Justice Between Consequences and Capabilities: A Comparative Study of Ethics of Social Consequences and Sen’s Idea of Justice

This paper compares the ethics of social consequences’ (ESC) and Amartya Sen’s accounts of justice, to explore their similarities and differences and how they can productively inform practice. Methodologically, I use Sen’s framework as a heuristic lens to evaluate and refine ESC. The focus is asymmetric; I evaluate ESC’s account of justice while drawing on Sen when it helps identify limits or suggest improvements. I then illustrate the practical stakes with a brief application to pharmacy ethics. The analysis shows that ESC’s strengths are its clear, outcome-oriented guidance and its contextual flexibility. It offers practical criteria for decisions that seek the prevalence of positive social consequences and supports equitable resource use. However, ESC pays less explicit attention to individual capabilities, democratic engagement, and public reasoning. Sen’s approach complements these gaps by emphasising real opportunities for individuals to live lives they value and by highlighting transparency and inclusive deliberation. I argue for a capability-informed refinement of ESC that keeps ESC’s practical focus on consequences while adding capability-based safeguards (a minimum capability floor, non-discrimination, and a requirement of public justification). In pharmacy ethics this yields transparent, defensible rationing principles that balance overall benefit with respect for individuals.