| |
|
|
What Sen Should Have Said to Rawls |
|
James P. Sterba |
|
When moral and political philosophers come into conflict with each other, they tend to provide
characterizations of their opponents’ views that usually highlight what they think are weaknesses
while providing contrasting characterizations of their own views that usually highlight what
they think are strengths. After providing these two characterizations, they then draw the
inevitable conclusion that their views are better than those of their opponents. Another, and in
my judgement, better way of proceeding here is to evaluate opposing perspectives with a very
sympathetic eye, re-interpreting and refurbishing them wherever possible, while at the same
time taking a very critical look at one’s own perspective to detect any weaknesses that require
correction. My contention is that if Amartya Sen had carried out this second sort of evaluation of
John Rawls's theory of justice, he would have found much more with which to agree, particularly
since Rawls view has been reinterpreted and refurbished in certain ways so as to make it more
defensible. Sen would have also discovered that this more favourable interpretation of Rawls'
view could be usefully employed to remedy weaknesses in his (Sen’s) own view that would have
emerged after a more critical examination. |
|