The Philosophy of Amartya Sen

In unserem Beitrag möchten wir uns mit einigen Problemen auseinandersetzen, welche mit dem Thema der kulturellen Identität der Individuen verbunden sind. Eine Interpretation der kulturellen Identität, welche die Identität als etwas Absolutes, Statisches, Eindimensionales, Starres erachtet, wird analysiert werden. Wir werden zeigen, dass diese Auffassung der kulturellen Identität das Ziel verfolgt, Menschen und Gruppen als isolierte Systeme zu erzeugen. Für die Kritik jeder eindimensionalen Interpretation der kulturellen Identität werden wir uns auf die Studie von Amartya Sen "Die Identitätsfalle. Warum es keinen Krieg der Kulturen gibt" (Originalausgabe "Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny") stützen.

Sen and Ambedkar represent different times in history, but they essentially want to tackle the same problems of political economy. On one hand, Ambedkar asserted that a social and economic reform must precede political reform in British India struggling to throw the yoke of colonial rule, on the other hand, in modern India, Sen enunciates how capacity building and capabilities approach to policy making can go a long way in strengthening democracy. As concerted policies in education have failed to deliver owing to the feudal mindset and incremental planning, it is time we look at issues of social justice, especially education, objectively. This paper examines the possible ways in which the thoughts and theories of these stalwarts can shape better public policies. To this end, a comparative study of themes like justice and democracy will be undertaken. Lastly, the paper analyses whether the Right to Education in India is a just policy when looked through the discerning eyes of Sen and Ambedkar.

Jose Orlando Melo Naranjo

Jose Orlando Melo Naranjo

Jose Orlando Melo Naranjo

Jose Orlando Melo Naranjo

ÉTICA Amartya Sen, ECONOMÍA Amartya Sen, PENSAMIENTO Amartya Sen, LIBROS Amartya Sen, SOCIEDAD Amartya Sen, IDEAS Amartya Sen

Dependiendo de las inferencias preferenciales que la agregación de preferencias individuales (funciones colectivas de elección), podemos clasificar en dos grandes grupos a dichas funciones. Inspirado en el texto de Amartya Sen de 1970 sobre la imposibilidad del pareto-libertario (liberal), separamos el tipo de funciones colectivas de elección que violan el principio L y el principio U, o bien funciones colectivas de elección que son "entrometidas" y las que no, en un sentido muy específico. Esta separación disuelve una ambigüedad que podría servir para problematizar la derivación del teorema de imposibilidad de Sen ya citado. La razón por la que se llaman funciones orwellianas y funciones whitmanianas se explicita en el texto. Whitman, el poeta estadounidense tiene un poema en el que "construye" una especie de sujeto colectivo; Song of Myself. En la novela de 1984, George Orwell también tiene un personaje que es algo así como un sujeto colectivo entrometido en la vida volitiva de sus ciudadanos. Así, estos dos elementos literarios, el yo de Song of Myself y el Gran Hermano de 1984, aglomeran algunas de las características lógicas que tienen las dos clases de funciones colectivas de elección que aquí se especifican.

I exposed this paper at the Conference 'Current Issues of Social Sciences and Humanities', which took place at the Department of Ethics and Aesthetics of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, on Friday, 29 April 2022. The paper has been published in the Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 8-20. My principal aim in this analysis is to describe Sen’s meditation as a teaching against fatalism, indifference, resignation and inaction: Sen’s criticism of these attitudes aims to uncover the deep roots of these attitudes themselves, since these attitudes conceal precise responsibilities. Sen fights both in economics and in ethics against every form of concealing, under the idea of the unavoidability of nature, failures due to human mistakes. Unavoidable destiny proves to be, actually, as not so unavoidable as someone would like to present it. For instance, Sen’s opinion that famines are not a natural, but a social phenomenon aims to uncover all the attempts to present famines as something unavoidable, in relation to which the only solution is resignation. Sen’s intention is clearly to say that famines have precise responsibilities, and that those who present famines as natural phenomenon want to conceal their own responsibilities for the insurgence of famines. Governments try to blame on nature the cause of catastrophes, whereas the causes of social catastrophes are to be connected to the inefficiency of governments. In particular, I would like to concentrate my exposition on the following themes:
• Sen’s criticism of the thesis of food shortages as the (only) cause of famines.
• Famines happening when there is no political will that want to fight against the factors bringing to the famines. Persons, and not nature, are responsible for the occurring of famines.
• Sen’s defense of democracy as a system which is compatible with economic growth against all those who considers democracy as an obstacle to economic growth.
Keywords Sen, famine, starvation, Ricardo, fatalism, entitlement, freedom, democracy, development

