John Rawls and Amartya Sen proposed influential theories of justice. [1] Rawls argued for a "veil of ignorance" where people in an "original position" wouldn't know their status and would choose principles for a just society. [2] Sen criticized Rawls' approach and argued justice involves comparative evaluation of institutions based on an independent spectator. [3] Both philosophers aimed to define justice, though they disagreed on methodology.

1. SUBJECT: LAW AND JUSTICE
TOPIC: THEORIES OF JUSTICE
(JOHN RAWLS AND AMARTYA SEN)
SUBMITTED TO: SARITA MA’AM
SUBMITTED BY: KIRTI RASHMI (ROLL NO. 20)
ANSHIKA BAGHEL(ROLL NO. 11)
LLM (1 YEAR) 2019-20, BVDU, PUNE

2. TOPICS TO BE COVERED:
• John Rawls Theory
• Amartya Sen’s Theory
• Conclusion

3. JOHN RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE
• Key Words: Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Justice as Fairness, Just Society, Maximin Principle, Principle of Equal
Liberty, Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity and Difference Principle
John Rawls (1921-2002): Harvard philosopher
• According to him some people are more powerful and wealthier than others, so they area part of social majority. If they
dominate negotiations because of these qualities then it’ll be moral arbitrariness and wrong. Because Rawls believed that
they have not earned these advantages rather they get them by luck. And so for anyone using these unearned advantages to
their own benefit will cause unfairness and injustice to many. Thus, he conceived JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS.
• To identify fairness, he developed two concepts: ORIGINAL POSITION and VIEL OF IGNORANCE. Original Position
is a hypothetical situation where Rawls asks, what social rules and institutions people would agree to not in actual situation
but under fair conditions that is, where nobody knows whether they are advantaged by luck or about their moral arbitrary
features like economic, social, political or religious status. He termed it as veil of ignorance. If this veil is lifted they might
end upon wrong side or they might choose any rule arbitrarily. Therefore it was necessary to achieve fairness.
• But in reality they aren’t ignorant about everything and are self interested. Therefore, they will end up choosing in a way
that even the worst possible position they could end up with is as good as possible. This is what is termed by Rawls as
MAXIMIN PRINCIPLE. JUST SOCIETY is created through original position, veil of ignorance and maximin principle.

4. RAWLS PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
1) Principle of Equal Liberty: All people have equal claims to as freedom as is consistent with everyone else having the same
level of freedom.
2) Maximin Principle.
3) Fair equality of opportunity: People in original position will tolerate inequalities only if jobs that pay more are assigned
fairly.
4) Difference Principle: they will tolerate inequalities which might be the worst off but it maximizes the quality of their worst
possible outcomes.
CRTICISM:
1. Some inequality might be useful for growth of economy and wealth available.
2. Inequality of opportunity is inevitable.
3. People have some basic rights and liberties which cannot be overridden for common good.
4. Uniform distribution of resources cannot be attained as someone can earn more resources fairly.
5. It is silent on other forms of injustices like race, healthcare, etc.
6. Confused fairness with equality.

5. ILLUSTRATION OF RAWLS THEORY:
A is in Original Position where he does not have anything. Also, he does not know how much of cake he will get. B dictates
to A that he can divide it in a way he wishes but he cannot choose his share. A divides it equally so that even in the worst
possible outcome he will get equal share (maximin principle). Thus, everyone gets equal portion, fairness is achieved and
just society is established.

6. AMARTYA SEN’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
• Key Words: Realization focused comparative approach against Transcendental Institutionalism.
Amartya Sen in his book ‘The Idea Of Justice’ presented a critique and revision of John Rawls method of transcendental
institutionalism in contrast to his own comparative approach.
1. Justice is matter of comparative evaluation: Sen makes a radical break with the traditional notion of a rational economic
man as motivated mainly by self interest. He asserts that human beings are as concerned with eliminating remediable
injustices as they are with pursuing their own self interest. Thus, they have the innate desire and so ideal institutions are
not needed to inculcate sense of fairness into them. Public reason, open discussion and rational argument puts to rest
different ideologies regarding justice and enable people to come to one notion through comparative evaluation. Thus,
justice is a matter of comparative evaluation.
2. Abstract ideal of justice is not needed: According to Sen, we can compare the level of justice in to two institutions and
come to a meaningful conclusion without posting an ideal or transcendental ideal of justice. Plus, even if characterization
of spotless justice can emerge, it would not entail any clarity about how departure from that spotlessness would be
compared and ranked. He created a parable to explain this. A person can find Monalisa to be beautiful but it does not
reveal anything about how he would rank a Picasso against Van Gogh. Again this is not even necessary because both have
their own features.
3. Justice should be seen through the eyes of independent spectator: Influenced by Adam Smith believes that an independent
spectator can be used to compare the justness. He explains this through another parable.

7. Now thinkers of all political hues agree that justice means equality. But the questions is equality of what? And in this
given situation how it’ll be realized?
This story attracts three issues: 1. Principle of utility (A)
2. Principle of Economic equity (C)
3. Entitlement to the fruits of one’s unaided efforts (B)
This cannot be solved through Original Positional as all three children would not in any case agree to same rule. Further as
per Rawls equality cannot be done here to ensure fairness. There Sen critised Rawls.

8. CONCLUSION
To conclude the meaning of justice has different connotations. It can be equitableness and fairness as per
Rawls or impartial reasoning as per Amartya Sen.
Any Questions?
Thank You