There is also the aspect of taking positions that are quite inadequate. It is important that clear distinctions be carried out as these will greatly help to have an apparent view on the whole issue or topic. Sen is very firm about normative and substantive claims. There is however the avoiding of the entire commitment to the justice theory. Considering the theories, there is expression of scepticism on the issue of proritism. There needs to be a choice between prioritism and sufficientarism because this will greatly help erase ambiguities that exist among theorists. (Roemer, 1996)
There are views that actually emerge as criticisms to other theorist. Looking at theorists work there needs to be a choice between sufficientarism and prioritism because there needs to be some measure of one's condition which is relevant to the entire allocation of alterable aspects. This is in line with the theorist of justice. This is because an issue like justice requires equality. In this case when a choice is made then one can easily determine whether there are unequal or equal conditions in a circumstance.
The reason as to why theorists need to choose between prioritism and sufficientarism is because these two aspects are always in conflict. Among theorists there is great formulation of sufficientarism as a claim of identity. On the other hand, this aspect is not seen as a claim virtue. Theorists also need to choose between sufficientarism and prioritism because research reveals that the theorists' work of primitivisms or non reductive sifficientarism is quite incompatible with various aspects of prioritism. In case there are any aspects of sufficientarism in the theorists' work, then the entire sensorial seems to be the exact opposite of prioritism.
There has always been a wonder on the issue of prioritism differing with the sufficientarism concept. According to the sufficientarism view, there is the holding on various sets of physical facts that normally determine an individuals experimental properties which in most cases are very separate from other facts that are quite non experimental in nature. Looking at restricted prioritism there is a clear denial of these claims. (Roemer, 1996)
When there is actually restricted prioritism amongst theorists there is a strong implication of desires, beliefs and other requirements that actually have the whole potential of having many of the properties that are quite experimental in nature. There is normally the argument with the entire compatibility of reductive sufficientarism and also the issues of prioitism. There is normally a wonder as to whether there are experiential properties that make theorists lie in between the two aspects of sufficientarism and prioritism. According to various scholars the form of sufficientarism in which one person desires and believes in is greatly characterized or rather determined by various relations that exist between internal states that are physical and also external states.
When theorists fail to choose between the two aspects of prioritism and sufficientarism, then there automatically arise the issues of interpretation and constraints. One of the major constraints that arise when theorists fail to choose between one of the two aspects, that is prioritism and sufficientarism is that there is bound to be the constraint of interpretation in desires, beliefs and the rationalization concerning the various theories. This is in line with