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
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - Education for primary goods or for capabilities?

    • By Harry Brighouse, Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin, Madison, Elaine Unterhalter, Professor of Education and International Development at the Institute of Education, University of London
  • Edited by Harry Brighouse, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Ingrid Robeyns, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
  • Book:
    Measuring Justice
    Published online:
    05 June 2012
    Print publication:
    28 January 2010, pp 193-214

  • Summary

    The contention of this chapter is that both Rawls's social primary goods theory and Sen and Nussbaum's capabilities approach offer some resources to guide our thinking. One natural move is to say that education is a social primary good in Rawls's sense. Amartya Sen develops the capabilities approach in response to various problems, none of which have directly to do with education, in the social primary goods approach. The primary goods approach, on its face, is ill- suited to dealing with involuntary differences in individuals' abilities to make use of a fixed amount of resources. The main argument made in the chapter is that neither the primary goods approach nor the capabilities approach, in its current state, is adequate to the task of guiding policymakers in deciding what the content and distribution of educational opportunities should be.