English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this paper I try to revise Sen’s thesis about the «transcendental» nature of Rawls’ theory of justice. According to Sen transcendental theories of justice are unnecessary. What we aim at is to justify a series of comparative judgements about two or more states of affairs.We do not strive, unlike Rawls, to form a complete system of moral principles that backs an «ideal just society». I try to show that Sen’s «comparative» account is weak. First of all, Sen does not offer a fair interpretation of Rawls’ theory. In particular, he is wrong when he depicts Rawls’ justice as fairness as a complete and transcendental moral doctrine. Secondly, Sen overlooks the fact that in order to justify comparative evaluations of states of affairs we must assume as valid a particular moral doctrine. Finally I try to solve the problem about the contrast between transcendental and comparative account by offering a transcendental outlook to questions of justice that is, at the same time, pluralist and incomplete.

¿Qué podemos pedir a una teoría de la justicia? Algunas consideraciones acerca de un debate entre Amartya Sen y John Rawls