Introduction
Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, proposes a pluralistic vision of justice that shifts the focus from ideal institutions to the actual lives of individuals. This article analyzes how niti (rules) and nyaya (outcomes) shape modern ethics and global business. You will learn why justice is not just about resource distribution, but primarily about creating conditions where everyone has a real chance at a valuable life.
Niti and nyaya: rules versus realized justice
In classical Indian thought, niti signifies the correctness of procedures and institutions, while nyaya refers to what actually emerges in people's lives. Sen argues that a theory focused solely on niti is blind to real suffering.
Rawlsian Institutionalism: the trap of ideal frameworks
Sen critiques John Rawls's transcendental institutionalism. Rawls seeks perfectly just principles in a hypothetical "original position," which Sen considers insufficient. Knowing the ideal does not allow us to compare two non-ideal states of the world and choose the one that is less unjust.
Rawlsian Theory vs. Globalization: the limits of justice
In the era of globalization, Rawls's model fails because it limits the circle of participants in the social contract to a single political community. Sen points out that decisions made in one country affect the capabilities of people worldwide, necessitating a move beyond national parochialism.
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam: the pluralism of rational debate
Sen draws from many traditions: the Hindu idea of dharma (duty), Buddhist compassion (reduction of suffering), and Islamic adl (balance). This pluralism shows that different ethical systems can collectively agree on directions for improving the world without needing to create a single, utopian synthesis.
Arjuna's Dilemma: the conflict between duty and consequences
Arjuna's dialogue with Krishna illustrates the clash between niti and nyaya. Despite his duty to fight (niti), Arjuna recognizes the tragic consequences of war (nyaya). Sen uses this drama to show that duty and outcome must be considered together. In propositional logic: if an action consistent with a principle (P) does not reduce injustice (not-K), then its moral rightness (S) becomes questionable.
The Capability Approach: real freedom over Rawlsian goods
The key to Sen's theory is capabilities—substantive freedoms to be and to do. This is an advantage over Rawls's "primary goods" (such as income), which are merely means. Justice requires assessing whether an individual can actually transform resources into real achievements, taking into account their health or social context.
Smith's Impartial Spectator: the foundation of open impartiality
Sen replaces the "veil of ignorance" with open impartiality, inspired by Adam Smith's figure of the impartial spectator. This requires looking at one's own actions through the eyes of others—including those far away who are affected by our decisions. This is the foundation of ethics in global supply chains.
Flexicurity and Ordoliberalism: European paths to nyaya
The Scandinavian model (flexicurity) realizes nyaya by investing in a worker's ability to adapt. German ordoliberalism emphasizes niti (rules of competition). Sen's analysis shows that systems based on rigid rules can generate exclusion if they do not care for the real capabilities of those at the bottom of the social ladder.
ESG Standards: Sen's theory in global business practice
Modern ESG standards are an attempt to institutionalize the capability approach. Business is moving beyond asking only about profit to asking about the impact on the real freedoms of stakeholders. Effective power breeds asymmetric responsibility: the mere ability of a corporation to reduce suffering generates an obligation to act.
The lack of a list of capabilities: main criticisms of Sen's theory
Critics point to two risks: the lack of a list of capabilities can lead to decision-making paralysis, and the most powerful players may try to impose their own definitions of what is important. Sen responds that the weights of capabilities must be the result of ongoing public debate, not top-down decrees.
Government by Discussion: democratizing corporate governance
For Sen, democracy is "government by discussion." This translates into the democratization of corporate governance, where boards must justify decisions to a wide range of stakeholders. This is an iterative process in which every strategy is a hypothesis subject to critique.
Algorithms and Climate: new barriers to justice
New challenges, such as algorithms and climate, require us to ask about capabilities. Does AI not reduce worker autonomy? Does the climate transition not shift costs onto the poorest? Climate justice is the ultimate test for open impartiality toward future generations.
Summary
Amartya Sen's vision is a call to abandon the pursuit of ideal institutions in favor of the practical removal of injustice. Corporate ownership is evolving today toward responsibility for the common good. The true test of our systems remains the figure of the "boy at the station"—a symbol of destroyed opportunities. Justice is realized when we can see the world through the eyes of the excluded and make their capabilities the compass of our actions.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF