International Journal in Management and Social Science

Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088

Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

JUSTICE AND HUMAN DIVERSITY: THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH TO

PLURALISM AND INCLUSION
Dr. Madhusmita Rout
Assistant Professor Dept. of Political Science
Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, Odisha
Email id: [email protected]
Dr.Bhagyadhar Sethy
Assistant Professor Dept. of Political Science
Kalinga Institute of Social Science (KISS-DU) Bhubaneswar, Odisha
[email protected]
Abstract

The intersection of justice and human diversity requires a nuanced framework that goes
beyond traditional models of equality and distribution. The capabilities approach, as
articulated by Amartya Sen, provides a critical lens for rethinking justice in pluralistic
societies, focusing on the real freedoms individuals possess to pursue lives they have reason
to value. Unlike other justice theories that prioritize material equality or access to resources,
the capabilities approach shifts the emphasis to human diversity, recognizing that individuals
face different opportunities and constraints based on their backgrounds, abilities, and
identities. This framework challenges conventional notions of justice by proposing that the
evaluation of well-being must consider a broader set of factors, including individual
capabilities, social context, and personal aspirations. By emphasizing pluralism and inclusion,
the capabilities approach allows for a justice model that accommodates differences without
reducing them to mere toleration. It fosters a dynamic understanding of inclusion, where the
goal is not to level everyone to the same baseline but to ensure that individuals have the
necessary conditions to develop their potential fully. Ultimately, the capabilities approach
offers a path to justice that is responsive to diversity, enabling individuals to flourish in ways
that reflect their unique life circumstances and values.

Keywords: Social Inclusion, Pluralism, Well-being, Equality, Individual Freedoms, Social

Justice, Human Flourishing, Capability Theory, Diversity and Justice.

Justice:16
A Theoretical Foundation, International Journal in Management and Social Science
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

Justice is one of the most enduring and debated concepts in the fields of philosophy, political
theory, and law. At its core, justice concerns the principles by which societies distribute
rights, duties, resources, and opportunities among their members. It serves as a moral
compass that guides the structure of societies and informs notions of fairness, equity, and
human dignity. In classical political thought, justice is often portrayed as the first virtue of
social institutions. This idea, made prominent by political philosopher John Rawls,
emphasizes that "laws and institutions must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust"
(Rawls, 1971). From this standpoint, justice is not merely about outcomes but about the
fairness of processes and structures within society. It is this fairness that underpins social
cooperation and legitimizes authority. Scholars such as Brian Barry (1989) argue that justice
is fundamentally about how the benefits and burdens of social cooperation are shared. Barry
emphasizes that justice is not only an abstract principle but a moral standard that applies to
the basic institutions of society, governments, legal systems, and economies which are
responsible for maintaining or disrupting fairness.

In pluralistic societies, where individuals differ in culture, identity, and socioeconomic status,
the idea of justice becomes even more complex. Nancy Fraser (1997) proposes a
multidimensional view of justice that includes redistribution, recognition, and representation.
According to Fraser, a just society must ensure not only economic fairness but also cultural
respect and political inclusion for marginalized groups.

Critically, the traditional institutional models of justice have been challenged by thinkers
such as Amartya Sen. In The “Idea of Justice”, (2009), Sen Critiques approaches that focus
solely on ideal justice or perfect institutions. Instead, he calls for an evaluative and
comparative framework that addresses the real-world injustices people face in their daily
lives. For Sen, justice should be measured by the extent to which individuals have the
capability to lead lives they have reason to value a concept that brings human diversity and
actual freedom to the centre of the justice discourse.

17 International Journal in Management and Social Science

http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

Philosophical Views on Justice

Plato’s Justice: Harmony and Order

In “The Republic”, Plato presents justice as a harmonious state where each class in society
performs its proper role: rulers govern, auxiliaries defend, and producers provide goods and
services. He likes the just society to a just soul, in which reason rules over spirit and appetite
(Plato, trans. 1992). Justice, for Plato, is fundamentally about balance both within the
individual and in the polis.

Aristotle’s Justice: Distributive and Corrective

Aristotle refined the concept of justice by distinguishing between two types: distributive
justice, which concerns the fair allocation of goods based on merit, and corrective justice,
which addresses rectifying wrongs in voluntary and involuntary transactions (Nicomachean
Ethics, trans. 2009). For Aristotle, justice is a virtue that aims at fairness and proportional
equality.

Karl Marx: Justice as Class Liberation

Marx critiqued traditional notions of justice as ideologies that serve ruling class interests. In
his view, capitalist societies are unjust because they institutionalize exploitation workers are
alienated from the products of their labour (Marx, 1867/1990). True justice can only be
realized through the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless,
communist society.

