Amartya Sen tentang Teori Keadilan John Rawls: Kritik Pendekatan Komparatif atas Pendekatan Institusionalisme
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25170/respons.v23i01.464Keywords:
Institusionalism; comparative justice; primary goods; niti; nyaya.Abstract
ABSTRAK: Asumsi teoritis John Rawls mengenai keadilan mendapat kritik tajam
Amartya Sen. Dengan mengacu pada teori kontrak sosial, Rawls, demikian
penilaian Sen, terjebak dalam institusionalisme. Dalam pendekatan ini, keadilan
hanya menyentuh hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan kedudukan seseorang sebagai
warga negara. Bahkan, berdasarkan teori tersebut keputusan-keputusan kolektif
hanya mempertimbangkan kedudukan kewarganegaraan seseorang. Dengan
konsep ini, Sen menilai, Rawls membangun paradigma imparsialitas tertutup.
Sebagai gantinya, Sen mengusulkan gagasan imparsialitas terbuka, dengan
asumsi bahwa keadilan harus mengatasi batas-batas kewarganegaraan. Dengan
cara ini Sen membangun pendekatan komparatif atas konsep keadilan.
KATA KUNCI: Institusionalisme, keadilan komparatif, hal-hal pokok, niti, nyaya.
Abstract: Amartya Sen’s criticism to John Rawls’ theory of justice is the message of
this article. Most of his criticisms is focused on the institutionalism approach which
is embedded in Rawls’ theory of justice. Sen traces out that by following contractarian
theories Rawls counts on justice in citizens’ interests. A person deserves justice as far as
he is a citizen. In this perspective, citizens’ interests become the fundamental reason
for all collective decisions. In such way, Rawls developed closed impartiality rather
than open impartiality. For Sen, the ground of justice should be much broader and
beyond the limit of citizenship. Th is is he calls the comparative justice. Th e idea of
justice must count on the life of the people.
KEYWORDS: Institusionalism, comparative justice, primary goods, niti, nyaya.
References
Farrelly, Colin. 2004. Introduction to Contemporary Political Th eory. London: Sage
Publication.
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1958 (1954). A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nagel, Thomas. 2005. “The Problem of Global Justice” Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 33, No. 2: 113-147
Nozick, Robert. 2004. “Th e Entitlement Theory of Justice.” dalam Contemporary
Political Theory: A Reader, ed. Colin Farelly. London: Sage Publication.
Rawls, John. 1996 (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999 (1971). A Theory of Justice (edisi revisi). Massachusetts: Th e Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Massachusetts: Th e Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Sandel, Michael J. 2009. Justice: What’s the Right Th ing To Do?. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Sen, Amartya. 1990. “Justice: Means versus Freedoms” Philosophy and Public Aff airs,
Vol. 19, No. 2: 111-121.
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 2002. “Open and Closed Impartiality” Th e Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 99,
No. 9: 445-469.
Sen, Amartya. 2009. Th e Idea of Justice. Massachusetts: Th e Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press Cambridge.
Smith, Adam. 2004 (2002). The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
