{"title":"“撒马利亚”和“萨沙姆塔”的能力:为正义话语开脱","authors":"Charusheel Tripathi","doi":"10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This research paper will commence with an attempt to bifurcate the traditional theories of justice from its modern counterparts. Under the former category, works of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle will be analysed. The modern theories, on the other hand, would comprise of the utilitarian metric of Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill along with Rawls’ difference principle and justice as fairness and would further bring out the differences in theories and approaches in general. In contrast to all this, the last few sections of this paper will be dedicated to Amartya Sen’s approach to freedom, equality and justice and the reasons it provided for being a better metric for evaluating social justice as compared to former archaic alternative conceptualizations. It will try to determine the authenticity of the differentiation between ‘transcendental institutionalism’ and ‘realization-focused comparison paradigms’, the attributes or focal variables of the capability approach and its linkage to public reason, development and deliberative democracy. Thus, the paper will try to map the linear progression of the concept of justice along with its kindred concepts of liberty and equality and how this eventually resulted in the conceptualization of capability as ‘Samarthya’ and ‘Sakshamta’.","PeriodicalId":44333,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Political Science","volume":"28 1","pages":"212 - 235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Capability as ‘Samarthya’ and ‘Sakshamta’: exonerating the discourse on justice\",\"authors\":\"Charusheel Tripathi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This research paper will commence with an attempt to bifurcate the traditional theories of justice from its modern counterparts. Under the former category, works of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle will be analysed. The modern theories, on the other hand, would comprise of the utilitarian metric of Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill along with Rawls’ difference principle and justice as fairness and would further bring out the differences in theories and approaches in general. In contrast to all this, the last few sections of this paper will be dedicated to Amartya Sen’s approach to freedom, equality and justice and the reasons it provided for being a better metric for evaluating social justice as compared to former archaic alternative conceptualizations. It will try to determine the authenticity of the differentiation between ‘transcendental institutionalism’ and ‘realization-focused comparison paradigms’, the attributes or focal variables of the capability approach and its linkage to public reason, development and deliberative democracy. Thus, the paper will try to map the linear progression of the concept of justice along with its kindred concepts of liberty and equality and how this eventually resulted in the conceptualization of capability as ‘Samarthya’ and ‘Sakshamta’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"212 - 235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2020.1731695","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Capability as ‘Samarthya’ and ‘Sakshamta’: exonerating the discourse on justice
ABSTRACT This research paper will commence with an attempt to bifurcate the traditional theories of justice from its modern counterparts. Under the former category, works of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle will be analysed. The modern theories, on the other hand, would comprise of the utilitarian metric of Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill along with Rawls’ difference principle and justice as fairness and would further bring out the differences in theories and approaches in general. In contrast to all this, the last few sections of this paper will be dedicated to Amartya Sen’s approach to freedom, equality and justice and the reasons it provided for being a better metric for evaluating social justice as compared to former archaic alternative conceptualizations. It will try to determine the authenticity of the differentiation between ‘transcendental institutionalism’ and ‘realization-focused comparison paradigms’, the attributes or focal variables of the capability approach and its linkage to public reason, development and deliberative democracy. Thus, the paper will try to map the linear progression of the concept of justice along with its kindred concepts of liberty and equality and how this eventually resulted in the conceptualization of capability as ‘Samarthya’ and ‘Sakshamta’.
期刊介绍:
Asian Journal of Political Science ( AJPS) is an international refereed journal affiliated to the Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University. Published since 1993, AJPS is a leading journal on Asian politics and governance. It publishes high-quality original articles in major areas of political science, including comparative politics, political thought, international relations, public policy, and public administration, with specific reference to Asian regions and countries. AJPS aims to address some of the most contemporary political and administrative issues in Asia (especially in East, South, and Southeast Asia) at the local, national, and global levels. The journal can be of great value to academic experts, researchers, and students in the above areas of political science as well as to practical policy makers, state institutions, and international agencies.