John Rawls’ Conception of Justice as Fairness

Justice remains a central concern in moral and political philosophy, shaping the ways
societies are organized and the values they uphold. Among the most influential modern
approaches to justice is John Rawls’ theory of “justice as fairness”, articulated in his
groundbreaking work “A Theory of Justice” (1971). Rawls sought to formulate a conception
of justice that secures equality and fairness for all citizens within a well-ordered society.
Through his use of the original position, the veil of ignorance, and the development of two
fundamental principles of justice, Rawls provides a compelling moral and political
18 His theory has had profoundInternational
framework. influence in political
Journal theory, socialand
in Management policy,
Socialand legal
Science
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
philosophy.
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

Rawls begins his theory by proposing a hypothetical social contract in the form of the
original position, in which rational individuals come together to choose the basic principles
that will structure society. To ensure impartiality and fairness in the selection of these
principles, Rawls introduces the veil of ignorance, a conceptual tool that requires individuals
to imagine themselves unaware of their personal characteristics such as class, race, gender, or
natural talents. Rawls writes, “No one knows his place in society, his class position or social
status; nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his
intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 1971). Behind this veil, individuals are motivated
by self-interest but must choose principles that would be acceptable from any social position,
especially the least advantaged. This mechanism ensures that the resulting principles of
justice are fair and impartial.

As philosopher Thomas Pogge (2007) notes, “Rawls’s veil of ignorance ensures a level
playing field for deliberation and fosters decisions that protect the most vulnerable members
of society”. The original position is not meant to be a historical account of a social contract,
but a moral device to model fairness.

The Two Principles of Justice

From the original position, Rawls argues that individuals would rationally agree upon two
principles of justice. These principles form the core of his conception of justice as fairness.
The first principle guarantees the equal right to basic liberties: “Each person is to have an
equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”
(Rawls, 1971). These liberties include freedom of speech, liberty of conscience, the right to
hold property, and political freedoms. Rawls holds that these liberties must be equally
distributed and cannot be traded off for social or economic advantages.

The second principle governs social and economic inequalities. Rawls states: “Social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 1971). This second principle contains two parts: fair equality
of opportunity, which requires that people with similar
Journal talents and ambitions have equal
19 International in Management and Social Science
http://ijmr.net.in,
chances of attaining social positions; and the difference Email: permits
principle, which [email protected]
inequality
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

only if it improves the position of the least advantaged. Stephen Freeman (2007) explains that
this distinction shows Rawls’ commitment to both liberty and equality, noting that “justice as
fairness avoids the extremes of utilitarianism and strict egalitarianism by prioritizing equal
liberty while allowing for beneficial inequalities”.

The Basic Structure of Society

Rawls emphasizes that his theory applies to the basic structure of society the major social,
economic, and political institutions that define rights and responsibilities and influence
people’s life chances. He writes, “The basic structure is the primary subject of justice because
its effects are so profound and present from the start” (Rawls, 1971). In this way, justice as
fairness is not simply about individual acts, but about how institutions are designed and
operate over time. Pogge (2007), notes that this focus on institutions provides a systemic
view of justice, enabling us to evaluate policies and laws through their impact on fairness and
equality.

Criticisms of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness, introduced in a “Theory of Justice” (1971), has
profoundly shaped contemporary political philosophy. His use of the original position, the
veil of ignorance, and two principles of justice presented a powerful alternative to
utilitarianism and helped to articulate a morally grounded liberalism. Yet despite or because
of its influence, Rawls' theory has provoked a wide range of criticisms from political
philosophers. These critiques target its assumptions about the self, its ideal theory
methodology, its treatment of liberty and property, and its neglect of gender, culture, and
global justice. This essay explores major criticisms of Rawls’ theory by examining the
perspectives of Robert Nozick, Michael Sandel, Amartya Sen, and feminist theorists, among
others.

Robert Nozick: Libertarian Critique

One of the earliest and most prominent critiques of Rawls came from Robert Nozick, who
offered a libertarian alternative in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” (1974). Nozick argues that
Rawls’ difference principle, which permits redistributive policies to benefit the least
20 unjustly infringes upon International
advantaged, individual Journal
propertyin Management and Social
rights. According Science
to Nozick,
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

individuals are entitled to the holdings they acquire through just means such as voluntary
exchange or labour and any redistribution by the state violates these entitlements. Nozick
writes: “Taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour” (Nozick, 1974),
implying that Rawls' redistributive framework undermines individual liberty. In contrast to
Rawls’ patterned theory of justice, Nozick advocates a historical, entitlement-based theory
grounded in self-ownership and minimal state intervention. While Rawls prioritizes fairness
and equality, Nozick’s libertarianism sees justice in respecting individual choices, even if
those choices result in inequality.

