 PART A

Question 1 – (1500)
Introduction
Justice has elicited significant discussion in the field of political philosophy. Historically, it
entails presenting principles to govern society. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Rawls, and
Nozick are prominent philosophers who belong to this tradition. However, Amartya Sen in
his Idea of Justice1 criticized this traditional argument by labelling them as ‘transcendental
institutionalism’ that is an unsuitable way of addressing justice.2
Sen points out two major challenges with this traditional approach: the problem of feasibility
and duplication. The feasibility issue arises from the fact that via pure reason it is impossible
or at least very challenging to determine which principles are bereft of bias in order to then
apply them to determine just institutions. For example, Rawls’ theory of justice 3 is built on
two principles, which would be selected by the ‘free, equal and informed’ agents chosen by
the method of impartiality based on the hypothetical original position and the veil of
ignorance4. They are then applied in structuring actual institutions during the legislative stage
of development. However, Sen concurs with much of what Rawls has to say, but he has
certain doubts and qualms about generalizing Rawls’ principles.
Based on the impartiality test which Sen uses to make the point, several principles can be said
to be correct in their application of justice. He supports this with an example where he
assumes there are three kids involved and they are impacting over one flute. One child thinks
that s/he should have the flute because s/he is the better player than the others, another girl –
because she is the poorest girl in the class, and the third boy – because he made the flute.
Each argument is grounded in different principles: The three categories which can be
distinguished are the utilitarian interest, the economic equity and the right to one’s own work.
What is Plurality and Impartiality of Justice?
In terms of jurisprudence practice, legal justice acknowledges, on the principle of plurality
and impartiality of justice, that there can be more than one correct rule of law, although only
one can be applied when delivering justice. This term is used to indicate that it is possible for
there to be what is right in the application of principles like utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and
rights5 over the law. While impartiality requires that these principles should be executed
without any regards to the parties involved in the case, thereby making the legal decisions has
to be fair and just. This perspective presents a war to the simple thinking and dogmatic
approaches to justice as a single principle and postulates the assumption that many principles
of justice have to be included in legal systems to address the real-life situations. This critique
by Sen of the different forms of traditional justice theories dilutes this conception of justice
and calls for the pluralistic conception of justice that is important in encompassing legal or
political conflicts and to minimize the injustices within societies.
Amartya Sen’s Perspective
1
van Schilfgaarde, P. (2010). Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice. R & R, 39, 80.
2
Satz, D. (2011). Amartya Sen's the Idea of Justice: what approach, which capabilities. Rutgers LJ, 43, 277.
3
Srivastav, D. S. (2016). Rawls’s theory of justice through Amartya Sen’s idea. ILI Law Review, 6, 151-160.
4
Sen, A. (2015). The idea of justice: A response. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 41(1), 77-88.
5
Kamm, F. M. (2011). Sen on justice and rights: A review essay. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39(1), 82-104.
Amartya Sen's perspective on justice, from a jurisprudential viewpoint, shifts the focus from
abstract principles and resource distribution to the actual lived experiences and capabilities 6
of individuals. Sen criticizes the classical approaches to justice, such as utilitarianism or John
Rawls’ framework, for neglecting the freedom of individuals and ignoring the variety of
options people can choose. Still, Sen comes up with the concept of ‘realization comparisons
of justice’, which judges justice from the ability and capacity of the people to do something
and actualization of the capability in society.
Sen’s capability approach also reveals that what matters is not the distribution of valuables
but to know what people are actually capable of doing and becoming. This approach involves
assessing how actual institutions – legal, health or education 7 – work towards extending
people’s freedom. The performance of institutions and their ability to improve substantive
freedoms to properly further the cause of human rights 8, equality of opportunity, and
participatory democracy should be critically examined. This shift in the concept of justice is
meant to bring about a world where people are able to choose how they want to live and
pursue their happiness. It is essential to note that Sen employs jurisprudential analysis on
policies aiming not only at material redistribution but also at improving individual
substantive freedoms and capability to achieve a more nuanced and egalitarian conception of
justice9.
There are interesting implications of Sen’s ideas for the policymakers and activists in
particular. The capabilities approach stresses on prescriptions that increase the reach of
freedoms of individuals, especially addressing concerns like education, health and welfare. It
also points to a major concern when it comes to equal opportunities and fair treatment of
people where oppression, injustice and disadvantage are highlighted. Some policies should
also embrace decision-making structures that are inclusive, environmental conservation and
measures that check corruption and hold leaders accountable.
Sen’s view can also be seen as a transformation of justice from the traditional view of
economic indicators to a more elevated perspective encompassing capabilities and freedom of
citizens. This shift is indicative of a fundamental shift in understanding humans and their
needs and the complexity that is involved in creating society that can be considered fair or
fairly just.
Jurisprudential Role in Global Society
Amartya Sen’s observations are instrumental in synthesizing jurisprudence within a global
society through a pragmatic and pluralistic approach. Unlike the tenets of the earlier theories
which operate within a context of ‘ideal’ institutions, Sen underlines ‘realization-focused
comparisons’, that is the actual capabilities and freedom people have. This approach stands in
contrast to the theories put forward by justice theorist John Rawls, proposing that justice

