Running head: WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Cobb 1

What is Social Justice?

Hayley Cobb

Drury University
WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE? Cobb 2

What is Social Justice?

Understanding social justice & adapting a theory of social justice you believe to be true is

a large feat. There are many issues which must be addressed when seeking a deeper

comprehension of the concept that is social justice. In Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice, the

question of whether or not there are certain principles essential to social justice is outlined and

competing theorists outlooks on the issue are addressed. Sen voices his own opinion on what

aspects he believes to be essential in understanding a theory of social justice while also

discussing and critiquing the outlook theorist John Rawls has on the matter, as the two men have

opposing approaches. A key issue in which the men differ in their approach is whether a theory

of social justice is about equal treatment or helping those who need it most. Rawls uses a

“means-oriented evaluative approach” (Sen, 2009, p. 233) and focuses on primary goods such as

income, wealth, and self-respect while Sen takes a freedom-based capability approach focusing

on individual advantages a person may have depending on his or her capability to do certain

things. Rawls’ outlook sees primary goods as the “central issues in judging distributional equity”

(Sen, 2009, p. 234) rather than just means to other things in life as Sen sees them. Sen considers

primary goods but rather focuses more on comparing outcomes based on a person’s capability to

achieve things that he or she might value in life. Sen is more practical in the sense that he

evaluates a situation based on one’s ability and legitimate opportunity to reach a valued goal of

theirs and Rawls, on another hand, is reaching and vouching for a perfect scenario where

everyone has equal access to benefit those who are worse off than other.

An issue closely related to that of primary goods versus the capability approach is

whether a theory of social justice should be transcendental or comparative. This issue in

particular is essential in understanding social justice as it lays groundwork for other key aspects

needed to personally adapt to a theory of social justice you choose to follow. This question of

transcendental or comparative boils down to whether institutions should be perfect, satisfying all

needs and wants, or just work to be better, tackling issues not all at once. Sen takes the side of

the comparative approach in The Idea of Justice as he discusses ideas for improvement of

institutions and firms in the pursuit of social justice. The social choice theory also focuses on the

comparative more than the transcendental as it follows the theory of justice concerned with

relational, practical framework for decision making. It is unrealistic, in many cases, to work

towards a perfectly just society in every way as there are many vested interests and emotional

barriers which might skew what a ‘perfectly just society’ even looks like. While an agreement

might not be easily made on what steps need to be taken to reach a completely just society in the

comparative approach, it will be found even more difficult to agree on what a completely just

society looks like at all in the transcendental approach. Ideal institutions, while seemingly

impactful in a theory of social justice, are difficult to achieve although Rawls believes it to be

what humanity should strive towards. There is a veil of ignorance that would affect how a

‘perfect institution’ would turn out as people only see what they allow themselves to in many

ways limiting their input on what should go into an ideal institution. Another large factor which

contributes to flawed institutions is the role emotion plays in reason.

The relationship between emotion and reason, when considered at all, plays a large role

in how one perceives a theory of social justice. Some choose to ignore emotion completely while

others, like Sen, take emotion into account when considering reasoning in issues of social justice.

While there is some variability in the amount of emotion a person allows to interfere with their

reasoning, there is always going to be some amount of emotion feeding into it whether it is
WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE? Cobb 4

regarding social justice or not. Emotions are in control of us to some extent and therefore reason

is flawed causing a ‘perfectly just society’ unlikely to be agreed upon. People’s emotions are

subjective giving everyone different outlooks on matters based on experience, customs, and

interests. Reason itself starts with a premise but these premises or assumptions are also based on

the factors listed before so even the beginning of the process of reasoning could be biased.

Ultimately reason justifies what our emotions want in a scenario, those of social justice included.

An example of the use of emotion in the case of social justice would be many current social

justice movements going on in America and globally. These movements target the emotions of

the public by using scarring stories, suffering children and elderly, and relatable content in order

to incite action and mobilization. The emotions used in the movements then play a part in how

someone reasons through the movement itself. When working to gain a theoretical understanding

of social justice, the issues of emotion and the relationship it has with reason is critical to get a

grasp on. How much someone lets it sink into their decision making process or distances

themselves from their emotions on the subject to be impartial will affect the theory of social

justice they prefer to live their lives following. The impartial observer, as economist Adam Smith

first introduced, must have very limited emotional influence during issues of social justice in

order to uphold that objective, unvested position which is already difficult. Emotion is a factor of

reason and many other components of understanding social justice and whether it is ignored or

considered by a theorist determines many other aspects of their particular theory of social justice.

Sen’s theory of social justice is one that is more practical than that of his colleague John

Rawls. Between the comparative approach he takes in an effort to improve institutions for the

betterment of society at that point to the capability approach where he sees a horizon of

outcomes allowing for the most effective choice, this theory of social justice reaches a large
WHAT IS SOCIAL JUSTICE? Cobb 5

audience and allows for a lot of growth in the pursuit of a just society. Social justice has many

more issues contributing to its depth than discussed above. When trying to understand what

social justice is, how it works, and what theory of social justice you most align with, a

foundational question one should consider is whether perfection or problem-solving is the style

of thinking you see being most effective and just in issues of social justice. While perfection of

rights, access, institutions, and many other things is ideal for all of society, outlining what

perfection is stands in the way of actually achieving that ‘perfectly just society’. It is not as

practicable and/or attainable as taking the problem-solving approach. Identifying what can

reasonably be done allows for better handling of evolving social justice issues. Sen does not

overlook the biases that come with reason or the plurality of certain key issues of social justice

yet he still adopts a theory of social justice with a practical and comparative framework to allow

many to continue to learn more about the issues surrounding the topic. Social justice is a

theoretical and subjective concept but a very real and valued concept at that making the journey

to understand it ever more challenging and tangled.

References

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.