Sen and Ambedkar represent different times in history, but they essentially want to tackle the same problems of political economy. On one hand, Ambedkar asserted that a social and economic reform must precede political reform in British India struggling to throw the yoke of colonial rule, on the other hand, in modern India, Sen enunciates how capacity building and capabilities approach to policy making can go a long way in strengthening democracy. As concerted policies in education have failed to deliver owing to the feudal mindset and incremental planning, it is time we look at issues of social justice, especially education, objectively. This paper examines the possible ways in which the thoughts and theories of these stalwarts can shape better public policies. To this end, a comparative study of themes like justice and democracy will be undertaken. Lastly, the paper analyses whether the Right to Education in India is a just policy when looked through the discerning eyes of Sen and...

La aspiración a formar sociedades justas se choca con alarmantes niveles de pobreza y desigualdad, un problema al cual toda reflexión sobre la justa sociedad debe ofrecer una respuesta convincente. Esta ponencia afirma (1ª parte) que la experiencia que tenemos de las injusticias – como la pobreza – puede dar origen a una reflexión sobre la justicia. Luego (2ª parte) presenta el concepto de pobreza según el enfoque de las capacidades de Amartya Sen y lo completa con una interpretación filosófica de la pobreza como privación radical de libertad individual. Finalmente (3ª parte) analiza y critica la forma en que la teoría de la justicia de John Rawls no aborda el problema de la pobreza y propone un principio de justicia previo a los dos de Rawls – el principio “cero” – que recoge el desafío que la pobreza plantea al concepto de sociedad justa.

In course of my research on the acquisition of agricultural land for private industries in India, I came across a variety of public opinion which justified acquisitions. None of the supporters of land acquisition was ready to face the question of food security at the household level, let alone the role of local self-governments, which was endangered by the take-over of fertile land for industries by the
government.

Under the three sets of public opinion described in the paper, generating public consciousness regarding
land acquisition for industries seemed to be a difficult task which should begin by exploring the justification of land acquisition for industries, in the context of food security land reform.

Here, I have made an attempt to study the opinions of people around land expropriation with an aim to
generate public awareness as regards the ground realities of government policy including the recent law
passed in the Parliament.

Cet article se propose d’étudier les fondements philosophiques que donne Sen à sa théorie des capabilités. La notion de capabilité se construit en opposition à l’utilitarisme et dans un rapport critique à la théorie de la justice de Rawls. Elle fait appel au concept de « relativité par rapport à l’agent », introduit par Parfit et Nagel, dans le but de dépasser les insuffisances du conséquentialisme, mais prétend également réintégrer l’évaluation des résultats dans l’évaluation morale. Pour éviter le subjectivisme moral et permettre des comparaisons entre individus, Sen s’écarte cependant de la notion de « relativité par rapport à l’agent » pour forger celle d’ « objectivité positionnelle ». Cette dernière notion a donc pour but de fonder une éthique universaliste à partir d’un relativisme descriptif. Toutefois, le caractère très abstrait de la notion de « position » pose problème.

In this article, I have discussed Amartya Sen's view on the Darwinian idea about 'progress'. According to Sen Darwin's idea of 'progress' was based on the sole criterion of 'reproductive success' of a species under changing environmental conditions, which Sen argued was erroneous.

This is the PDF-Powerpoint I used for my online presentation at the Conference 'Current issues of social sciences and humanities', organised by the Department of Ethics and Aesthetics of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, on Friday, 29 April 2022.

