* * *
I am delighted that aChinese translation of The Idea of Justice is being published The publishers，China Renmin University Press，are old friends，since they have published my writings before，and Iam grateful to them for making my attempts at understanding the ideas of justice and injustice available to Chinese readers My thinking from my childhood days—but stretching throughout my life—has been strongly influenced by Chinese history and by many ideas originating in China As it happens，my oldest friend is aChinese called Tan Lee，who was born in China in1934and arrived in India in1936，with his father，Tan YunShan，an outstanding Chinese scholar Professor Tan YunShan was the founding Director of“China Bhawan，”the Institute of Chinese Studies in Santiniketan（the progressive educational centre established by the Poet Rabindranath Tagore）I first met Tan Lee when Iwas seven years old We still remain close after seven decades，and it is to Tan Lee and to the memory of his father，the great Tan YunShan，that the Chinese version of The Idea of Justice is being dedicated
Aside from the Chinese influence on my thinking，I have also been keen on presenting to the Chinese readers my own writings，hoping that they would find them to be of some interest，and Ihave always been very happy with the reception that my works have been fortunate to receive in China What happens in China is not only important for China，but also for the rest of the world，including my own country，India When Iwas asked by an Indian journalist last year，in December2011，what was the most pleasing moment for me in the year that was ending，I said that Iwas not absolutely certain，but perhaps it was the moment when astudent from Peking University said at ameeting，in adiscussion following my lecture，that she had been strongly influenced by my writings Since her kind assessment received assent from students sitting around her in this Peking University hall，it was aremarkably happy moment for me
Chinese students know that there are many approaches to the theory of justice，and mine is no more than acontender in the arena of ideas Iwould be very satisfied if they read my offerings on the subject along with studying other approaches to justice
* * *
So，what is this book about？Mainstream theories of justice in contemporary political philosophy differ from each other in many different ways，but they have ageneral approach in common—the approach of“social contract”theory The“social contract”approach was pioneered by Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century，and it has been the most powerful influence in the analysis of justice from the eighteenth century to our own time This way of seeing justice is woven in different ways around the idea of an imagined“social contract”—a hypothetical contract about social organization that the people of asovereign state can be seen to have endorsed and accepted The distinguishing features of the approach include taking the characterization of“just institutions”for agiven society to be the main task of the theory of justice
The contractarian approach has remained the dominant influence in contemporary political philosophy，led by the most prominent political philosopher of our time，John Rawls，whose classic book，A Theory of Justice published in1971，presents afarreaching statement of the social contract approach to justice in the form of what he calls“justice as fairness”The principal theories of justice in contemporary political philosophy—coming not only from Rawls but also from Robert Nozick，Ronald Dworkin，David Gauthier and others（though different from each other in terms of the diagnosis of exactly what the social contract demands）share in common the idea of asocial contract that identifies ideal social institutions Dworkins ideal social institutions are not the same as those of Rawls，nor are the Rawlsian ideal institutions the same as those of Nozicks，but they have all tended to see the theory of justice as being engaged in identifying aparticular set of“ideal social institutions”Since these institutions have to be implemented，they all need asovereign state that does the work in line with the identified social contract And that dependence on asovereign state makes the applicability of the social contract approach to justice confined to inpidual countries，disallowing the very idea of global justice
There was，however，another approach to justice that also emerged at about the same time in the works of other Enlightenment theorists These theorists did not erect afully developed structure of atheory of justice，but acluster of important ideas from which the ingredients of adifferent approach—different from the social contract approach—can be developed，for an alternative understanding of the demands of justice These thinkers—the list here will include Adam Smith，the Marquis de Condorcet and Mary Wollstonecraft in the eighteenth century，and Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth，among many others，took avariety of approaches that differed in many ways from each other，but shared acommon interest in making comparisons between different ways in which peoples lives may go，jointly influenced by the working of institutions，peoples actual behaviour，their social interactions，and other factors that significantly impact on what actually happens My attempt at advancing atheory of justice can be seen as adevelopment based on that alternative approach
The analytical—and rather mathematical—discipline of“social choice theory，”which had its origin in the works of French mathematicians in the eighteenth century，in particular Condorcet but also others like Borda，and which has been revived and reformulated in our times by Kenneth Arrow，belongs robustly to this second line of investigation Ihave been particularly involved in developing constructive possibilities in social choice（these possibilities are quite extensive），presenting aseries of results about social aggregation Some of my writings in this area have been translated in Chinese and are available to Chinese readers While this book，The Idea of Justice，is entirely nonmathematical，I have made informal use of the discipline of social choice theory in the arguments presented here
* * *
There are three principal departures in the theory of justice Iam presenting，in contrast with the social contract approach First，rather than beginning with asking what is perfect justice（a question in the answer to which there could be substantial differences even among very reasonable people），I argue for following Condorcet and Smith in asking about the identification of clear cases of injustice on which agreement could emerge on the basis of reasoning In arguing，for example，for the abolition of slavery，as both the Marquis the Condorcet and Adam Smith did，they did not have to seek an agreement on the nature of the perfectly just society
Second，our focus need not be only on institutions（as in the social contract approach，which is interested primarily on the identification of“just institutions”）We can examine，instead，the nature of the lives that people are actually able to lead，which will of course depend partly on the institutions chosen，but not only on them We can take direct note of peoples lives and freedoms，including what they are able to do with their lives（the term“capability”is used to represent these freedoms）
Third，unlike the social contract approach which，by construction，must be confined to the people of aparticular sovereign state，the alternative approach can involve people from anywhere in the world，since the focus is on reasoning and，when possible，reasoned agreement，rather than on astatebased social contract to be implemented by asovereign state The departure makes reasoning on“global justice”possible，which is essential for addressing such problems as global warming，or global economic crises，or prevention and management of global pandemics，such as the AIDS epidemic There can be many agreements that globally emerge on the basis of crossborder discussions，but they cannot be presumed on the basis of decisions taken in one part of the world，excluding arguments coming from different quarters The failure，for example，of the Copenhagen Summit on the environment in2009，which was preceded by very little open public discussion across the globe，illustrates the futility of omitting global dialogue in running the affairs of the world There were differences of perspectives between，say，the Europeans and newly emerging industrial countries，such as China，India and Brazil，and these differences were not sorted out on the basis of open and interactive public reasoning
Each of the departures relate to answering the questions：what kind of atheory of justice do we need for understanding the demands of justice，and what actions do we have good reasons to undertake？The Idea of Justice is an attempt to discuss the discipline of enhancing justice and remedying intolerable injustices in the world Its application is aimed to be global，and not just national or local Ivery much hope that my Chinese readers will find the problems discussed here to be as exciting as Ihave found them to be
Amartya Sen