Standage 1

Quincy Standage

Dr. Schur

HRNS 205

5 February 2018

The Pursuit of a Perfect Social Justice Theory

Creating a perfect social justice theory is problematic because every individual has an

opinion on how justice should be accomplished. Amartya Sen, author of The Idea of Justice,

cites an idea of three children, Anne, Bob, and Carla, and the ownership of a flute. Anne is the

only child who can play the flute, Bob is so poor that he does not own any toys, and Carla made

the flute herself (Sen 13). I believe that depending on your experiences, economic status, and

social status, different individual’s perspectives would justify giving the flute to a different child.

Sen is attempting to find a solution that is objective and void of bias. However, Sen argues that

there is more than one reasonable solution to enact social justice. Personally, I would give the

flute to Carla because my own personal beliefs lean towards a libertarian stance. This creates a

fundamental problem: personal beliefs lead each individual person to enact change in different

ways. Theories of social justice have been created and scrutinized by intellectuals including

Adam Smith, John Rawls, and Amartya Sen. The Idea of Justice opens a new perspective on the

theories of justice developed by Smith and Rawls. A theory of social justice is a tool or model

for individuals to use to create justice globally. Rawls and Sen have a major disagreement on the

fundamental principles of a theory of justice. Sen argues for an outcome-oriented theory of

justice using the impartial spectator, whereas Rawls pushes for a system of perfect institutions to

enact justice using the veil of ignorance. A theory of justice is a balance between reason and

emotion while comparing different routes to justice with the impartial spectator.
 Standage 2

Rawls and Sen disagree on the exact route to the ideal system of social justice. Rawls

argues that all individuals need to agree on the reasons for justice and a single theory of justice.

Plural grounding is an idea introduced by Sen. Plural grounding states that if everyone can get to

the same conclusion about social justice, the path individuals take to get there should not be the

focus. Therefore, Sen argues that the comprehensive outcome of social justice is important;

however, individuals should have the freedom to choose their path to social justice. Freedom of

choice with a comprehensive outcome is important to social justice, because it allows individuals

to enact change without obstruction. An example of this idea is the social justice issue of

recycling. If one individual chooses to recycle all the plastic materials they purchase, while

another individual chooses to boycott purchasing plastic goods, both individuals are reducing

plastic intake. Therefore, these individuals are achieving social justice by their own paths. This

proves Sen’s assertion that it is okay for individuals to choose their own path to social justice as

long as everyone reaches the same goal.

Social justice is difficult because everyone has an opinion on how the process should be

accomplished and what the conclusion should be. Our personal emotions guide our decision-

making process. I argue that individuals use reason to justify our emotions. Every individual has

a “radar” for justice and injustice. The Enlightenment viewpoint on the role of emotion in social

justice decisions is that reason should be the sole factor in the decision-making process.

Enlightenment thinking promotes that individual’s emotions are unreliable. Therefore, in the

Enlightenment period scholars promoted to using only reason to make decisions. An issue with

this thinking is the religious differences and the age of discovery. These items changed the

perspective of Enlightenment thinkers. Sen argues that the Enlightenment oversold the ability of

individuals to set aside individual personal vested interests. Sen heavily criticizes Rawls for
 Standage 3

focusing too much on the pursuit of reason, like the Enlightenment period. Sen looks to a

“comparative rather than the transcendental route” of justice (Sen 9). Acknowledging that reason

is a part of the pursuit of justice, Sen argues it is not the sole factor used to obtain social justice.

When emotion and reason are balanced, emotion can be a positive towards the pursuit of social

justice. Emotions used to enact social justice plays to the strength of social justice organizations.

The emotional factor of decisions is combined with reason to provide fair social justice.

Sen’s idea of personal parochialisms and Rawls’s idea of self-interests are major

obstructions to justice. Rawls does not account for parochialism in his theory; however, Rawls

does put forth the veil of ignorance to combat self-interest. The veil of ignorance is an imaginary

scenario where individuals can make decisions outside of their vested interests because they are

unaware of personal interests. In an attempt to tread lightly, Sen asserts that many of the

conclusions he is drawing are based on Rawlsian ideas. Sen openly criticizes this approach

because it focuses on finding a perfect institution and “it does little to ensure an open scrutiny of

local and possibly parochial values” (Sen 128). Rawls expects all individuals to act with

rationality, which is not a guarantee. Sen, borrowing from Smith, argues for the use of an

impartial spectator because the idea deals “with comparative assessment and not merely

identifying a transcendental solution” (Sen 70). The impartial spectator is important because it

allows an individual to put aside vested interests in favor of a solution or partial solution.

