THE IDEA OF JUSTICE, AMARTYA SEN, REVIEW PART II FORM OF REASONING

PART II

FORM OF REASONING

Reviewer: 
Chandika Pahlawi Chandra
Adam Azano Satrio
Charisma David Hume

CHAPTER7

POSITION, RELEVENCE AND ILLUSION

In this text Sen Uses a simple example about position, is about the size of sun and moon. In this example he tell us the that person may say that the size of sun equal with the size of moon, although we know that science is prove that statement is wrong, because the position of person is lack of ability to understand how to measure the size of those object or maybe there is some tradition that order him to believe that the size is equal, but is also permitted that a person say that the size is different because that person is understand about their position, this thing is made a person must become more aware to observe something . This position problem is not only come from the science but also from society, in society the position is determine how we think, how “rational” we are, how to judge something, or to understand what is justice. This “position” if accept with full believe to become a foundation of our why of think of society, is made a discrimination and injustice become a common idea, this position is called positional illusion. The consequent of this positional illusion is there will positional objective, so the question is how we can get that position?

Sen believe that we never can become whole to get that position, because he realize that there is a limit in our body to understand whole position, it like we can have position in nowhere, so what we can do is find a comparison, not the transcendental comparison, but what Sen term is “neighbor.” In society we must understand about the other person, to realize that justice is something that we must achieve by the feeling and realizing with the other.

CHAPTER 8

RATIONALITY AND OTHER PEOPLE

In this chapter the main problem is about rationality and decision. Rationality is considered with something that can maximize our self benefit. Sen agree that this rationality is something that can control our decision become more wisely. This kind of rationality is based on the cases if a person is live in unequal place, that person will work hard in order to makes this person life better, but not only that, that person should have some sense of justice to made that places have a equality. So what Sen mean is there is no way that a person will only focus with self but it also mix with society condition that based on sense of justice.

When we act something with the other people we will have two kind of feeling sympathy and commitment, sympathy is considered as feeling we realize if we are in the other position. Commitment is considered as  

CHAPTER 10

REALIZATION, CONSEQUENCES AND AGENCY

 A conversation that occurs in the ancient Sanskrit epic Mahabrata was discussed in the Introduction. The dialogue is between Arjuna and Khrisna, is about radically divergent perspective to the debate. This argument emerges as a introduction to this chapter. The conversation is about the duties of human beings in general and of Arjuna in particular. The force of the Arjuna-Khrisna debate has generated much moral and political deliberation. This conversation occurs is called the Bhagavadgita, it has attracted religious and philosophical attention.

 Arjuna and Khrisna see the armies on the two sides and reflect on the gigantic battle that is about to begin. Arjuna is bothered by the fact that he will have to kill a great many people himself, and that most of people who will be fighthing and may well be killed have done nothing that is particularly reprehensible other than agreeing. Khrisna argues that Arjuna must do his duty, come what may, and in this case he has a duty to fight, no matter what results from it. It is a just cause, and as a warrior and a general on whom his side must rely, he cannot waver from his obligations. Khrsihna’s high deontology, including his duty centered and consequence-independent reasoning, has been deeply influential in moral debates in subsequent millennia.

 Both Arjuna and Krishna present reasoning on their respective sides, which can be seen as a classic debate between consequence-independent deontology and consequence-sensitive assessment. Mahabharata ends largely as a tragedy, with lamentation about death and carnage, and there is anguish and grief accompanying the victory and triumph of the ‘just’ case.

 As we proceed from here to the relevance of all this to the understanding of the demands of justice, it is useful to distinguish between three rather different. First, central to Arjuna’s reasoning is his general belief that what happens to the world must matter and be significant in our moral and political thinking. Second, concerns about personal responsibility. Third, Arjuna also identifies the people who would be killed, and he is particularly bothered by having to kill people for whom he has affection, including his own relatives.

 In Sen earlier work on decision theory and rational choice, He had argued for the importance of paying particular attention to ‘comprehensive outcomes’ that include actions undertaken, agencies involved, processed, etc. Along with the simple outcomes seen in a way that is detached from processes, agencies and relations what he has been calling ‘culmination outcomes’.

Whether the ideas of responsibility and social realizations, as explored here, should be place in some wide enough baskets called “consequentialism” is not a question of much substantial interest. The importance of recognizing that the perspective of social realizations is a great deal more exclusive