Michael Sandel: Communitarian Critique

Michael Sandel, a prominent communitarian philosopher, critiques Rawls’ theory for its
reliance on an abstract, unencumbered conception of the self. In “Liberalism and the Limits
of Justice” (1982), Sandel argues that Rawls' veil of ignorance removes individuals from the
cultural, historical, and communal contexts that shape their identity and moral reasoning.
Sandel states: “The unencumbered self is a fiction. It is not antecedently given, but
constituted by its ends and attachments” (Sandel, 1982). This critique challenges Rawls’
assumption that principles of justice can be determined independently of conceptions of the
good life. For Sandel, justice cannot be detached from communal values and shared
traditions. Thus, the Rawlsian model overlooks the social embeddedness of moral reasoning
and civic life

Feminist Critiques: Gender and the Private Sphere

Feminist philosophers have also critiqued Rawls for neglecting gender inequality and the role
of the private sphere in perpetuating injustice. While Rawls focuses on the basic structure of
public institutions, feminist critics argue that domestic arrangements such as family roles and
care-giving are just as crucial to justice. Susan Moller Okin, in “Justice, Gender, and the
Family” (1989), contends that Rawls’ theory assumes a gender-neutral society while ignoring
how traditional family structures disadvantage women. Okin writes: “A theory of justice that
does not address the gendered division of labour in the family is incomplete and flawed”
(Okin, 1989). She argues that Rawls’ ideal of fair equality of opportunity cannot be realized
if women bear disproportionate burdens in the private sphere, such as unpaid care-giving. For
21 International Journal in Management and Social Science
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

justice to be truly fair, it must incorporate the realities of gender roles and structural
inequality in both public and private life.

Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice: A Comparative and Real-World Approach

Amartya Sen’s contribution to political philosophy and development economics is significant

for its departure from ideal theory and its grounding in real-world injustices. In his influential
book “The Idea of Justice” (2009), Sen critiques transcendental theories of justice most
notably that of John Rawls and proposes a comparative, realization-focused approach rooted
in public reasoning, capabilities, and pluralism. Rather than seeking to identify a perfectly
just society, Sen emphasizes reducing manifest injustices through public deliberation and the
expansion of individual freedoms. His work represents a shift in how justice is
conceptualized and applied in global, pluralistic societies.

Rejection of Transcendental Institutionalism

At the heart of Sen’s approach is a critique of what he calls transcendental institutionalism,

the methodology favoured by Rawls. This model attempts to define principles that would
govern a perfectly just society, abstracted from actual historical and social conditions. Sen
contends that this form of theorizing is inadequate for addressing the complexity and urgency
of real-world injustices. Sen writes: “What we need is not the identification of perfectly just
arrangements, but a process of identifying and removing manifest injustices” (Sen, 2009).
This comparative focus reflects a realization-based understanding of justice concerned not
with ideals, but with what can be achieved to improve people’s lives. As Gasper (2007) notes,
Sen is less concerned with the blueprint of a utopia than with providing a framework for
reasoned, contextual judgments about injustice: “Sen’s approach shifts the focus from
institutions alone to the lives people are actually able to live, broadening the concept of
justice beyond formal equality” (Gasper, 2007).

The Capability Approach: Expanding Human Freedom

Sen’s capability approach forms the ethical and evaluative basis of his theory of justice.
Developed over decades and elaborated in “Development as Freedom” (1999) and later in
22 International Journal in Management and Social Science
“The Idea of Justice”, this approach defines justice not in terms of income,
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: utility, or resource
[email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

distribution, but in terms of what people are capable of doing and being their substantive
freedoms. According to Sen: “Capabilities represent the freedom to achieve valuable
functioning, and this freedom is central to the idea of justice” (Sen, 1999). This perspective is
especially important when assessing inequality. Equal resources may not translate into equal
capabilities if individuals have differing needs due to disability, discrimination, or lack of
social support. Robeyns (2005) reinforces this by stating:, “The capability approach allows us
to move beyond the misleading equality of resources to understand people’s real freedoms”.
Sen’s approach is thus more sensitive to context, acknowledging that freedom and well-being
must be judged by actual opportunities, not merely formal entitlements.

