Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 18, 299 - 316, 10.10.2018
https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.422952

Abstract

In this study, it has been analyzed Amartya Sen’s idea of justice and his proposal “Impartial Spectator “for the question of injustice. In order understand Sen’s idea of justice, his critique on Rawls’ theory of justice should be considered. Sen’s idea of justice could be read as a critique of Rawls’ theory of justice as well as a suggestion of a new approach instead. For this reason, I will explicate Sen’s idea of justice through his critique on Rawls’ theory of justice. Apart from that, Impartial Spectator is important concept to understand Sen’s idea of justice. Adam Smith proposes the impartial spectator as the standard for moral behaviors in the Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Sen’s takes this notion and use it in the realm of politics for the question of justice. Sen comes up with the idea of “impartial spectator” as a solution for the question of justice in his works.

References

  • Dağ, Umut, “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Its Relation with John Rawls and Adam Smith, Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2015.
  • Nozick, Robert. “Distributive Justice”, Philosophy Public Affairs. 3/1 (1973): 45-126.
  • Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. London: Belknap Press, 1971.
  • Rawls, John. Collected Papers. London: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  • Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. London: Belknap Press, 2001.
  • Sen, Amartya. “Adam Smith and The Contemporary World”. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. 3/1 (2010): 50-67.
  • Sen, Amartya. “Open and Closed Impartiality”. Journal of Philosophy. 99/9 (2002): 445-469.
  • Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. London: Belknap Press, 2009.
  • Sen, Amartya. “What Do We Want from A Theory of Justice”. Journal of Philosophy. 103/5 (2006): 215-238.
  • Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Edit., D. D. Raphael. Indiana Polis: Liberty Fund, 1984.
  • Voice, Paul. Rawls Explained. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 2011.

Amartya Sen’in Adalet Düşüncesi ve Adaletsizlik Problemi için Tarafsız Gözlemci

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 18, 299 - 316, 10.10.2018
https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.422952

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Amartya Sen’in adalet düşüncesi ve adaletsizlik problemi için önermiş olduğu tarafsız gözlemci kavramını analiz edilmiştir. Amartya Sen’in adalet düşüncesini tam manasıyla açıklayabilmek için onun John Rawls’un adalet teorisi üzerine yaptığı eleştiri dikkate alınmalıdır. Sen’in adalet düşüncesi Rawls’un adalet teorisinin eleştirisi ve onun yerine sunulmuş yeni bir yaklaşım olarak görülebilir. Bu sebepten bu makalede Amartya Sen’in John Ralws eleştirisi açıklayıcı kılmaya çalıştım. Bunun dışında tarafsız gözlemci kavramı Amartya Sen’in adalet teorisini anlamak için önemli bir kavramdır. Adam Smith’in Theory of Moral Sentiment adlı eserinde ahlaki davranışlarımızn standartını belirleyen diye öne sürdüğü tarafısz gözlemci kavramını Amartya Sen Adam Smith’ten devralarak onu farklı bir bağlamda politik alandaki adalet problemine uyarlamaya çalışmıştır. Amartya Sen çalışmalarında tarafsız gözlemci fikrini adalet sorununa bir çözüm olarak öne sürer. 

References

  • Dağ, Umut, “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Its Relation with John Rawls and Adam Smith, Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2015.
  • Nozick, Robert. “Distributive Justice”, Philosophy Public Affairs. 3/1 (1973): 45-126.
  • Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. London: Belknap Press, 1971.
  • Rawls, John. Collected Papers. London: Harvard University Press, 1999.
  • Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. London: Belknap Press, 2001.
  • Sen, Amartya. “Adam Smith and The Contemporary World”. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. 3/1 (2010): 50-67.
  • Sen, Amartya. “Open and Closed Impartiality”. Journal of Philosophy. 99/9 (2002): 445-469.
  • Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. London: Belknap Press, 2009.
  • Sen, Amartya. “What Do We Want from A Theory of Justice”. Journal of Philosophy. 103/5 (2006): 215-238.
  • Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Edit., D. D. Raphael. Indiana Polis: Liberty Fund, 1984.
  • Voice, Paul. Rawls Explained. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 2011.
There are 11 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Umut Dağ 0000-0002-2576-2146

Publication Date October 10, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 5 Issue: 18

Cite

APA Dağ, U. (2018). Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice. İnsan Ve İnsan, 5(18), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.422952
AMA Dağ U. Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. October 2018;5(18):299-316. doi:10.29224/insanveinsan.422952
Chicago Dağ, Umut. “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice”. İnsan Ve İnsan 5, no. 18 (October 2018): 299-316. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.422952.
EndNote Dağ U (October 1, 2018) Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice. İnsan ve İnsan 5 18 299–316.
IEEE U. Dağ, “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice”, Journal of İnsan ve İnsan, vol. 5, no. 18, pp. 299–316, 2018, doi: 10.29224/insanveinsan.422952.
ISNAD Dağ, Umut. “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice”. İnsan ve İnsan 5/18 (October 2018), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.422952.
JAMA Dağ U. Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. 2018;5:299–316.
MLA Dağ, Umut. “Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice”. İnsan Ve İnsan, vol. 5, no. 18, 2018, pp. 299-16, doi:10.29224/insanveinsan.422952.
Vancouver Dağ U. Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice and Impartial Spectator for the Question of Injustice. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. 2018;5(18):299-316.