“Three Problems with Amartya Sen’s Critique of Rawls, Rights, and Real-World Justice.”

This essay calls into question Sen’s claim that his ‘nonideal’ theory of justice constitutes a practical, ‘real-world’ approach, while Rawls’ theory of justice remains limited by an ‘ideal theory’ approach. Sen identifies three major problems in Sen’s The Idea of Justice. First, his overly pessimistic critique of Rawls’ highly abstract ideal theory approach to justice overlooks Rawls’ reliance on wide-reflective equilibrium, which focuses on finding rational, practical answers to real-world questions. Second, Sen’s vision of generous cosmopolitanism and international distributive justice ignores the relevance of human nature to actual human behavior. It will be difficult for Sen to convince people to reimagine their priorities and accept his universalism. Third, Sen’s overoptimism about human rights in both theory and practice undermines his project. Contrary to evidence, he assumes that the International Human Rights Movement (IHRM) will adhere to the values and principles of human rights, fairly apply international humanitarian law, and pursue justice. As I have shown elsewhere, the major institutions of the IHRM have become politicized, biased, and even corrupt.

“Three Problems with Amartya Sen’s Critique of Rawls, Rights, and Real-World Justice.” Academic Article