Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) ›› 2019, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (4): 58-65.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2019.04.008

Previous Articles     Next Articles

On Amartya Sen’s Criticism and Response of Traditional Rationality

REN Jun   

  1. School of Marxism, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
  • Online:2019-07-25 Published:2019-07-25

Abstract: Rational choice theory has been widely employed in modern social science and practical philosophy. According to its basic hypothesis, the essence of rationality is to maximize self-interest or to realize self-goal. Such a view of rationality was criticized by Amartya Sen who claimed that neither self-interest nor self-goal could adequately characterize the requirement of rational choice. In his view, a rational choice is one that would survive the critical scrutiny of the chooser. All types of reasons and considerations, Amartya Sen held, should be included in the space of rational thinking, while the freedom to adopt the reasons he or she appreciates should be given. Sen’s theory, though having broadened our understanding of rationality, can not serve as one approach to justice.

Key words: Amartya Sen, rational choice, self-interest, self-goal, critical scrutiny

CLC Number: 

  • B561.5
[1] 陈嘉映. 何为良好生活:行之于途而应于心[M]. 上海:上海文艺出版社, 2015.
[2] 亚当·斯密. 道德情操论[M]. 蒋自强,等译. 北京:商务印书馆, 2014.
[3] Amartya K. Sen. Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory[J]. Philosophy &Public Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1977.
[4] Philip Pettit. Construing Sen on Commitment[M]// Rationality and Commitment , ed. Fabienne Peter and Hans Bernhard Schmid, Oxford University Press, 2007.
[5] Amartya Sen. The Idea of Justice[M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
[6] Amartya Sen. Rationality and Freedom[M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
[7] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice[M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
[8] 金里卡. 当代政治哲学[M]. 刘莘, 译. 上海:上海三联书店, 2004.
[9] John Rawls. Political Liberalism[M]. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
[10] W. M. Sibley. The Rational Versus the Reasonable[J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 62, No. 4, 1953.
[11] T. M. Scanlon. What We Owe to Each Other[M]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 1 -10 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 11 -17 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 37 -41 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 42 -47 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 48 -54 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 55 -60 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 67 -75 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 76 -80 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 81 -88 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 54(3): 96 -102 .