Amartya Sen的非理想理论

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Kristina Meshelski
{"title":"Amartya Sen的非理想理论","authors":"Kristina Meshelski","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Amartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comparative’ theory of justice. Sen’s negative point has been widely discussed, but here I develop a reconstruction of Sen’s positive theory (a combination of Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator, Social Choice Theory, and the Capabilities Approach) in order to evaluate it on its own terms. I find that the theory is technocratic, despite Sen’s insistence to the contrary.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":"4 1","pages":"31 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Meshelski\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Amartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comparative’ theory of justice. Sen’s negative point has been widely discussed, but here I develop a reconstruction of Sen’s positive theory (a combination of Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator, Social Choice Theory, and the Capabilities Approach) in order to evaluate it on its own terms. I find that the theory is technocratic, despite Sen’s insistence to the contrary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"31 - 45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2019.1622398","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

阿马蒂亚·森认为,罗尔斯的理论不仅在追求正义的过程中是不必要的,而且它甚至可能成为正义的障碍,因为它阻碍了更有用的工作。反对他所认为的先验理论的主导地位,森呼吁一种更现实和实用的“比较”正义理论。森的消极观点已经被广泛讨论,但在这里,我重新构建了森的积极理论(结合了亚当·斯密的公正旁观者理论、社会选择理论和能力方法),以便对其进行评估。我发现这个理论是技术官僚的,尽管森坚持相反的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Amartya Sen’s nonideal theory
ABSTRACT Amartya Sen argues that Rawls’s theory is not only unnecessary in the pursuit of justice, but it may even be an impediment to justice in so far as it has discouraged more useful work. Against what he considers the dominance of transcendental theory, Sen calls for a more realistic and practical ‘comparative’ theory of justice. Sen’s negative point has been widely discussed, but here I develop a reconstruction of Sen’s positive theory (a combination of Adam Smith’s Impartial Spectator, Social Choice Theory, and the Capabilities Approach) in order to evaluate it on its own terms. I find that the theory is technocratic, despite Sen’s insistence to the contrary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信