Amartya Sen (co-author with Jean Drèze) in An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions (2013) seemingly glorifies the roles of non-government organizations (NGOs) in Bangladesh’s better progress in many common aspects of societal development than India although Bangladesh is half as well-off in income per capita as India. This glorification of the roles of NGOs in Bangladesh leads Sen (2013) to leaving out and/or deemphasizing some issues related to the micro-credit model of NGOs, which is the primary subject-matter of this study. In other words, the main objective of this study is to show that Sen (2013) is not entirely correct in his apparent glorification of the roles of NGOs in Bangladesh. To this end, I will argue that the micro-credit model of NGOs in Bangladesh is based on the idea of a supposedly trusting relationship between NGOs and rural poor women which is questionable for four associated reasons. The first reason is that the sort of trust Bangladeshi NGOs claim they have in rural poor women in offering loans without collateral is not genuine trust. The second reason is a modification of the first. If NGO-touted trust is trust of any kind, it is at most strategic trust and semi-particularized trust, not generalized trust. Hence, it has some consequences which are epistemically, politically, and ethically wrong. The third reason is that the kind of trust NGOs in Bangladesh put in rural poor women disturbs social solidarity. Relevantly, I will argue that NGOs’ strict supervision of rural poor women may have many psychological impacts on rural poor women that cause unfortunate strife among group members; that, in turn, hampers group relations. Lastly, the so-called trusting relationship between Bangladeshi NGOs and rural poor women reduces people’s capabilities because NGOs remain unaccountable and not transparent for their activities for the most part.

An eminent octogenarian economist and philosopher who received the Nobel Prize in 1998, Amartya Kumar Sen has been living for decades in India, UK and United States. He was born and spent part of his childhood in Santiniketan ('Abode of Peace'), West Bengal, the town where Rabindranath Tagore founded his school of ideas and the University of Visva-Bharati ('All-the-World'). Later he studied at the universities of Calcutta and Cambridge and taught at Calcutta and Delhi, at Oxford and London, and at Berkeley, M.I.T., and Stanford. While he still teaches as Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University, where he returned to in 2004 after being Master of Trinity College in Cambridge from 1998, he spends long periods every year in Santiniketan. Having never distanced himself from his family ties, he once described himself as 'an involved Indian citizen, who is very concerned with Indian culture, history and politics-and also with general life in India' and who keeps a vivid 'sense of subcontinental identity, particularly with Bangladesh.' 2 Martha Craven Nussbaum, who turned 70 in May 2017 and keeps in good shape and active as Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, is in the pantheon of living American philosophers and enjoys undisputed world recognition. She has published extensively and received 1 The research that has resulted in this chapter is part of

The centralisation of this research is panelised on ‘Indian Foreign Policy’ since 2014, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies are substantially abided to the minimal. Such decision making and diplomacy within major foreign partners in cooperation to economical distinction are displayed inclusively. Also, its approach formulates strategically in rebooting its policy goals after gaining power maelstrom of domestic politics whilst holding a position of chief-minister in
the state of Gujarat in a new paradigm. Moreover, it highlights the enactment of the ‘Act East’ policy, where such strategic goals impart great power recognition and notably its doctrine results on prevailing to be scarce, respectively.

Gegen politische und religiöse Fundamentalisten verteidigt Claus Dierksmeier die Idee der Freiheit als Leitwert der Globalität. Individuelle Freiheit schließt aber Verantwortung für ihren sozial und ökologisch nachhaltigen Gebrauch ein. Dabei müssen wir abwägen, welche und wessen Freiheiten jeweils Vorrang erhalten sollen. Und hierbei, so zeigt Dierksmeier in historisch-systematischer Grundlegung, kommt es zuerst auf die Qualität – und nicht die Quantität – unserer Freiheiten an. Denn Freiheit heißt nicht, die Optionen einiger weniger zu maximieren, sondern die Chancen aller Weltbürger zu optimieren.

2009) señalan que la economía normativa se ha caracterizado por vincular el bienestar a la satisfacción de las preferencias personales; y a éstas, con juicios de elección basados en el propio interés. Desde el punto de vista de la primera persona, la secuencia natural resulta: interés propio-preferencia-elección-bienestar.

