By This quote Amartya Sen begins his book: The Idea of Justice: “In the little world in which children have their existence’, says Pip in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations, ‘there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt, as injustice.” (Sen, 2009: p: vii).
In 1979 Amartya Sen presented the capability approach as an alternative and improvement on the social primary goods approach provided by John Rawls. And also to the preferences satisfaction and real income ideas as measures for well being for the purposes of justice. in his lecture at Stanford University entitled “Equality of What”. Sen argued if People were basically very similar, then an index of primary goods might be quit a good way of judging advantage. But, in fact people seem to have different needs varying with education ,health, longevity and climatic conditions. So what is involved is not only ignoring a few cases, but also neglecting very widespread and real differences (sen 1980 PP: 215-216). Furthermore he believes that people have some preferences (adaptive) not because they believe that their fulfillment will meet their interests , but for a reason that their circumstances have distorted their true interests. If the social structure will allow them to fulfill their aspiration. Some people have preferences that is easy to meet , because they used to have response to injustice , While others may have the opposite because they have failed to exercise restrictions on their aspiration (Sen, 1999, PP:62-63). In addition Sen states his objection on using real income as a measure of well-being. People have differences in their ability to convert money in well- being as well as primary goods. Because people have differences to have control on it such as disable...
... middle of paper ...
...obeyns (2004), Justice as Fairness and the Capability Approach.
Nussbaum, M. (2006), Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press).
Rawls, J . (2001) Justice as Fairness: a Restatement ( Cambridge, Harvard University Press).
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sen, A. (1980) ‘Equality of what?’ S. McMurrin (ed.) Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, M. (2003), Framing Social Justice In Education: What Does The Capabilities Approach Offer?, British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN 0007-1005 Vol. 51, No. 2, June 2003, PP 168-187
Baynton, Douglas. "Disability and Justification of Inequality in American History." The New Disability History. New York: New York University Press, 2001. 285-294. Print.
Lastly, William Graham Sumner claimed that social inequality is the direct result of men attempting to make their own way in society. “Rights should be equal, because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society.” 2 Here he contrasts rights to chances, claiming that rights do not assure success, but only a chance to be
Through the courses that I have taken thus far, I have learned about and experienced many rewards of teaching for social justice. However, I have also learned about the challenges of teaching for social justice, such as mismatches, racial stigmas, and avoiding oppressive teaching, to name a few. From course readings, the dispositions, and real-life situations, I have been able to grasp the understanding of being a teacher for social justice.
Erkulwater, Jennifer L. Disability Rights and the American Social Safety Net. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.
In Douglas Baynton’s Disability and the Justification of Inequality in America, he draws attention to the fact that, historically, people used disabilities as a justification for the discrimination of minority groups in America. He uses examples of certain societal groups who faced discrimination not simply because they were disabled, but because they did not pass for “normal.” Noting that being abnormal has been historically categorized as being disabled, he details how the mere “concept of disability had been used to justify discrimination against other groups by attributing disability to them” (Baynton 33). Utilizing historical references of such phenomenon within the social context of racism, sexism, and immigration status, Baynton emphasizes his point that if we are ever to better the way our society treats these groups we must first come forth with a much improved historical understanding of how disability was used to justify such discrimination. Spoken of defective individuals and defective races, “both were placed in hierarchies constructed on the basis of whether they were seen as ‘improvable’ or not capable of being educated, cured, or civilized. Whether it was individual atavism or a group’s lack of evolutionary development, the common element in all was the presence or attribution of disability” (Baynton 35). In other words, historically speaking, our society has chosen to categorize and label people using preconceived notions of disability to justify discrimination of persons due to their race, gender, or being that of a minority group.
Louis P. Pojman and Robert Westmoreland, eds., Equality: Selected Readings (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1997), 33.
Roemer, John E. (1996), ‘Equality of Welfare versus Equality of Resources’ in Theories of Distributive Justice, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 236-261.
“The world holds enough to satisfy everyone’s need but not everyone’s greed,” Mahatma Gandhi once astutely observed. In a few carefully chosen words, Gandhi pointed out the reason behind economic tension. For example, “Poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable disease, polluted air and water, and most of the other ills that beset humanity have the same root cause: the inequitable distribution of the planet's wealth and resources” (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, All social and economic problems caused by an unfair distribution of wealth). Additionally, our economic system—unregulated capitalism—advocates and defends a wantonly unequal distribution of wealth. For instance in 2010, “The top 400 people (.0000013% of the population) held more wealth than the bottom 60% combined” (Brian Rogel, Unequal Distribution of Wealth). The top 1 percent has grown richer while inversely affecting the general population. “From 1983-2009 the bottom 60% have had a decrease in both their perce...
