Justice: Means versus Freedoms

1. Justice: Means versus Freedoms Amartya Sen

2. The Informational Basis of Justice • A central question of contemporary political philosophy and social justice is: What is the metric or informational basis upon which judgments of justice and equality are to be made? • The can be put comparatively as follows: What is the metric upon which it is correct foundationally to say that a state of affairs A is more just or equal (less unequal) than a state of affairs B?

3. Two Approaches To the Metric • Primary Goods: A primary goods based theory, such as Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, maintains that the metric upon which judgments of justice are made is holdings of primary goods. • Freedoms: A freedom based theory, such as Sen’s capability approach, maintains that the metric upon which judgments of justice are made is through capabilities one has to convert primary goods into actual achievements.

4. A Basic Contrast: Means vs. Freedoms • On the one hand, one can assess justice by focusing on the means one has to acquire the life they want to live. For example, one might say that two individuals that have the same amount of money, have an equal chance of acquiring the kind of life they value. • On the other hand, one can assess justice by focusing on the actual extent of freedom that an individual has. For example, one might say that two individuals that have the same amount of money, but not the same mental capacity, do not have an equal chance of acquiring the kind of life they value.

5. Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice • Liberty:Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. • Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) (Equality of opportunity) to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; (b) (Difference) and to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. • Liberty has priority over equality of opportunity, which in turn has priority over the difference principle.

6. Rawls’ list of Primary Goods • Social Primary Goods: • Basic rights and liberties • Freedom of movement and choice of occupation • Powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of authority and responsibility • Income and wealth • The social bases of self-respect (a)-(c) are equalized across people by equality of opportunity before issues of inequality in (d) and (e) are regulated by the difference principle.

7. The Capability Approach The Core Doctrine: The Capability approach denies that equality or justice is to be measured by the holdings of primary goods that an individual has. Rather, it is to be measured by the freedoms they actually enjoy to choose between different ways of living that they can have reason to value. A capability set stands for the actual freedom of choice that a person has over alternative lives they can lead.

8. Examples of differences between means to freedom and freedoms “[A] person who has a disability can have more primary goods (in the form of liberties, income, wealth, and so on) but less capability (owing to the handicap).” “[A] person may have more income and more nutritional intake than another person, but less freedom to live a well–nourished existence because of a higher basal metabolic rate, greater vulnerability to parasitic disease, larger body size, or pregnancy.” “Biological as well as social factors (related to pregnancy, neonatal care, conventional household roles, and so on) can place a woman at a disadvantage even when she has exactly the same bundle of primary goods as a man.

9. Examples of difference between freedoms and achievements Individuals A and B can have the same capability set, and yet choose different goals. For example, two twin brothers raised in the same family might choose to live different lives. A as a Doctor, B as a stay at home dad. Individuals A and B can have the same actual capabilities and same particular goals, but come up with different outcomes, because they choose different strategies. For example, two twin sisters raised in the same family that pursue becoming lawyers. But one does so by attending a top law school, while the other does not.

10. Rawls’ On the Problem of the Comprehensive Doctrine • Rawls introduces the idea of primary goods as things that every one wants no matter what else they want. He does this in order to leave open the idea that there are many possible lifestyles that an individual may want to choose to live. • Rawls worries that Sen’s capability approach requires a comprehensive doctrine of what the good life is. A doctrine that would potentially rule out other freely chosen lifestyles one might make given a bundle of primary goods.

11. Sen’s Response to Rawls Imagine two individuals 1 and 2, where 2 is disadvantaged in some respect. Furthermore, 1 and 2 do not have the same objectives or conception of the good. 1 values A more than B, while 2 values B more than A. Each values 2A more than A. 1’s capability set is (2A, 2B, A, B) and 2’s capability set is (A, B). Person A achieves 2A, and B achieves B. Problem: 2 is not just disadvantaged according to some conception of the good. 2 is disadvantaged no matter what conception of the good is taken. 2’s capability set is a proper subset of 1’s capability set.

12. Sources of Variation in the relation between a person’s means and ends • Inter-end variation occurs when two individuals have different conceptions of the good. • Inter-individual variation occurs when two individuals have the same primary goods and same conception of the good, but choose different means of pursuing the good.

13. Sen’s concern with inter-individual freedom • Inter-individual variation depends on: • What ends a person has. • What power they have to convert primary goods into the achievement of ends.

14. The problem of inter-individual variation • The problem of inter-individual variation can be serious • in cases where the individuals have the same end, but different powers to convert their resources into an achievement. • however, it can also be serious in cases where individuals have different ends.

15. Developing the Capability Approach • Three central questions facing the capability approach: • Does it need a comprehensive list of capabilities that matter? • If it does need a comprehensive list of capabilities that matter, what are the capabilities that matter? • Given any list of capabilities that matter, how are they to be justified?