6
Alexander, J. M. (2016). Capabilities and social justice: The political philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha
Nussbaum. Routledge.
7
Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in education.
Springer.
8
Macleod, A. M. (2015). Amartya Sen on human rights in The Idea of Justice. Philosophy & Social
Criticism, 41(1), 11-19.
9
Arjona, C., Jamal, A. A., Menkel-Meadow, C., Ramraj, V. V., & Satiro, F. (2012). Senses of Sen: reflections on
Amartya Sen's ideas of justice. International Journal of Law in Context, 8(1), 155-178.
needs to be assessed by the consequences that it produces and not by ideals that it puts
forward.
Sen opposes the “transcendental institutionalism” of contractarianism, which seeks ideal
justice by designing ideal institutions. But he does not discuss any of these ideas; instead, he
presents a “comparative” approach10 that aims at minimizing injustices and people’s
suffering. While using “niti” which means rules and institutions, and “nyaya” which refers
to the real experiences of people in the society, from Indian ethic and political wisdom, Sen
secures justice on the experiences of societies.
Moreover, employing Adam Smith’s impartial spectator idea, Sen emphasizes the need for a
more global perspective on certain social values and social norms. This promotes a less
biased and parochial conception of justice that better captures the realities of the modern
world society. While coming up with ways of improving capability and challenging unfair
structures for a more just world, Sen’s capabilities approach has definitive advantages over
Rawls’ justice. This has important consequences for international politics, as the author
supports policies that facilitate the development of the poor and the environment, ultimately
helping to create a world that is fairer and more reasonable.
Authors Analysis
The global social philosopher Amartya Sen gives a rather unique perspective influenced by
concepts of associated human capabilities and their sustainable frameworks. At the heart of
Sen’s argument stand what he refers to as ‘capabilities,’ which he claims are basic to the
measurement of well-being for individuals and the advancement of society. Also in a different
way from more conventional measures of economic welfare based mainly on income or gross
domestic product, Sen calls for an assessment which includes people’s actual freedom to
choose and live the kind of lives they want. It translates this from a focus on objects to one in
which people possess a set of real choices and liberties that enable them.
Sen also tries to describe useful and reasonable aspects of utilitarian or pure market welfare
conception, pointing out their inability to consider the multi-dimensionality of welfare. A
capability approach is used by Sen focusing on agency and choice; he points that
development must be one that enables people to take an active part in the process. This
perspective aligns with justice and equity principles claiming on policy-makers, not only to
relieve poverty but also tackles suppression of human potential through prejudice, ignorance,
and oppression.
Besides, Sen takes the examination farther than just the capability perspective of every
individual and delves into the characteristics that make up the society that supports or hinders
capabilities. the subject matter particularly stresses the part played by public policies and
institutions in addressing issues of social justice 11 and human enhancement. Sen’s works like
“Development as Freedom” explain why and how development must not only comprise
freedoms and opportunity of the political or economic type but should also entail social
provision and environmental preservation.

