Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

submittedVersion

Publication Date

4-2013

Abstract

Against scepticism from thinkers including John Rawls and Thomas Nagel about the appropriateness of justice as the concept through which global ethical concerns should be approached, Amartya Sen argues that the problem lies not with the idea of justice, but with a particular approach to thinking of justice, namely a transcendental approach. In its stead Sen is determined to offer an alternative systematic theory of justice, namely a comparative approach, as a more promising foundation for a theory of ‘global justice.’ But in the end Sen offers no such thing. He does not develop a theory of justice and this is all to the good; for if values are plural in the way Sen suggests, then justice is not a master idea but one value among many, and it should be neither the first virtue of social institutions, nor the notion that frames all our reflections on ethical and political life.

Keywords

Global justice, Comparative justice, Transcendental, Distribution, Universalism

Discipline

Comparative Politics

Research Areas

Political Science

Publication

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy

Volume

16

Issue

2

First Page

196

Last Page

204

ISSN

1369-8230

Identifier

10.1080/13698230.2012.757911

Publisher

Taylor & Francis (Routledge): SSH Titles

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.757911

Share

COinS