This is the PDF-Powerpoint of the paper I used for my exposition during the Webinar International Webinar On “Rethinking and Transforming Public Policy:The Challenges of Ethics, Aesthetics & Responsibility”, Organized By Department of Social Sciences & Humanities, KIIT School of Law and Vishwaneedam Center for Asian Blossoming, Puducherry & Chennai Date: May 7, 2021 Time: 14.30 Hrs - 20.30 Hrs IST

This is the PDF-PowerPoint which I used for my lecture at the Webinar "Socio-Political scenario in Covid times: Ethics, Politics and Spirituality; alternative post covid futures", organised by The Research and Innovation Committee, Lady Keane College, Shillong, India. The Webinar took place on Tuesday, 21 July 2020. The title of my lecture was "Corona Pandemic the evil and the Hope for a resurgent future". I possess the video of the whole Webinar. I possess the video of the whole Webinar.

"Rationality, Commitment and Autonomy"

Amartya K. Sen is criticised for a modification of mainstream rational choice theory by an introduction of the commitment concept. This kind of modification sometimes is treated as a mistake. This article attempts to interpret the Amartya Sen's concept of rationality. The means to this end will be an analysis of the ways of explanation of so- called Sen's mistake. Three critical approaches to Sen's concept of rationality made by Philip Pettit, Daniel Hausman and Geoffrey Brenan will be examined. In conclusion Sen's concept of rationality, which includes the concept of commitment, should be interpreted as an approach which provides a subject with an autonomous expression of oneself, agency, responsibility and skills of critical thinking.

Este artículo, examina lo hallado por María Eugenia Correa en su estudio sobre la feminización de la educación superior en Colombia desde las tesis de Amartya Sen,
Premio Nóbel de Economía 1998. De especial interés es la influencia de las mujeres en la vida y obra del pensador bengalí. La idea central es armonizar el desarrollo humano
mediante la sincronización de dos dinámicas: primero, feminizar el desarrollo, aumentando el concurso y posibilidades socioeducativas de la mujer en particular; y segundo desarrollar la feminización para gestar sociedad y educar con perspectiva de género a las mujeres y a los
hombres. El autor emplea la figura retórica denominada quiasmo como elemento de reflexión e intenta compensar innumerables trabajos académicos pródigos en diagnóstico
estadístico, pero con exiguo enfoque humanístico. Se trata de un articulo pleno de interpretación humanística y parco en contenido estadístico.

Palabras clave
Educación, Mujer, Desarrollo, Sociedad,
Feminización

This is the PDF-Powerpoint which I used for the contribution I exposed during the webinar 'Alternative Approaches to Development: The Question of Justice from a Cross-Cultural Perspective', 66th in a series on Alternative Perspectives on Global Challenges, and the 49th International Seminar on Pandemic Situation. The webinar took place on Friday, 3 December 2021. The title of my contribution was: 'Some notes on Amartya Sen’s and Mahbub ul Haq’s interpretations of development'.

La pobreza y la democracia guardan relaciones complejas y ya bastante estudiadas por los científicos sociales. En este artículo no volveré sobre estos enfoques, ni tampoco insistiré en los problemas de gobernabilidad que nacen de la pobreza, sino que presentaré la crítica filosófico-política al ideal democrático que resulta cuando consideramos a la pobreza como privación de libertad individual. A la pobreza se la puede entender desde múltiples perspectivas filosóficas, pero el interpretarla como privación de libertad individual, como lo hace Amartya Sen, la pone en relación directa y problemática con un sistema de gobierno que precisamente hace de las libertades, y de la libertad humana en general, su nervio central.
Quisiera sostener que la existencia de la pobreza pone en duda que vivamos en sociedades democráticas porque cuestiona la finalidad y la esencia de estas comunidades, a la vez que les desafía a pensar cómo pueden convertirse realmente en sociedades justas. Comenzaré con una interpretación filosófica de la pobreza a partir de algunas ideas de Sen (sección 1). Seguiré con el análisis de la relación que se podría establecer entre la privación de libertad y la comunidad política según tres filósofos de la tradición occidental: Aristóteles, Baruch de Espinosa y John Locke (sección 2), y terminaré presentando tres desafíos que la pobreza presenta a nuestras democracias (sección 3).

