‪This article discusses Amartya Sen’s idea of comparative justice and transpositional agreement. After presenting his approach, we return to three major difficulties that Sen seems to underestimate: a) the point of view that individuals adopt on justice does not only depend on the position of the individual but also on the domain to which they refer when they have a principle of justice in mind; b) the same criterion of justice can be interpreted differently by different people; c) the illusion of position is sometimes shared by the dominated groups, who acquiesce to the criterion developed by the dominant groups, which may result in an unjust partial order.‪