For those who might like to test their sense of
justice, here’s a little quiz that Amartya Sen tried on his audience at the
London Literature Festival the other day and had them struggling until he came
to their rescue with, well, a sort of an answer. He used it to illustrate his
alternative approach to mainstream theories of justice that he challenges in
his new book The Idea of Justice
published this month.
Three children—Anne, Bob and Carla—are quarrelling over
a flute: Anne claims the flute on the ground that she is the only one of the
three who knows how to play it; Bob demands it on the basis that he is so poor
that—unlike others—he has no other toys to play with and it would therefore
mean a lot to him if the flute were given to him; and Carla says that it
belongs to her because she has made it with her own labour.
The important thing to note here is that none of the
claimants questions their rival’s argument but claims that his or hers is the
most persuasive. So, who deserves the flute?
Should it go to the child for whom it represents the
only source of entertainment as he has no other toys to play with? Or to the
one who can actually make practical use of it; or to the child to whom it must
belong by virtue of her “right” to the fruits of her labour?
The answer, according to Prof Sen, is that there is
actually no one “right” answer. In his scheme of things that he elaborates
persuasively over more than 400 pages in his book, it is not possible in any
situation to have an “impartial” agreement as to what offers a “perfect”
resolution to a problem—and that applies to the dilemma posed by the children’s
competing claims.
Nor, indeed, is there one perfect process to arrive at
a conclusion that would be acceptable to all. The question as to who really
deserves the flute can be decided in many ways—through a process of ideological
reasoning ; on compassionate grounds such as charity (for example the poorest
of the three children should get it); by majority opinion; and even by an
arbitrary method like tossing the coin.
Prof Sen argued that the story of Three Children and a Flute, which also features in his book, showed
that there was no such thing as “perfect” justice; that justice was relative to
a given situation; and that rather than searching for “ideal” justice the
stress should be on removing the more manifest forms of injustice.
“The idea of justice demands comparisons of actual
lives that people can lead rather than a remote search for ideal institutions.
That is what makes the idea of justice relevant as well as exciting in
practical reasoning,” Prof Sen said.
Again and again while discussing the book with
broadcaster Jon Snow and answering questions from the audience, the Nobel
Laureate warned against the idea of a “perfectly just society” and said,
instead, the question we needed to ask was: how “remedial injustices” could be
rectified. It was more important to address such obvious forms of injustices as
oppression of minority groups, subjugation of women or extreme exploitation of
workers through a reasoned debate than splitting hair over whether a “40 per
cent top tax rate is more just or less just than a 41 per cent top rate.”
This was also the theme of his Southbank Centre Lecture
he delivered on the occasion.
In his alternative approach to existing theories of
justice, the point is not about imagining “what a perfectly just society would
look like.” Rather it is about identifying remediable injustices “on the
removal of which there would be a reasoned agreement.”
“What moves us is not the realisation that the world
falls short of being completely just, which few of us expect, but that there
are remediable injustices around us which we want to eliminate,”, Prof Sen
said pointing out that his quarrel with contemporary political philosophy was
its rigid insistence there could only be one precise combination of principles
that could serve as the basis of ideal social justice.
But what is justice? Is it right to go on harping on
the injustices of the past such as colonialism in order to deliver justice? For
example, does “justice” demand that developing countries should be allowed to
pollute the atmosphere to the same degree that the industrialised world did
before they agree to move on climate change? Can “retribution” be regarded as a
form of justice? Are any means legitimate in pursuit of a perceived “just”
goal?
These were some of the issues Prof Sen dealt with as he
argued for a new way of looking at justice. A point he repeatedly emphasised
was that harking back to the past in search for justice would not do. The
starting point for any discussion should take into account the reality that
“we’re where we are today” and then ask: where do we go from here and how?
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/16/stories/2009071655950900.htm
Three
Children and a Flute
Three children—Anne, Bob and Carla—are quarrelling over
a flute: Anne claims the flute on the ground that she is the only one of the
three who knows how to play it; Bob demands it on the basis that he is so poor
that—unlike others—he has no other toys to play with and it would therefore
mean a lot to him if the flute were given to him; and Carla says that it
belongs to her because she has made it with her own labour. To whom should the
flute go?—poses Amartya Sen.
Should it go to the child for whom it represents the
only source of entertainment? Or to the one who can actually make practical use
of it; or to the child to whom it must belong by virtue of her “right” to the
fruits of her labour? The answer, according to Prof Sen, is that there is
actually no one “right” answer.
Vivekananda would give it to Bob, being poor. I’d give
it to Anne for the simple reason that merit should be recognised. Carla should
be Amartya Sen’s choice to honour the labour class, the toiler and the maker,
but I don’t know why he is uncertain.
Some notes
apropos of Amartya Sen
There are remediable injustices around us which we want
to eliminate.
There has never been a famine in any country that has
been a democracy with a relatively free press.
For his outstanding contributions to welfare economics,
the
The point is often made that while the rankings of
longevity and per-capita income are not congruent, nevertheless if we take the
rough with the smooth, then there is plenty of evidence in intercountry
comparisons to indicate that by and large income and life expectancy move
together. From that generalisation, some commentators have been tempted to take
the quick step of arguing that economic progress is the real key to enhancing
health and longevity.
Given other good things, good health and economic
prosperity tend to support each other. Healthy people can more easily earn an
income, and people with a higher income can more easily seek medical care, have
better nutrition, and have the freedom to lead healthier lives.
Amartya Sen, born in