Analysis Of Amartya Sen's Theory Of Justice

1177 Words 5 Pages
Amartya Sen,( an anccesible and exceptional humanitarian – Jon snow,
New Statesman) is Lamont University, Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Economics, at Harvard university. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 and was Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge, 1998-2004. His many books include Development as Freedom,
Rationality and Freedom, The Argumentative Indian, and Identity and Violence.
Amartya Sen said that Justice should not be in Binary terms – It is a matter of Degree. We can understand this with the help of an example, let us assume that there is a flute and there are 3 persons who want that flute A, B and C. A is the person who knows how to play the flute and is a professional flutist. B is a person who is
…show more content…
He strongly stated that justice should be more concerned with the elimination of injustice rather than defining what is justice or a perfectly just society.

Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice in the Contemporary context.
Let us first assume his Idea of justice that justice should not be in binary terms, it should be a matter of degree. As per this justice defers from person to person and from an individual to individual there can no uniform form of justice. If we are to say that something is just for a particular section of the society then it would not be just for another section of the society.
Here, Amartya Sen is silent as to what defines justice or what constitutes justice. He simply emphasis eliminate injustice, where justice is not defined he refers to injustice and does not state what exactly is injustice. Injustice may differ from person to person as justice does because if something is not just to an individual then it is unjust to him, hence causing injustice to him. Let us take the example of triple talaq, where some women took
…show more content…
This judgement would also serve as injustice to those advocates and the Muslim priests where the verdict ruled completely against their favour.
Here, we can see that what is just to one individual may not be just to another individual as
Amartya Sen said, but he does not specify as to how the justice system needs to function when there is ambiguity as to what exactly leads to justice? Or what constitutes what is justice. He is silent on this aspect and does not state anything regarding the same.
Amartya Sen is quiet on the aspect of justice as to what constitutes it, how to achieve it or how the justice system should function. He does not specify whether by trying to irradiate injustice it is right to shift the burden or injustice to another person or is it right to create more or less injustice in the process of achieving justice and irradiating injustice. He is also silent on the aspect of criterion for injustice and justice. In the recent infant death tragedy in
Gorakhpur where more than 40 infants died due to lack of oxygen, here would it be right to state that, the supplier in the process of eradicating injustice for the non-payment of

Related Documents