... we should embrace what is already upon us. To transcend social meanings of what people values will not help solving current problems. Walzer’s grasp on the pluralistic nature of human ideology is the more pragmatic solution. Rawlsian distribution of goods is practically impossible since it requires so many rigors to enforce the equality of men. The separation of spheres, however, provides a solution that to which it embraces what humans already have. To create new principles, means that people have to start over and detach themselves. I favor Walzer’s point of view because it recognizes that humans are not monistic but have a multiplicity of ideas that make life more complex than just simple and rational equality. In this sense, the conclusions is that the separation and the recognition of distinct classes of goods is the concept of Walzer’s complex equality.
The issue of disability is not just a matter that concerns disabled people. It is a central subject or social phenomenon that has shaped American history and an unseen yet strong force that continues to influence the way people interact with one another. Douglas Baynton (2013) argues that disability is the most dominant justification for inequality in gender, race and ethnicity as well as for rationalizing and legitimizing discriminatory practices organized in law. This is especially reflected in America’s three major citizenship debates, namely, African American freedom and civil rights, the women’s suffrage movement, and the immigration restrictions in which, disability was central in substantiating and validating their conception, acceptance and implementation. Black Americans were believed to possess inherent mental disabilities i.e. insufficient intelligence, which justified their slavery. Their enslavement would in fact help them to be placed in a productive endeavour that would be beneficial to society. Women on the other hand suffered “great temperamental disabilities” which justified their denial of political franchise or the right to vote. Entitling women with voting rights would endanger political stability as women are easily swayed by controlling and manipulative politicians. Finally, the subject of disability also played a central role in framing American immigration policies as reflected in the injunction or prohibition of entry against idiots, lunatics and other persons deemed to be a liability to society.
Murray, O. (2011, January). A Call for K-12 Schools to Invest in Social Justice Education. The Education Digest, 76(5), 60-64.
Ellison, Jesse. "The 2011 Global Women's Progress Report." Newsweek 158.13 (2011): 27-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 May 2012.
“Social Justice in Education” by R. W. Connell discusses the role of education in society and the implications that social justice issues have on education. Connell begins by establishing that education and social justice can be examined separately yet they are inescapably linked through the social medium of their implementation. “Education concerns schools, colleges and universities, whose business is to pass knowledge on to the next generation. Social justice is about income, employment, pensions or physical assets like housing.”(Connell, 1993) Three points validating the equal importance of social justice and the education system to people of all delineations are: 1.) in Western society public schools are key forums of social interaction and comprise some of the largest social institutions 2.) educational institutions are highly economic bodies and have become “major public assets” (Connell, 1993) 3.) teaching becomes a vehicle by which society is ultimately determined and has a great influence over society’s morality. Connell describes the meaning of justice in education as being “a question of fairness in distribution… equality.”(Connell, 1993) “Justice cannot be achieved by distributing the same… standard good to… all social classes.”(Connell, 1993) By stating this, Connell summarizes that in the attempt to achieve equality, unequal means must be employed.
One strength is the inherent compulsion to look after the interests of the entire society through the Veil of Ignorance. One is unable to look after the interests of a single particular ethnic, political or social grouping because of uncertainty regarding which groups they will belong to within society, so they grant all individuals “freedom of thought, [religion], personal and political liberties” . This establishes a precedent of equality for all and ensures a fair standard of living. One might argue that behind the Veil of Ignorance, society will be able to develop such fundamental rights and equalities naturally. Considering that modern society can be seen to have developed laws and cultural rules without the Veil of ignorance, it stands to reason that Rawls’ suggested principles are unnecessary. Looking at gender inequality, German Arianism and their sharp declines suggests that society is self-correcting – particularly if the society in question exists in the modern era where international pressure for the maintenance of fundamental liberties, equality of opportunity and support for the disadvantaged is exercised. The representative behind the Veil of Igno...
Justice can be defined as, valuing the diversity and challenging the injustice in society while human rights refer to, benefits an individual enjoys by virtual of being a human being. Justice is said to exist when all citizens share a general humanity and, therefore, experience equitable treatment, fair community resource sharing and human right support. According to justice citizens are not supposed to be discriminated, nor their well being or welfare prejudiced or constrained on the lines of gender, religion, age, belief, race, political affiliation and even sexuality.