The role and reach of reason are not undermined by the indignation that leads us to an
investigation of the basis of the inequities
There is a basic need for public reasoning involves arguments from divergent
perspectives
Engagement with contrary arguments does not imply that we can settle conflicting
reasons in all cases
Complete resolution is neither a requirement of a persons rationality or condition of social
choice, including a reason based theory of justice.
Administration of justice can be more effective if judges are seen to be doing a good job. If
judgment inspires confidence and general endorsement, then very likely it can be more
easily implemented
If others cannot see that a judgment is just, not only is its implementability adversely
affected, but also its soundness would be deeply problematic
- There is a clear connection between the objectivity of a judgment and its ability to withstand
public scrutiny
PLURALITY OF REASONS [p. 394]
- Importance of public reasoning and the need to accept the plurality of reasons
Adam Smith: complained of the tendency of theorists to look for a single homogenous
virtue in which all the values could be explained
o Some schools of thought insist that all distinct values be reduced to a single source of
importance
o Those who are insistent that human beings cannot cope with determining what to do
unless all balues somehow are reduced to no more than one are evidently comfortable
with counting (is it more or is it less?) but not with judgment (is this more important
than the other?).
Plurality of reasons that a theory of justice has to accommodate relates not only to objects
of value that the theory recognizes as significant but also to the type of concerns for which
the theory may make room.
Judgment about justice has to accommodate different kinds of reason and evaluative
concerns
o Recognition that we can always prioritize relative importance of competing
considerations does not indicate that it can always be completely ordered
o Reasoned conclusions can easily take the form of partial rankings
Impartial Reasoning and Partial Orderings (p. 396)
Plurality of reasons can sometimes pose no problem for a definitive decision, whereas in other
cases it can pose a serious challenge. (Ex: three children with flute)
- There can be a congruence of different reasons in many particular cases.
- The idea of justice includes cases of different types, with easy resolution in some instances
and very hard decisional problems in others.
- The competing criteria will yield different rankings of alternatives, with some shared elements
and some divergent ones.
The intersection (shared elements) of the diverse orderings generated by the different
priorities will yield a partial ordering that ranks some alternatives against each other,
while failing altogether to rank other pairs of alternatives.
The commonality of the shared partial ranking can then be seen as the definitive outcome
of that broad theory.
The basic issue is the need to recognize that a complete theory of justice may well yield an
incomplete ranking of alternative courses of decision and that an agreed partial ranking will
speak unambiguously in some cases and hold its silence in others.
- The elements of congruence of surviving impartial reasoning form the basis of a partial
ordering underlying the claims of manifest enhancement of justice
An approach to justice can be both entirely acceptable in theory and eminently useable in
practice
The approach can include the understanding that different reasonable and impartial
judges could sensibly differ on the identification of a transcendental alternative.
-
It would be a mistake to expect that every decisional problem for which the idea of justice
\would be resolved through reasoned scrutiny.
It would also be a mistake to assume that since not all disputes can be resolved through
critical scrutiny, we do not have secure enough grounds to use the idea of justice with
conclusive judgment. We go as far as we reasonably can.
The interdependences also include the impact of a sense of injustice in one country on
lives and freedom in others.
The distribution of the benefits of global relations depends not only on domestic policies,
but also on a variety of international social arrangements
Active public agitation, news commentary and open discussion are among the ways in
which global democracy can be pursued, even without waiting for the global state
- The challenge today is the strengthening of this already functioning participatory process
Social Contract versus Social Choice (p.410)
Reliance of public reasoning is an important aspect of Sens approach. His argument is to replace
transcendental institutionalism (mainstream approach to justice i.e. Rawls) by focusing questions
of justice:
first, on assessments of social realizations, that is, on what actually happens (rather than
merely on the appraisal of institutions and arrangements)
- and second, on comparative issues of enhancement of justice (rather than trying to identify
perfectly just arrangements).
Sens Approach: influenced by tradition of SOCIAL CHOICE THEORY
- concentrates on making evaluative comparisons over distinct social realizations (social
choice) rather than the discipline of reasoning about justice in terms of the idea of a social
contract (duh, social contract)
- Limitations of Social Contract:
A shared commitment of theories of justice is to take these issues seriously and to see
what they can do in terms of practical reasoning about justice and injustice in the world
Distinct theories of justice may compete in finding the right use of that concern, but they
share the significant feature of being involved in the same pursuit
- The pursuit of a theory of justice has something to do with a similar question: what is it like to
be a human being?
Those distinctions remain, and my reason for asking what it is like to be a human being is
different it relates to the feelings, concerns and mental abilities that we share as human
beings.
The general pursuit of justice might be hard to eradicate in human society, even though
we can go about that pursuit in different ways
There is no automatic settlement of differences between distinct theories,
- But it is comforting to think that not only do proponents of different theories of justice share a
common pursuit,
- They also make use of common human features that figure in the reasoning underlying their
respective approaches.
these basic human abilities to understand, to sympathize, to argue people need not be
inescapably doomed to isolated lives without communication and collaboration.