Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:47:32.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Capabilities, opportunity, and health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Norman Daniels
Edited by
Harry Brighouse  and
Ingrid Robeyns
Norman Daniels
Affiliation:
Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Population Ethics and Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard University
Harry Brighouse
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ingrid Robeyns
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Get access

Summary

HISTORY OF A CONTROVERSY

Should we focus on human capabilities, as Sen (1980, 1999) and Nussbaum and Sen (1993, 2000) propose, albeit with differences in their views, or on Rawls's (1971, 1993) account of primary social goods, when we think about health and health policy? In this paper I argue that there is more convergence than difference between an account of justice and health that focuses on opportunity, properly construed, and one that sees the target of justice as protecting human capabilities. To make my case, I shall have to say more about what such an opportunity-based account looks like and compare the kinds of claims it supports about health policy with those based on capabilities. Both approaches, I shall also argue, must be supplemented with an account of fair deliberative process in order to achieve legitimacy in priority setting. First, however, I want to go back to the origins of the dispute about the target of justice.

Sen's advocacy of capabilities as the target of egalitarian concerns – the relevant space in which we care about inequalities among persons – originated as a response to an idealizing simplification Rawls makes in constructing his theory of justice as fairness. Rawls, as is well known, assumes that his hypothetical contractors who are seeking fair terms of cooperation are fully functional over a normal lifespan.

Keywords

egalitarianhealthhuman capabilitiesjusticeopportunity
Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Justice
Primary Goods and Capabilities
 , pp. 131 - 149
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. 1999. “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. 1973. “Some Ordinalist-Utilitarian Notes on Rawls's Theory of Justice,” Journal of Philosophy 70, 9: 251.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A.et al. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1993. “Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods, and Capabilities,” in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds.), The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1995. “Sen on Equality,” Journal of Philosophy 92: 275–88.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 1975. Reading Rawls: Critical Studies of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 1978. “Merit and Meritocracy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 8, 3: 206–23.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 1979. “Rights to Health Care: Programmatic Worries,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 4, 2: 174–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 1981. “Health Care Needs and Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 10, 2: 146–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 1985. Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 1993. “Rationing Fairly: Programmatic Considerations,” Bioethics 7, 2–3: 224–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 1999. “Enabling Democratic Deliberation: How Managed Care Organizations Ought to Make Decisions about Coverage for New Technologies,” in Macedo, S., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 198–210.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 2003. “Democratic Equality: Rawls's Complex Egalitarianism,” in Freeman, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–76.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 2008. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, N., Kennedy, B., and Kawachi, I. 1999. “Why Justice is Good for our Health: The Social Determinants of Health Inequalities,” Daedalus 128, 4: 215–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N., Kennedy, B., and Kawachi, I. 2000. Is Inequality Bad for Our Health?Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. and Sabin, J. 1997. “Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26, 4: 303–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. and Sabin, J. 1998. “Last Chance Therapies and Managed Care. Pluralism, Fair Procedures, and Legitimacy,” The Hastings Center Report 28, 2: 27–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N.et al. 2005. “An Evidence-based Approach to Benchmarking the Fairness of Health-sector Reform in Developing Countries,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 83, 7: 534–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1993. Morality, Mortality, vol. 1. Death and Whom to Save from It. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmot, M. 2004. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York: Henry Holt, Times Books.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1995 [1993]. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1995 [1971]. A Theory of Justice. (Revised Edition) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1980. “Equality of What?” in McMurrin, S. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–220.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2007. “Can Justice Help Practice?” Presentation at Harvard, May 18 2007.
Taurek, J. M. 1977. “Should the Numbers Count?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, 4: 293–316.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×