The use of an impartial spectator is necessary to create a partial solution. A partial

solution is critical to a theory of justice because it allows for change to be made, even if different

parties disagree. Perfection is difficult if not impossible to achieve. Sen argues that a partial

solution is advantageous to the pursuit of a perfect solution because creating small change is

better than no change. The impartial spectator is not focused on a transcendental institution, it is
 Standage 4

focused on an improved outcome. Rawls argues that a transcendental approach is proper because

it focuses on creating perfect institutions. Sen criticizes the search for perfection. He believes it

is impossible to completely eradicate vested interests which hamper a perfect solution. Plural

grounding helps individuals seek a partial solution. The focus on a comparative approach seeks

partial solutions to social justice issues. Achieving social justice in small steps is more

appropriate because change is enacted with efficiency. The flaw with Rawls’s theory is that the

pursuit for perfection will not create change because perfection is unobtainable. Using partial

solutions helps to create change more effectively and efficiently. The impartial spectator

perspective is advantageous because it seeks improvement versus perfection.

The impartial spectator invokes an open form of impartiality. Open impartiality allows

for an impartial spectator to “draw on the understanding of people who are far as well as those

who are near” (Sen 151). This allows for a “global dialogue” between major social justice

institutions. Open impartiality is preferred to closed impartiality which “can incarcerate the basic

idea […] of justice within the narrow confines of local perspectives and prejudices of a group or

a country” (Sen 149). Social justice is global. An example of open impartiality is the CO2

emissions produced by the United States of America which are melting the ice in Antarctica.

This mass melting is causing the global sea level to rise. Rising sea-levels will sink the homes of

millions of individuals globally. The United States of America therefore is responsible for the

outcome of the global environment and the health and safety of individuals. Therefore, the U.S.

must create solutions by considering the plight of individuals who would be affected by the U.S.

policies. Open impartiality and the impartial spectator are key to inducing conversations between

different nations on how each state can help create a better future for individuals across the

globe.
 Standage 5

Theoretically, if fully just institutions are established, the issue of distribution of freedom

and capabilities becomes a concern. Rawls has a deep concern for those who are disadvantaged

with limited primary goods. The solution proposed by Rawls creates the need for a redistribution

of primary goods. Sen argues that the redistribution of goods is not enough to enact change for

those who are disadvantaged. If two individuals have the same primary goods yet one has a

disability, it would take greater primary goods for the individual with a disability to live the same

quality of life as the other individual. Sen argues that there needs to be an adjustment that takes

these disadvantaged individuals into account. The capability approach is advantageous because it

does not infringe on the freedom of individuals. For example, the redistribution of goods in a

society could lead to infringement of freedom on those who have earned the goods. I propose

that freedom and equality is priority, however engaging in programs that provide relief for those

disadvantaged is important.

Social justice movements use emotion to enact change. The Humane Society, Doctors

Without Borders, the LGBTQ movement, Black Lives Matter, and more are examples of

movements using emotion to enact change. These social justice movements can harness Sen’s

framework for a concept of social justice that includes open impartiality with the impartial

spectator to reach a broader audience. Sen, borrowing from Smith’s ideas on an open society,

suggests that when exercising impartiality “we can do this in no other way than by endeavoring

to view them with the eyes of other people, or as other people are likely to view them” (Sen

128). Social justice movements take advantage of this principle and provide imagery for their

respective field that tugs on each individual’s heartstrings. This imagery pushes individuals to

feel injustice and activates individuals to create change. This change may be in the form of

donation, service hours, or protesting. Social justice movements could increase their
 Standage 6

effectiveness by using a comparative approach to social justice. For example, the labor unions of

the late nineteenth century used a comparative approach to social justice, arguing that lower

working hours would lead to less workplace accidents. I encourage social justice movements to

use a comparative approach to create greater social change globally. Balance between emotion

and reason while using a comparative approach to social justice will yield solutions to global

injustice.
 Standage 7

Works Cited

Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009.