This is a comment on Amartya Sen's Darwin lecture later published in Population and Development Review in which I argued that Sen failed  to consider two major concepts of Darwinian theory -"prodigality of reproduction" and "transmission of variation".Sen replied to my comment that I misrepresented his narrative.

Official programme of the Conference 'Current issues of social sciences and humanities', organised by the Department of Ethics and Aesthetics of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the National University of Uzbekistan, 29 April 2022. My intervention,, whose title is 'Elements of Amartya Sen on fatalism, famines and democracy', is scheduled for 11 a.m. CET.

Este artículo quiere indagar la relación teórica entre identidad y capabilidades. Las dos primeras partes proponen aproximaciones filosóficas al concepto de identidad. La tercera parte examina de manera critica la noción de identidad promovida por Amartya Sen dentro de su enfoque de capabilidades. La última parte replantea la posible relación teórica entre los conceptos de identidad y capabilidades humanas desde una relectura del concepto de «afiliación» de Martha Nussbaum.  Unir la noción de identidad se Sen con la de afiliación de Nussbaum abre nuevos canales de análisis teórico y empírico, algo que en América Latina y el Caribe puede resultar de sumo interés.

Certificate of attendance of the V. Tagung für Praktische Philosophie, held at the Universität Salzburg, Salzburg, Unipark, 16 & 17 November 2017. I gave two talks at the Tagung. The title of the first talk, held on 16 November 2017, was: "Freiheit, Entwicklung, Gerechtigkeit: Anmerkungen zu Amartya Sen". The title of the second talk, held on 17 November 2017, was: "Ist Multikulturalismus schlecht für Frauen?".

Los debates ontológicos en filosofía de la economía han adquirido relevancia en las últimas décadas (e.g. Uskali Mäki, Don Ross, Tony Lawson). En este marco, consideramos que una de las contribuciones más importantes del Enfoque de las Capacidades (EC; al pensamiento económico contemporáneo consiste en introducir un desplazamiento ontológico respecto a la corriente principal (mainstream). En sentido similar se ha expresado Nuno Martins (2006, 2007a y b).

The purpose of this paper is to prove the importance of legal and economic spheres for the realization of justice according to the Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice. In the most stable democratic societies, the legal system is an indispensable reference and demonstrates the strength of the population's political values and convictions in relation to the social organization at present and in subsequent periods. Empirical data and two laws that contribute to the social equity, participation, exercise of freedom and the overcoming of inequalities in Brazil are presented. The Amartya Sen's contribution is relevant in the world for the recovery, updating and improvement of democracy.

The article discusses the idea of ‘human rights’ and the Amartya Sen’s reflections
on that topic. By assumption, Sen does not present a catalogue of human rights, yet
he claims that the language of human rights can be used to talk about the so-called
human capabilities (the main concept of Sen’s theory). The aporia that exists in the
current paradigm of human rights consists in the fact that it has been based on a few
(liberal) foundations, while, on the other hand, it has been extended into a broad
system of individual rights/entitlements conflicting with their foundation. Each of
those systems of rights entails a specific vision of social life. The liberal tradition
postulates the existence of a minimal state, which guards freedom, life and property.
In the leftist tradition, in contrast, there is postulated the existence of a welfare state,
which satisfies people’s ever growing needs, based on an extensive bureaucracy and
high taxes – under the patronage of the idea of social justice. Those social visions
cannot be reconciled – they lead to conflicts. In this text, I present the problem of in-
consistency and tension within the ‘human rights’, contrasting Amartya Sen’s theory
with classical liberalism of John Locke. I claim that assessment of the contemporary
‘human rights’ theory should depend on whether a given theory is capable of proper
determination and – at least to some extent – solving the problem of incoherence
and tensions present in the Western ‘human rights’ paradigm. It seems that Sen’s
conception cannot meet that challenge

