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

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

    • By Lorella Terzi, Senior Lecturer in Education at Roehampton University
  • 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 150-173

  • Summary

    This chapter argues that a metric based on Sen's capability approach suggests a more promising, and to a certain extent, more just scheme, than one based on social primary goods. It is divided into two sections. In the first section, the chapter discusses the main elements of the primary goods metric in relation to disability. The second section outlines the capability metric and comparatively considers its merits over the "rival" approach. John Rawls broadly defines social primary goods as those "all-purpose means" and resources that free and equal moral persons need for "carrying out their plans in life". While disabilities caused by social factors receive attention under the social primary goods metric, those resulting from natural causes, such as "any combination of ordinary genetic variations, self-caused factors, and differential luck" are more problematic, and give rise to different and more controversial responses.