From primary goods to capabilities to well-being

Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice ( 2009 ) mistakenly characterizes transcendental accounts of justice as being unable to compare non-ideal alternatives, and thus misfires as a criticism of Robert Nozick and John Rawls. In fact, Nozick's disinterest in when rights may be overridden does no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Critical review of international social and political philosophy 2013-03, Vol.16 (2), p.179-195
Main Author: Arneson, Richard J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
act consequentalism
Apathy
capabilities and functionings
Comparative analysis
Criticism
Ethics
ideal and non-ideal theory
Justice
Knowledge
Mental health
Moral philosophy
Nozick, Robert
Rawls, John
Rights
Sen, Amartya
Social Justice
Social relations
Social Welfare
Theory
Transcendentalism
Well Being
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice ( 2009 ) mistakenly characterizes transcendental accounts of justice as being unable to compare non-ideal alternatives, and thus misfires as a criticism of Robert Nozick and John Rawls. In fact, Nozick's disinterest in when rights may be overridden does not bespeak indifference to specific questions of comparative assessment, and Lockean rights do give determinate advice in everyday circumstances. Sen correctly reports that Rawls's theory is defective at giving practical normative advice, but the basic problem is the over-rigidity of Rawls's absolute priority relations, not transcendentalism. Sen's search for a complete moral theory requires that he produce one. Act consequentialism is one promising complete theory of justice, having both transcendental grounding and clear methods for comparative assessment. I also propose moving from Sen's capabilities standard of social justice to one based on functioning. The latter facilitates distinguishing between trivial and worthless capabilities and important and worthwhile ones, and focuses social justice more squarely on the end of well-being.
ISSN:1369-8230
1743-8772
DOI:10.1080/13698230.2012.757910