This paper attempts to tie various aspects of Amartya Sen’s capability approach, traditionally applied to the field of international development, to jus post bellum. The capability approach, founded by and developed upon by Sen, is a theoretical framework that evaluates circumstances necessary for human flourishing. Sen uses what he coins “comprehensive consequentialism” to integrate the moral significance of consequences and principles with traditional measures of poverty. Sen grounds his theory in Aristotelean eudaemonia—arguing that traditional utilitarian measures of development are insufficient. The paper will examine and various parts of Sen’s theory, and it will analyze its applications to UN Peacekeeping’s provisions for jus post bellum. The paper will also investigate the Augustinian principle of tranquilitas ordinis and advocate for a second-best solution when capabilities limit practical applications of excessively idealistic ends. The second-best solution should fulfill necessary and sufficient requirements so that post bellum countries can eventually reach eudaemonia on their own.

Usually, in the Realism – Antirealism debate, philosophical proofs improved by philosophers are of two kinds: epistemological arguments (realist theories are philosophical issues about reality's independence or autonomy from human mind capacity to know it, so every anti-realist theory has got, as first aim, to deny this assumption) and ontological arguments (realist theories are, sic et simpliciter, methaphysical claims about the primary existence of a reality, which is causally external to our thinking or categorizations). But, what we can say about rational convenience of two respective aims from a theoretical perspective that, we can decide to name, knowledge economics?
What we can maintain about the rationality of realist approach and the rationality of the rival claim, starting from a preoccupation about the rationality of knowledge conceived as "economical resource"? Can we re-address the whole debate between realism's supporters and anti-realism (e.g. constructivist, comunitaristic epistemologies, neo-pragmatist analytical philosophers, as Putnam, Rorty, McDowell, Brandom et alia) around a more general and logically settled rationale of knowledge economics in order to answer to another question: what's the best economical solution among realist issues and anti-realist theories in theory of knowledge and analytical ontology?
Our scope, in this paper, is to give these questions a positive answer, following this steps:
i. One of the most typical argument provided by defender of constructivism and comunitarism is the idea that realism is a sort of "dictatorial" or, in every case, "not supportive, unsympathetic, not libertarian" philosophical perspective, as classically supported by Rorty (1979) differently from pragmatist and post-pragmatist conception of truth, as well as postmodernism, relativism and so on. But is this conclusion really true? How could change our conception of such sort of antirealism if we should discovery the falsity of this presumption of "theoretical openness" of anti-objectivism?
ii. Some very important results of modern theory of social choice (Arrow, Sen and others) demonstrates that social choices in every communitarian context, as elections or the construction of free market context develops dictatorship or monopolist control by one decisive subject or one specific set of decisive subjects.
iii. Knowledge is a kind of economic resource within an ambient of social choice.
iv. (for i, ii, iii) Scientific community, cultural community, the " knowledge community", as well as economic community and any other human habitat of social exchange develops the presence of dictators and dictatorship, and it makes so for a simply logical and set-theory mechanisms, whose best proof is, of course, Arrow theorem's of Possibility (1963).
So, "reality's dictatorship" is, at least, the best alternative option, if we consider anti-realism of communitarism, constructivism, and analytical pragmatism as philosophically presumptive "libertarian" alternative.

APGC Centre for the Higher Study of Human Rights and Democratic Development (apgc.education) & the Centre for Critical Reflections. Organizer and host: Dr. Mahmoud Masaeli. 66th in a series on Alternative Perspectives on Global Challenges, and the 49th seminar December 03, 2021 - 08:00 am East Canada and the US. Alternative Approaches to Development: The Question of Justice from a Cross-Cultural Perspective Link: https://ap-gc.net/seminars-3/

This is the PDF-Powerpoint of the paper I used for my exposition during the Webinar on ““A Theory of Justice” at 50: Revisiting John Rawls’ Legacy”, organised by Prof. B S Bhargava Chair on Decentralized Governance & Development Centre for Rural Management (CRM), Kottayam, Kerala on Saturday, 29th May 2021 Time: 14.30 - 17.30 India Time.