John Rawls and Amartya Sen

contemporary justice based on the debate between equity of goods and freedom of capabilities

Abstract

Context: This article analyzes and compares the contemporary theories of justice developed by John Rawls and Amartya Sen, focusing on each author's view of freedoms and based on the points of convergence and divergence between the two. To this end, we examine John Rawls' theory of justice, as well as Amartya Sen's criticisms of the American philosopher's hypothetical studies, which focus on the acquisition of primary goods as the embodiment of ideal justice.

Objectives: In general, the objective is to promote a debate on what Sen proposed to Rawlsian theory and the alternatives pointed out as more tangible paths for improvements directed at society. Specifically, we seek to identify the principles described in Rawls' theory of justice; then, we attempt to analyze how Sen prioritizes capabilities in his studies; and, finally, we aim to highlight the points of divergence elaborated by Sen in relation to Rawls' theory.

Method: The methodology adopted is bibliographic analysis, based on books and scientific articles related to the topic, with a qualitative approach, critical-descriptive objectives, and inductive reasoning, which analyzes John Rawls' Theory of Justice, added to what Amartya Sen pointed out as a counterproposal to Rawlsian equity.

Results: It is verified that Sen's notes on Rawls' Theory of Justice contribute to the contemporary debate on what justice is, considering the systematization of the examined fundamentals, in order to recognize the non-exhaustive nature of this investigation and its potential to foster new studies in the area.

Conclusions: The Indian economist's position emerges as an attempt to fill the gaps in Rawls' statements regarding the external characteristics existing in the theory of capabilities, which demonstrates the timeless nature of the debate about justice in society.