Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper highlights the Aristotelian features of Amartya Sen's conception of practical reason within his larger approach to social justice, as he presents it in his latest book, Idea of Justice (2009). It refers specifically to fellow functional capabilities theorist Martha C. Nussbaum's reading of Aristotle in her early work, Fragility of Goodness (1986), and the contrast she draws between Aristotle, Plato, and the social contract tradition. The Aristotelian elements of Sen’s approach are among its most important and appealing. They are evident in Sen’s focus on functional capability as the most appropriate measure of just social outcomes, but also in his conception of practical reason. He sees public deliberation over questions of justice as necessarily comparative and immanent, inclusive of a plurality of situated perspectives and reasons, but at the same time open to enlightened critique and objective scrutiny. He also admits that the deliberation will often remain incomplete and only partially resolve disputes over what constitutes a just arrangement, in part because of a plurality of non-commensurable reasons of justice. Sen challenges transcendental institutionalist approaches to justice, including that of Rawls. These propose an image of a perfectly just society based on supposedly universal principles that all rational subjects could consent to, and then derive just institutions based on these principles. Instead, Sen's realization-focused comparison approach attempts to remove manifest injustices by comparing actually existing societies and various, potentially conflicting, principles of justice. In contract to transcendental institutionalism, Sen focuses on the realization of actual social outcomes, how to encourage behaviors and fulfill capabilities under a diversity of existing institutional frameworks, and the contexts of social choice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".