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-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:29:33.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Lorella Terzi
Edited by
Harry Brighouse  and
Ingrid Robeyns
Lorella Terzi
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Education at Roehampton University
Harry Brighouse
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ingrid Robeyns
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Get access

Summary

In the 1979 Tanner lecture “Equality of What?” Amartya Sen formulates his well-known critique of John Rawls's conception of equality for failing to respond appropriately to the position of disabled people (Sen 1980). In Sen's view, disabled people are not equally considered by the Rawlsian metric of justice, since their difference in the conversion of primary goods, or general resources, into valuable functionings is fundamentally missed by a framework which excludes any consideration of human heterogeneity. In so doing, Sen maintains, the primary goods metric fails to account for important inequalities among individuals, and it is therefore a limited measure of egalitarian justice.

In response, John Rawls reaffirms the validity of his position by emphasising that social primary goods refer to a conception of individuals' standard endowments, and are therefore flexible enough to respond to a wide range of people's average needs. The framework of justice as fairness, Rawls argues, is intentionally formulated without considering extreme situations, such as disability, which should be addressed at a further stage of analysis (Rawls 2001, pp. 168–76).

The case of disability is indeed paradigmatic of the ongoing debate between proponents of the two main current metrics of justice: the social primary goods, or resourcist approach, and the capability approach.

Keywords

capability approachdisabilitydisabled peopleJohn Rawlsprimary goods metric
Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Justice
Primary Goods and Capabilities
 , pp. 150 - 173
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

Alkire, S. 2002. Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. 1999. “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berges, S. 2007. “Why the Capability Approach is Justified,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24, 1: 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse, H. 2001. “Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?” Social Theory and Practice 27, 4: 537–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. 1990. “Justice as Reciprocity versus Subject-Centered Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, 3: 227–52.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A.et al. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, N. 1985. Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 2003. “Democratic Equality: Rawls's Complex Egalitarianism,” in Freeman, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–76.Google Scholar
French, S. 1993. “Disability, Impairment or Something in Between?” in Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., and Oliver, M. (eds.), Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. A. 2004. Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. F. 1999. Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. F. 2005. “At the Margins of Moral Personhood,” Ethics 116, 1: 100–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahan, J. 2005. “Causing Disabled People to Exist and Causing Disabled People to be Disabled,” Ethics 116, 1: 77–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. 1991. Pride against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability. London: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 2002, Concealment and Exposure and Other Essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. 1996. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T. 2010. “A Critique of the Capabilities Approach,” in Brighouse, H. and Robeyns, I. (eds.), Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2006. “Disability and Human Development.” Paper read at the 2006 International HDCA Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands, 29 August–1 September 2006, available at www.hdca.org. Consulted December 2007.
Rawls, J. 1982. “Social Unity and Primary Goods,” in Sen, A. and Williams, B. (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–85.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. 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
Richardson, H. S. 2006. “Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled,” Journal of Ethics 10: 419–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. S. 2007. “The Social Background of Capabilities for freedoms,” Journal of Human Development 8: 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. “Equality of What?” in McMurrin, S. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–220.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1984. Resources, Values and Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2002. “Response to Commentaries,” Studies in International Comparative Development 27, 2: 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2004a. “Capabilities, Lists and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation,” Feminist Economics 10, 3: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2004b. “Disability and Justice.” Keynote speech, Second International Disability Conference, World Bank.
Shakespeare, T. 1997. “Cultural Representation of Disabled People: Dustbins of Disavowal?” in Barton, L. and Oliver, M. (eds.), Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: Disability Press.Google Scholar
Silvers, A., 1998. “Formal Justice,” in Silvers, A., Wasserman, D., and Mahowald, M. B. (eds.), Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Silvers, A. and Francis, L. 2005. “Justice through Trust: Disability and the ‘Outlier Problem’ in Social Contract Theory,” Ethics, 116, 1: 40–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, C. 2007. “How to Include the Severely Disabled in a Contractarian Theory of Justice,” Journal of Political Philosophy 15, 2: 127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzi, L. 2004. “The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 21, 2: 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzi, L. 2005. “A Capability Perspective on Impairment, Disability and Special Educational Needs: Towards Social Justice in Education,” Theory and Research in Education 3, 2: 197–223.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2008. Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2009. “Vagaries of the Natural Lottery? Human Diversity, Disability and Justice: A Capability Perspective,” in Brownlee, K. and Cureton, A. (eds.), Disability and Disadvantage: Re-Examining Issues in Moral and Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 1999. Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding Disability. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Unterhalter, E. and Brighouse, H. 2007. “Distribution of What for Social Justice in Education? The Case of Education for All by 2015,” in Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds.), Amartya Sen's Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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
×