with upholding justice are responsible for grave injustices, frequently without facing significant opposition from the public. This reflects on Amartya Sen's approach to justice, particularly in contrast to traditional theories.
Judith Shklar's inquiry into why philosophers often avoid deeply examining injustice underlines the common view that injustice is merely a deviation from justice. She critiques this perspective, arguing that injustice is often seen as unintelligible without a pre-existing, shared ideal of justice. Amartya Sen challenges this notion by asserting that recognizing and addressing blatant or "patent" injustices can happen without relying on an explicit theory of justice. In his seminal work *Development as Freedom* (1999), Sen emphasizes that the core importance of justice lies in identifying and rectifying clear instances of injustice, a process that doesn't necessarily require agreement on a comprehensive conception of justice.
This theme introduces a critical debate in the field of justice theory, where Sen’s alternative economic approach prioritizes action against recognized injustices over the pursuit of an idealized and sometimes unattainable form of justice.
In *Development as Freedom* (1999), Amartya Sen states, “The greatest relevance of the idea of justice lies in the identification of patent injustice, on which reasoned agreement is possible, rather than in the derivation of some extant formula for how the world should be precisely run” (Sen 1999: 287). This succinctly captures the essence of Sen’s stance "against injustice" and his critique of traditional theories of justice formulated by political philosophers, jurists, and economists such as John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and proponents of utilitarianism or social welfare function approaches.
The goal of the discussion is to explore the underlying ideas in Sen’s critique and offer a new methodology to address the concept of justice. By beginning with Sen’s original contribution, the discussion aims to delve into his criticism of the relationship between economics, ethics, and law, working towards a better understanding of the concept of “against injustice” with insights from political philosophers and economists who align with Sen’s critique.
In this introduction, the authors re-examine some methodological features of economic thought, analyzing its limitations and merits. Sen points out that while economic thinking has crystallized certain dimensions of our daily reasoning, it has also closed off further reflection and obscured other aspects of life. This raises questions about which elements of economic thinking should be included in a justice inquiry and which should be left out. These considerations lead to a re-examination of Sen's new approach to economics as a means to address justice-related issues.
In the first chapter of this volume, Sen contrasts two approaches to justice: the "transcendental" and the "comparative." He critiques transcendental approaches, which seek to find perfectly just social arrangements, often tied to philosophical theories of justice. In contrast, comparative approaches focus on ranking social arrangements by whether they are “less just” or “more just.” Sen associates the latter with how economics typically addresses questions of justice. This dichotomy, while simple, may invite objections, particularly from philosophers aiming to balance multiple values in efforts to reform society.
Amartya Sen explores how economic thinking can be used to address issues of justice, but he also points out its strengths and weaknesses.
Merits of Economic Thinking:
1. Comparing Options: One big advantage of economic thinking is that it helps us compare different choices to see which is better or worse. For example, we can compare different social policies to find the ones that work best under current conditions. This is more practical than trying to create a perfect society.
2. Trade-offs Between Goods: Economic thinking allows us to see how different goods or values can be swapped or balanced. For example, if one policy improves healthcare but another boosts education, economics can help weigh these benefits and figure out which mix works best.
3. Adaptable Solutions: Unlike rigid philosophical theories, economic thinking is flexible. It recognizes that the best solutions depend on the specific situation, and as circumstances change, the solutions might change too. This is useful in a world where economic conditions can shift.
4. Addressing Injustices: While economics can’t undo historical wrongs, it can help reduce suffering today. For instance, by improving economic policies, we can lessen the inequalities that continue to harm disadvantaged groups.
Pitfalls of Economic Thinking:
1. Not Always Clear-Cut: Economic thinking divides the world into better or worse options, but the differences between the “best” options and other choices aren’t always huge. So, just because something is in the “best” group doesn’t mean it’s way better than the others.
2. Hard to Deal with Ethics: While economics can compare goods and policies, it’s not great at handling deeper ethical questions. For example, it’s hard to put a price on fairness or justice, so making trade-offs between ethical values is much more complex.
3. Limits on Fairness: Economist Kenneth Arrow showed that it’s impossible to create a system that perfectly combines everyone’s preferences into a fair, overall decision for society. This makes it hard to use economics to make truly just decisions.
4. Difficulty Comparing People’s Needs: Even if we try to compare people’s needs and values in an economic model, it doesn’t always ensure that the outcome will be truly fair or ethical. For instance, applying a rule like Rawls' idea that inequalities should benefit the least advantaged doesn’t easily fit into economic models.
In simpler terms, economic thinking is helpful in making comparisons and finding practical solutions, but it struggles when it comes to addressing deeper questions about fairness and ethics.
DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE
Economists have taken John Rawls' *difference principle*—the idea that social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged—and reformulated it using a method from economics called the *Bergson-Samuelson social welfare function*. This reformulation allows them to study how the principle might work in practice. The goal is to maximize the well-being (or utility) of the least advantaged in society, based on people's preferences for things like income and leisure.
How It Works:
Maximizing the Utility of the Least Advantaged: The difference principle, in this economic form, tries to ensure that the least advantaged are better off than in any other possible scenario, given the economic circumstances.
Freedom to Form Preferences: It also respects individual freedom by allowing people to decide what matters most to them (such as income or leisure) and then using those preferences in the analysis.
