There are many definitions of poverty in a legal and philosophical sense, coming from many different institutions such as the UN, EU, individual countries and from many different philosophers. In the following work, I will suggest that we should analyze poverty and broaden the meaning together with the way of
measuring it, especially adopting Amartya Sen's approach. For the moment, when discussing poverty, I will refer to the de nition given by A Dictionary of Sociology (2009), in which “poverty is a state in which resources, usually material but sometimes cultural, are lacking” (Scott and Marshall, 2009).
I aim at suggesting that my analysis of relative poverty shall be taken into account not only for social and
economic policies but also when dealing with issues about absolute poverty because the quality of people's life has to be determined with broader terms when speaking about developed countries; indeed, as I will show in the course of the thesis, because having a full-time job can still be related to a deprived situation for the human being, and even though the deprivation of the persons can be more or less severe regarding relative and absolute poverty, the level of suffering of the human being is still very high and therefore it requires attention and more sensitivity.Poverty and inequality are deeply interconnected and they can be broadly defined as the functioning and the outcome of the same system: the economic system based on capitalism. Poverty is functional for the capitalist system because it serves as “lubricants, greasing the joints of an otherwise creaky social system” (Wachtel, 1972; pg. 17).
Poverty plays a functional part within this system as it is about the increased value of the real income of people that fall shortly above the line of the non-poor, and it works as an illusion of a given state of affairs. Also, the level of poverty allows the non-poor to buy commodities at lower prices and from this point of view, we are all served by the existence of poverty.
Moreover, the second function regards the general conditions created by poverty because it ensures that the “dirty work” (Wachtel, 1972) will be done, such as dangerous, precarious, underpaid and undigni ed jobs. Poverty allows for the formation of a labor force, people who need to work whatever the physical and metaphorical costs are.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter One. Ideas of Justice in a Liberal Framework
1.1 Explaining Rawls
1.2 Sen's Criticism of Rawls
1.3 Sen's Critique toward Ideal Theory
Chapter Two. Measuring Poverty, Inequality and Wellbeing in a Liberal Framework
2.1 Principles of Justice; First Principle
2.2 Principles of Justice; Problems arising from the Second Principle about Inequality and Poverty
2.3 The Difference Principle
2.4 The Primary Good Index and The Capability Approach
2.5 Valuing freedom
2.6 Evaluating Poverty and Well- Being in the Capitalist Economic System
Chapter Three. Capitalism, Freedom, and Democracy
3.1 Sen and Rawls on Capitalism
3.2 Final Thoughts on Capitalism
3.3 Final Remarks on Sen's and Rawls' approaches in relation to Capitalism
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to evaluate and compare the theories of John Rawls and Amartya Sen regarding poverty, inequality, and wellbeing within capitalist frameworks. The author seeks to determine how these philosophical approaches can be utilized to address systemic inequalities and improve the measurement of human wellbeing, ultimately proposing that neither theory is sufficient on its own within a capitalist economic system.
- Critique of Rawls' "Theory of Justice" and the concept of the original position.
- Evaluation of Sen's capability approach as a superior metric to primary goods for assessing quality of life.
- Analysis of the relationship between capitalism, wage-labor, and systemic poverty.
- Exploration of worker self-management as a potential alternative to current capitalist production models.
Excerpt from the Book
1.2 Sen's Criticism of Rawls.
In the light of what has been stated, the entire Rawls' theory works as far as people reach a joint agreement in the original position, a unanimous decision. This is the first difficulty that Rawls' theory encounters. Rawls has to presuppose that the parties are rational and hold the same political reasoning in order to work out a conditional agreement because only after this accord can the principles of justice be established, and the primary institutions will be formed. The entire theory is based on the concept of the unanimous agreement, which in turn relies on the rationality of the parties in the original position.
Such way of thinking highlights that Rawls set forth a pyramidal way to construct a theory of justice and the accord among people is the very basis of this pyramid. It is a pyramidal construction of the theory, which is working in accord with the principle of democracy, because the organizations or institutions can be defined as the ultimate achievement of society, which are formed by principles that are determined by the original agreement among people. There is a processual, logical and coherent order in Rawls' theory because it is from the original position, which represents the first stage, that we can create an upper level of society, the constitutional state, which in turn can form the third legislative stage.
The theory is built upon the original agreement, therefore justification for accepting the conditions of the theory is weakened. Indeed, Sen objects to Rawls' presupposition regarding the impossibility of reducing the variety of the ideas that persons hold about the conception of a just society on the unique set of principles. The range of ideas and the impracticability of reducing them to a single set of principles points out a serious weakness in Rawls' theory. According to this objection, if it is the case in which people’s idea about liberal societies are not convergent and still, they are perfectly defensible from an impartial point of view, Sen advances a defeat for Rawls' theory.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides an overview of the rising levels of income inequality and poverty within OECD countries, establishing the necessity of the thesis.
Chapter One. Ideas of Justice in a Liberal Framework: Critically examines John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness, focusing on the original position and the veil of ignorance, while highlighting Sen’s objections regarding unanimous agreement and ideal theory.
Chapter Two. Measuring Poverty, Inequality and Wellbeing in a Liberal Framework: Discusses Rawls' principles of justice, the Difference Principle, and compares the primary goods metric against Sen’s capability approach for evaluating individual wellbeing.
Chapter Three. Capitalism, Freedom, and Democracy: Analyzes the compatibility of property-owning democracy with capitalism and explores alternative models like worker-managed firms as means to achieve real freedom and justice.
Conclusion: Summarizes the key arguments and suggests that while Sen's capability approach offers a stronger foundation, it must be integrated with alternative economic models to effectively overcome systemic poverty.
Keywords
Poverty, Inequality, Wellbeing, Capitalism, John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Capability Approach, Primary Goods, Original Position, Wage-Labor, Democracy, Social Justice, Economic Policy, Property-Owning Democracy, Worker Self-Management
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this thesis?
The thesis explores the philosophical and political economic approaches to understanding and mitigating poverty and inequality within modern capitalist societies, specifically comparing the theories of John Rawls and Amartya Sen.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the limitations of resource-based metrics for wellbeing, the role of institutions in maintaining inequality, the distinction between formal and substantive freedom, and the potential for alternative economic systems.
What is the author's primary research goal?
The author aims to show how philosophical frameworks can contribute to stopping extreme poverty and inequality by suggesting more sensitive ways to measure wellbeing and evaluate the structural impacts of capitalism.
Which scientific methods does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative analytical methodology, evaluating the political-philosophical theories of Rawls and Sen against empirical data from sources like the OECD and Oxfam to assess their practical applicability.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body deconstructs the concepts of justice, the original position, the difference principle, and the capability approach, before applying these critiques to analyze how capitalist production models perpetuate systemic inequality.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Poverty, Inequality, Capability Approach, Property-Owning Democracy, and Capitalism.
What are the main criticisms raised against Rawls?
The author criticizes Rawls for relying on ideal theory, assuming a unanimous agreement that is empirically unreachable, and failing to provide practical solutions for individuals living under non-ideal, oppressive economic conditions.
How does the author evaluate Sen's approach?
While the author finds Sen's capability approach superior to Rawls' primary goods metric for evaluating actual human life, the author also critiques Sen for not pushing his analysis far enough to fundamentally challenge the exploitative nature of capitalism.
- Quote paper
- Francesca Malloggi (Author), 2017, Philosophical Approaches to Poverty, Inequality and the Idea of Wellbeing, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/381368