10
Kukathas, C. (2013). On Sen on comparative justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political
Philosophy, 16(2), 196-204.
11
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. In Capabilities
equality (pp. 54-80). Routledge.
Amartya Sen’s approach enables a paradigm shift in addressing both economic, social and
judicial development by providing a focus on people’s capabilities to enhance freedom
throughout the world. His ideas are quite revolutionary on traditional concepts of economics
and his policies encourage bottom-up approaches to development, putting much emphasis on
human rights and choices.
Conclusion
Therefore, Amartya Sen’s approach to justice breaks away from abstract ideas through actual
prioritization of impacts as well as the improvement of people’s functioning. Through this
perspective, Sen provides a modern attitude to the concept of justice absent from idealistic
models popular in the past, such as Rawls’ veil of ignorance. In this regard, his focus on the
evaluation of the societal impact and the enablement of the people implies a concept of
justice that can be described as accepting as well as active. This adds value to the
jurisprudential line of thought provoking a way forward toward a better and decent society,
through Sen’s lens justice is not only dynamic but is a process of becoming a tangible reality
to embrace individuals within the society.
 PART B
Question 4 – (1000)
Introduction
Marcos Fanton's article12 offers a systematic reading of John Rawls's theory of justice as
fairness, emphasizing the concept of "point of view" to understand the stages of Rawls's
argumentation. This approach is significant as it provides a structured framework for grasping
the historical and intuitive foundations of Rawls's theory, illuminating how it addresses the
challenges of social justice and mutual tolerance in democratic societies. 13
What is Rawl’s Point of View/Justice as Fairness?
John Rawls's point of view, as discussed in Marcos Fanton's article, is a systematic approach
to understanding justice as fairness14. The perspective is grounded in a historical and intuitive
approach, reflecting the social and political circumstances of democratic societies and the
fundamental problems they face, such as social justice and mutual tolerance. This point of
view serves as the starting point for developing a coherent political conception that can guide
citizens' self-understanding and public debate.
Justice as fairness, as presented by Rawls and interpreted by Fanton, is based on several key
elements:
1. Original Position: Rawls discusses the original position as a hypothetical situation wherein
free and equal persons, behind a veil (unaware of their specific abilities, social status, or
personal interests), would choose employ principles of justice to regulate the functioning of
society. This ensures that principles selected are fair, as they are chosen without bias.

12
Fanton, Marcos. (2020). Rawls’s Point of View: A Systematic Reading of Justice as Fairness. Brazilian
Political Science Review. 14. 10.1590/1981-3821202000020003.
13
Buchanan, A. (2017). A critical introduction to Rawls’ theory of justice. In Distributive Justice (pp. 175-211).
Routledge.
14
Edor, E. J. (2020). John Rawls's Concept of Justice as Fairness. PINISI Discretion Review, 4(1), 179-190.
2. Veil of Ignorance: This notion is fundamental to the original position and entails that
people make choices with regard to principles that any rational individual would accept
without taking into account their guardianship of the interests of any particular party. They
support the central theme, which is true justice should not be a biased system that favours any
party.
3. Reflective Equilibrium: Reflective equilibrium to treat include a sort of Oscillation
between the principles one uses to make consideration of judgments on justice. This method
seeks to reconcile the general notion of morality and the criterion that defines justice.
4. Two Principles of Justice: The principles chosen in the original position serve as the basis
for justice as fairness. These are the principle of equal liberty and the difference principle,
allowing for social and economic inequalities only for the benefit of the less advantaged
communities of society.
5. Stability and Moral Psychology: Rawls considers the stability of a just society,
incorporating a theory of moral psychology to explain how citizens would develop a sense of
justice and a desire to act accordingly, even when faced with the temptation to act out of self-
interest.
6. Public Reason: Rawls's theory also involves the idea of public reason, which is the shared
reasoning citizens use to justify their political decisions in a pluralistic society. This ensures
that political decisions are based on reasons that all citizens can accept, regardless of their
beliefs or doctrines.
Rawls's point of view, as discussed in Marcos Fanton's article, is a foundational perspective
that underpins the development of his theory of justice as fairness. This point of view is both
historical, intuitive and complex, reflecting Rawls's interpretation of the social and political
era of his time and the selection of fundamental ideas and values that he considers essential
for a just society.
Rawls position is the theory of justice in which the central focus is placed on the issues of
social justice as well as mutual acceptance of the other in a democratic society. He considers
society as a fair cooperation among persons, whereby freedoms protect the equality of
persons for the public purposes that foster the development and enhancement of moral
agency to produce social goods that are needful for the realisation of moral agency. This view
is liberal and stems from the idea that coercion cannot be applied to some individuals without
reference to others, and vice versa15.