Public Reasoning and Democratic Participation

A distinct element of Sen’s idea of justice is the role of public reasoning in determining just
outcomes. Unlike theories that derive justice from hypothetical contracts or fixed principles,
Sen insists on the plurality of values and the necessity of open deliberation. He argues:
“Justice has to be sensitive to actual voices and real arguments, and it must be open to diverse
reasoning about what matters” (Sen, 2009). This emphasis on democratic dialogue over
abstract theorizing aligns justice with participatory politics and respects cultural diversity,
offering a model that is inherently inclusive. Anderson (2010) supports this interpretation,
writing: “Sen’s procedural emphasis makes justice a collective, evolving project one that
demands engagement rather than adherence to fixed doctrines”.

Pluralism and Comparative Judgments

Sen’s justice framework recognizes that different societies and individuals may reasonably
disagree about what constitutes a just outcome. Unlike Rawls’ singular conception of a “well-
ordered society,” Sen embraces value pluralism and supports comparative assessments
between feasible alternatives. As Sen writes: “There are multiple and competing principles of
justice, each of which has claims to our attention, but none of which can be the sole
foundation” (Sen, 2009). This approach enables moral progress without requiring consensus
on an ideal. It also allows for cross-cultural applications, making Sen’s theory particularly
relevant to global justice debates. According to Crocker (2008), this makes Sen’s theory:
“Empirically grounded and morally robust in its ability to evaluate development outcomes
23
and guide public policy”.
International Journal in Management and Social Science
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

Global Perspective and Practical Applicability

Sen's justice theory extends beyond the confines of the nation-state. While Rawls confines his
principles largely to domestic societies, Sen critiques such methodological nationalism. His
theory responds to global inequalities, such as poverty, climate injustice, and transnational
exploitation, by arguing for the moral urgency of global capabilities and rights. Sen
challenges the notion that states are the sole units of justice, asserting: “Justice demands a
broader view that does not close its eyes to global relations and responsibilities” (Sen, 2009).
This cosmopolitan orientation makes Sen’s theory especially attractive to scholars and
practitioners concerned with human development, international law, and global ethics.

Amartya Sen’s idea of justice offers a dynamic, inclusive, and pragmatic alternative to
idealized models. By focusing on the elimination of injustice, the expansion of real freedoms,
and the importance of public discourse, Sen redefines the task of justice in the modern world.
His capability approach moves the focus from abstract equality to concrete opportunities,
while his comparative reasoning allows for culturally sensitive, pluralistic, and global
applications. Supported by a growing body of scholarship across philosophy, development
studies, and public policy, Sen’s theory continues to shape contemporary discussions about
what it means to live in a just society.

Conclusion

In summary, the capabilities approach offers a powerful and practical way to understand
justice in a world shaped by human diversity. Rather than focusing solely on distributing
resources or enforcing uniform standards, this approach asks a deeper question: What real
opportunities do people have to live lives they value? It recognizes that true inclusion means
more than just being present in society it means having the genuine freedom to participate, to
grow, and to thrive. Ultimately, justice in a diverse society is not about treating everyone the
same, but about ensuring everyone has what they need to flourish. The capabilities approach
helps us see people not as problems to fix, but as full human beings with the right to live with
purpose and opportunity. As we build more inclusive communities, this framework can guide
us toward policies that are fair, compassionate, and grounded in the realities of human life.

References
24 International Journal in Management and Social Science
http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

Anderson, E. (2010), “The imperative of integration”, Princeton University Press.

Aristotle. (2009), “Nicomachean Ethics” (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Barry, B. (1989), “Theories of Justice”, University of California Press.

Crocker, D. A. (2008), “Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative

democracy”, Cambridge University Press.

Fraser, N. (1997), “Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the "Postsocialist" Condition”,

Routledge.

Gasper, D. (2007), “What is the capability approach? Journal of Human Development”, 8(3),
291–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880701567729

Marx, K. (1990), “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”, Vol. 1 (B. Fowkes, Trans.).
Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1867)

Plato. (1992), “The Republic” (G. M. A. Grube & C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett
Publishing.

Pogge, T. (2007), “John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice”, Oxford University Press.

Rawls, J. (1971), “A Theory of Justice”, Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (1993), “Political Liberalism”, Columbia University Press.

Robeyns, I. (2005), “The capability approach: A theoretical survey”, Journal of Human

Development, 6(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266

Sen, A. (2009), “The Idea of Justice”, Harvard University Press.

Sen, A. (1999), “Development as Freedom”, Oxford University Press.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Justice. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/

Wenar, L. (2021). John Rawls. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

25 International Journal in Management and Social Science

http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]
International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 13 Issue 7,July 2025 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 8.088
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email:[email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal

26 International Journal in Management and Social Science

http://ijmr.net.in, Email: [email protected]