Reducing Sen’s nuanced approach in this speech to a tautology about wealth fundamentally misses the point. His theory is about ensuring equitable access to opportunities and freedoms, recognizing the importance of social, political, and economic contexts, and valuing individual agency beyond mere financial means. Just having more money does not make you more capable even if you consider the advantages of being wealthy.
Tautology nothing else. What is new in this jargon. If someone has enough money he can have everything. This is known to a child as well. Sen has nothing new to offer, he is just playing with words.
It isn’t a tautology that the possession of money entails the possession of capabilities. This can be seen by noting that two people with identical earning power may have (will likely have) different capabilities.
Reducing Sen’s nuanced approach this speech to a tautology about wealth fundamentally misses the point. His theory is about ensuring equitable access to opportunities and freedoms, recognizing the importance of social, political, and economic contexts, and valuing individual agency beyond mere financial means. Just having more money does not make you more capable even if you consider the advantages of being wealthy.
Thanks for uploading this
Great oppertunity hearing your enlighten lecture here...
Highly enlightening and interesting concept but falls short of operanalizatin of the theory.
great
Reducing Sen’s nuanced approach in this speech to a tautology about wealth fundamentally misses the point. His theory is about ensuring equitable access to opportunities and freedoms, recognizing the importance of social, political, and economic contexts, and valuing individual agency beyond mere financial means. Just having more money does not make you more capable even if you consider the advantages of being wealthy.
Message
Tautology nothing else. What is new in this jargon. If someone has enough money he can have everything. This is known to a child as well.
Sen has nothing new to offer, he is just playing with words.
Your comment is pretty much the perfect example of a strawman argument.
It isn’t a tautology that the possession of money entails the possession of capabilities. This can be seen by noting that two people with identical earning power may have (will likely have) different capabilities.
Reducing Sen’s nuanced approach this speech to a tautology about wealth fundamentally misses the point. His theory is about ensuring equitable access to opportunities and freedoms, recognizing the importance of social, political, and economic contexts, and valuing individual agency beyond mere financial means. Just having more money does not make you more capable even if you consider the advantages of being wealthy.