Rawlsian social-contract theory and the severely disabled

Journal of Ethics 10 (4):419 - 462 (2006)
Martha Nussbaum has powerfully argued in Frontiers ofJustice and elsewhere that John Rawls’s sort of social-contract theory cannot usefully be deployed to deal with issues pertaining to justice for the disabled. To counter this claim, this article deploys Rawls’s sort of social-contract theory in order to deal with issues pertaining to justice for the disabled—or, since, as Nussbaum stresses, we all have some degree of disability—for the severely disabled. In this way, rather than questioning one by one Nussbaum’s interpretive claims about Rawls’s view, one can simply see how the Rawlsian framework can work in application to this issue. Following Rawls’s lead, the paper utilizes the idealized “initial choice situation” as an analytic and comparative device for examining alternative principles of justice, developing three different interpretations of the initial choice situation that each correspond to a different set of principles that apply to people of all levels of disability. One of these sets of principles is a simple extension of Rawls’s, one is very close to what Nussbaum herself recommends, and the third is a kind of hybrid. In this way, it is shown not only that Rawls’s social-contract device can usefully be applied to these issues, but also that it is helpful for exploring the deep commitments underlying each of these competing sets of principles.
Keywords Disability  justice  Martha Nussbaum  John Rawls  reciprocity  social contract  veil of ignorance
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,651
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Christie Hartley (2011). Disability and Justice. Philosophy Compass 6 (2):120-132.
Gabriele Badano (2014). Political Liberalism and the Justice Claims of the Disabled: A Reconciliation. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (4):1-22.
Ryan Reed (2013). Are the Kids Alright? Rawls, Adoption, and Gay Parents. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):969-982.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Evan Riley (2011). Against Sen Against Rawls On Justice. Indian Journal of Human Development 5 (1):211-221.
Cynthia A. Stark (2009). Contractarianism and Cooperation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):73-99.
János Kis (2002). Behind the Veil of Ignorance. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):131-159.
Philip Pettit (1974). A Theory of Justice? Theory and Decision 4 (3-4):311-324.
Fabienne Peter (2009). Rawlsian Justice. In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press 433--456.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

114 ( #38,886 of 1,902,542 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #268,990 of 1,902,542 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.