Justice as fairness, based on this point of view, is a political conception that seeks to address
the two fundamental problems identified by Rawls; the tension between liberty and the
conflict of rights and the requirement for a baseline of shared morality to address Personal
and global pluralism in contemporary societies. The theory rests at the theoretical level on the
concept of the social contract and the individuals’ characteristics as free and equal moral
agents and citizens.

Critical Analysis

15
Alvi, R., & Rafique, M. U. (2021). UNDERSTANDING JOHN RAWLS CONCEPTION OF
JUSTICE. International Journal of Policy Studies, 1(1).
Marcos Fanton’s article describes Rawls’s theory of justice accompanied by an emphasis on
the ‘point of view’ as a way to categorize Rawls’s argument. It suggests that there are merits
in systematic readings such as that provided by Fanton but it also identifies the weaknesses of
this type of approach to Rawls’s work. It is important to acknowledge that the historical and
instinctive perspective on the Rawls’s point of view is one of the most valuable in Fanton’s
analysis. It is by considering Rawls’s theory in the context of democratic societies and within
political struggles that Fanton explains the reasons for his approach to justice. This historical
framing is necessary to determine the immediacy and usability of Rawls’s theory in today’s
politics.
Moreover, Fanton’s distinction between four perspectives within Rawls’s theory helps to
trace the steps of the latter’s reasoning. This structure enables the readers to track the
progression of Rawls’ concepts from the initial premise of original position to real life of
citizens in a well-ordered society. Hence, the focus on reflective equilibrium as the way to
bring individual intuitions and political conceptions together is also consistent with Fanton’s
work. Nonetheless, a critical evaluation might ask if Fanton’s systematic reading captures the
details of Rawls theory. Fanton’s framework does aid in identifying the phases of the
argument of Rawls; however, it paints a linear picture of the reflective equilibrium, which in
fact is more of a cyclical process. For Rawls, it is not a step-by-step movement from one
point of view to another but a constant cycle of accommodation and refinement owing to
feedback received through principles and judgments.
Furthermore, with his relocation of ‘structure’ to ‘system’, Fanton may obscure issues of
contingency and conflict in political contexts for which Rawls posits his theory 16. Rawls’s
theory of justice is typically conceived with the scenario of reasonable pluralism in liberal
democracies, whereas in interpreting Rawls it is this specific element of Fanton’s systematic
reading, Rawls does not seem to believe that consensus is imminent. It is possible that
Fanton’s more ‘tidy’ way of categorizing political discussion and arguing falls short in
explaining the existence of such extensive disagreements in a post-truth society.
However, for these reasons perhaps, Fanton’s article gives a comprehensive analysis of
Rawls’s theory – but it does not explicitly explain critiques and other views that have
emerged in the years since Rawls published his books. 17 For example, some critics from the
postmodern and postcolonial school of thought that has arisen concern drummed against
some perceived shortcomings of Rawls as a theorist in his relational to gender, racial, and
international18 injustice19. To cultivate a more critical understanding of these accounts, it
would be practical to dialectically relate them in a manner that provides for a critique of the
strengths and universality of Rawls’s theory20.
Conclusion
All in all, Fanton’s method wherein he outlined the different procedural stages in Rawls’
theory of justice as fairness helps in understanding Rawls’ lines of reasoning. However, an
16
Srivastav, D. S. (2016). Rawls’s theory of justice through Amartya Sen’s idea. ILI Law Review, 6, 151-160.
17
Sen, A. (2010). The place of capability in a theory of justice. Measuring justice: primary goods and
capabilities, 239-253.
18
Pogge, T. W. (2001). Rawls on international justice.
19
Amartya, S. (2017). What do we want from a theory of justice? In Theories of Justice (pp. 27-50). Routledge.
20
Sharma, A. (2021). Critical Analysis of John Rawls Theory of Justice and Amartya Sen's Idea of Justice. Jus
Corpus LJ, 2, 718.
analysis of the structure of the argument implies that though Fanton makes a foundational
analysis, the theory of justice has drawbacks which do not allow it to encompass the
complexity of political theory and practice properly21. This is an enriched engagement with
critiques and other perspectives, helps in a better understanding of the implications of
Rawls’s theory in the contemporary philosophy.

21
Edor, E. J. (2020). John Rawls's Concept of Justice as Fairness. PINISI Discretion Review, 4(1), 179-190.