Benefits of This Approach:
Finding the Best Outcomes: This approach can identify the best possible outcomes for the least advantaged under current economic conditions, focusing on practical, workable solutions.
Priority on Freedom: It emphasizes people’s freedom to choose what’s important to them, which is a key value in many liberal theories of justice.
Drawbacks:
Self-Interest Over Ethics: The main criticism is that this method treats everyone’s preferences as equal, no matter what those preferences are. It assumes that individuals act in their own self-interest and doesn’t account for deeper ethical values. This can lead to results that don’t fully capture the *ethical goal* of the difference principle—ensuring basic well-being for the least advantaged.
Limitation in Achieving Well-Being for All: By focusing solely on maximizing individuals' preferences, it might fail to secure well-being freedom for everyone, especially the most vulnerable. To truly fulfill the difference principle’s ethical purpose, a different approach might be needed—one that better focuses on the well-being of the least advantaged.
In simpler terms, while economists have created a way to apply Rawls' principle in real-world economic settings, it has limitations because it doesn’t always ensure fairness for the least advantaged, especially when people’s self-interest is the main driver. A different approach might be needed to truly achieve justice for all.
Challenges of Applying Economic Thinking to Ethical Issues: A Critique by Amartya Sen
The third challenge in applying economic thinking to ethical issues lies in the difficulty of comparing different types of disadvantages in society. For example, it is nearly impossible to determine which form of disadvantage is worse: being a victim of an atomic bomb, suffering from a mental disability, or facing a series of personal setbacks. Additionally, we cannot easily determine how to compensate one form of disadvantage in exchange for another, while keeping the overall social well-being constant.
This leads to the problem that we cannot always create a complete ranking of social policies to decide which is the most just. Without a clear way to compare these different disadvantages, it becomes difficult to identify the "best" social policy.
At this point, it helps to consider a distinction made by Amartya Sen between an “optimal set” and a “maximal set.” The optimal set includes the best options, just as it is usually defined in economics. The maximal set, however, consists of options that are “not known to be worse than any others.” In other words, the optimal set aims to identify the very best choices, while the maximal set focuses on eliminating the worst injustices without needing to find the absolute best.
If we are trying to create a perfectly just society, we would aim for the optimal set, comparing all possible options to find the best one. However, if our goal is to address and avoid clear injustices as they arise, we don't necessarily need the optimal set. Instead, we focus on the maximal set—on policies that are not worse than others but might not be the absolute best.
Sen’s critique of traditional economics points out that sometimes, the focus should not be on finding a perfect solution but on eliminating obvious injustices.
आर्थिक सोच को नैतिक मुद्दों पर लागू करने में तीसरी चुनौती यह है कि समाज में विभिन्न प्रकार की असमानताओं की तुलना करना बहुत कठिन होता है। उदाहरण के लिए, यह तय करना लगभग असंभव है कि किस प्रकार की असमानता अधिक गंभीर है: परमाणु बम का शिकार होना, मानसिक विकलांगता से पीड़ित होना, या व्यक्तिगत कठिनाइयों का सामना करना। इसके अलावा, हम यह भी आसानी से तय नहीं कर सकते कि एक असमानता के लिए दिए गए मुआवजे को दूसरे प्रकार की असमानता के मुआवजे से कैसे बदला जा सकता है, जबकि समग्र सामाजिक उपयोगिता (सामाजिक भलाई) एक जैसी बनी रहे।
इस वजह से हम हमेशा यह तय नहीं कर सकते कि कौन सी सामाजिक नीति सबसे न्यायपूर्ण है। जब हम इन विभिन्न असमानताओं की तुलना नहीं कर सकते, तो सबसे अच्छा सामाजिक समाधान खोजना मुश्किल हो जाता है।
यहां अमर्त्य सेन द्वारा किए गए एक अंतर को समझना उपयोगी है, जिसे उन्होंने "सर्वोत्तम समूह" और "अधिकतम समूह" कहा। "सर्वोत्तम समूह" में वे विकल्प शामिल होते हैं जो सबसे बेहतर होते हैं, जैसा कि सामान्यतः अर्थशास्त्र में परिभाषित किया जाता है। वहीं, "अधिकतम समूह" उन विकल्पों से मिलकर बनता है, जो "किसी अन्य से खराब नहीं माने जाते"।
अगर हमारा उद्देश्य आदर्श रूप से एक न्यायपूर्ण समाज बनाना है, तो हमें हर विकल्प की तुलना करनी होगी और सबसे अच्छा विकल्प चुनना होगा, यानी "सर्वोत्तम समूह"। लेकिन अगर हमारा लक्ष्य एक-एक करके स्पष्ट अन्यायों से बचना है, तो हमें "सर्वोत्तम समूह" की जरूरत नहीं है। इसके बजाय, हमें "अधिकतम समूह" की ओर देखना चाहिए—ऐसी नीतियों की ओर जो किसी अन्य विकल्प से खराब न हों, भले ही वे सबसे बेहतर न हों।
सेन की पारंपरिक अर्थशास्त्र की आलोचना यह इंगित करती है कि कभी-कभी हमें पूर्ण समाधान खोजने पर ध्यान केंद्रित नहीं करना चाहिए, बल्कि स्पष्ट अन्यायों को खत्म करने पर ध्यान देना चाहिए।
No comments:
Post a Comment