Does Sen restate a utilitarian theory of justice?

This essay will be examining the philosophical position of Professor Amartya Sen in his book ‘The Idea of Justice’.

Moral principles existing in our world can be broadly divided into two streams; deontological and consequential. In deontological moral reasoning, the right thing to do depends on the consequences of the action. While, in the deontological moral reasoning, the consequence is irrelevant. But the action must have some intrinsic qualities in itself. In other words, when the former locates morality in the in the consequences of the action the later locates it in the very nature of the action. Utilitarianism propounded by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill comes under the consequential moral reasoning whereas philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls are part of the deontological moral reasoning.

Since the main question here is related to utilitarianism, it would be appropriate to start from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that advocates actions that promote overall happiness or pleasure and rejects actions that cause unhappiness or harm. According to the advocates of this theory, the maximization of utility or pleasure over pain is the object of a good action. As Jeremy Bentham pointed out, “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people” is the maxim of utilitarianism. As mentioned above this theory is a version of the consequentialism.

This essay will be examining the philosophical position of Professor Amartya Sen in his book named ‘The Idea of Justice’. In that process, the essay shall explain the main question of whether Sen is restating utilitarianism or not.

The Sen’s Position on Justice.

Sen identifies, the enlightenment has produced two divergent, approaches towards justice. The first approach, concentrated on identifying just and perfect institutional arrangements for a society. For example, the theories such as justice as fairness by John Rawls etc. Sen calls this approach, ‘transcendental institutionalism’. The second approach, in contrast with the transcendental institutionalism, took a variety of comparative approaches that were concerned with social realization which means what is happening in reality or the real nature of institutions, social behaviour etc. Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx etc. were proponents of this approach.

Sen clearly makes a depart from the dominant approach, which is the ‘transcendental institutionalism’ to the other approach. In this process, according to him, there happens two major effects. First, taking the comparative rather than the transcendental route. Second, of focusing on actual realizations in the societies involved rather than only on institutions and rules.[i] According to Sen, the prevailing approach of ‘transcendental institutionalism’ is having two central problems: the problem of feasibility and the problem of redundancy.

Hence it is clear that he is not with the group of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant or John Rawls. But does he advocate utilitarianism or restate utilitarianism with a different version in his departure from ‘transcendental institutionalism’?

I argue, that he is neither supporting nor restating utilitarianism in his idea of justice.

Is Sen Utilitarian?

While explaining the departure from ‘transcendental institutionalism’, Sen clearly shares his dissatisfactions with utilitarianism. According to Sen, people having the freedom to choose one’s own life will make a significant contribution to the well-being of the humankind. But Sen is not limiting himself to the perspective of well-being as narrow-minded self. For him, freedom is important and beyond the perspective of the well-being of the individual. In other words, freedom has it has its own inherent quality. He further adds that through this freedom, people can have aims or priorities that differ from the single-minded pursuit of their own well-being only.

He says,

“if social realizations are assessed in terms of capabilities that people actually have, rather than in terms of their utilities or happiness (as Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarians recommend), then some very significant departures are brought about. First, human lives are then seen inclusively, taking note of the substantive freedoms that people enjoy, rather than ignoring everything other than the pleasures or utilities they end up having. There is also a second significant aspect of freedom: it makes us accountable for what we do.”[ii]

This is a significant departure from utilitarianism. Here Sen is introducing the element of accountability into the action. That is clearly incorporating the deontological demands.

Then he further strengthens his position through invoking ancient Indian principles of Niti and Nyaya. They constitute two contrasting divergences of justice into one. Without Niti, Nyaya cannot stand vice versa. Niti constitutes deontological demands such as organizational propriety and behavioural correctness etc. Whereas Nyaya stands for realized concepts of justice. Again by using this dichotomy, Sen is giving room for deontological aspects in his idea of justice.

The Matsyanyaya doctrine of ancient Indian jurisprudence and Sen’s deep-rooted ideological solidarity with this doctrine again proves his objection towards utilitarianism. The Matsyanyaya is the justice of the world of fish where the big fish can freely devour a small fish. According to the ancient Indian jurisprudence, no matter what, Matsyanyaya should not be the justice of the human world. The possibility of suppressing the minority for the sake of maximizing utility in utilitarian justice is one of the major criticisms of utilitarianism. Here the Matsyanyaya principle is pointing out this possibility and categorically rejects it.

Throughout the book, Sen uses mythological and historical examples to prove his points. One such example he draws is from the Hindu epic of the Mahabharata. During the Kurukshetra battle, Arjuna the legendary warrior on the side of Pandavas faced a great moral dilemma and Krishna the god and advisor of Arjuna helped him to resolve it. This epic episode in the Mahabharata is known as the Bhagavad Geetha. Many commentators have viewed the position of Krishna as deontological and position of Arjuna as utilitarian. According to Sen, the dilemma of Arjuna, as many commentators have mentioned, is not just limited to the consequences of his action that results in the killing. Arjuna’s dilemma is also about the very nature of his action that is the killing of his own brothers and relatives in the battlefield. The former dilemma is consequential or utilitarian and the later one is deontological. In my opinion, Sen faces the same dilemma Arjuna had in the Kurukshetra battle. As a result of this dilemma, Sen wants to incorporate the demands of deontological morality in his philosophy. Which is clear from all the examples he has mentioned. The position on why the arbitrary arrest is unjust, can also be taken as reference.

Here I conclude that; Amartya Sen is neither a utilitarian nor a deontologist. His philosophy is a combination of both these streams of moral reasoning. One can arguably say that in a way he is trying to build a bridge between these two divergent philosophical traditions. He rejects transcendental institutionalism. But at the same time, his idea of justice gives room for deontological demands.

[i] SEN, A. (2009). The idea of justice. pp 9 Cambridge, Mass, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[ii] Ibid pp 19