David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Henry S. Richardson (2011). Interpreting Rawls: An Essay on Audard, Freeman, and Pogge. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 15 (3):227-251.
Christie Hartley (2011). Disability and Justice. Philosophy Compass 6 (2):120-132.
Ryan Reed (2013). Are the Kids Alright? Rawls, Adoption, and Gay Parents. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):969-982.
Gabriele Badano (2013). Political Liberalism and the Justice Claims of the Disabled: A Reconciliation. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (4):1-22.
Sophia Isako Wong (2009). Duties of Justice to Citizens with Cognitive Disabilities. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):382-401.
Similar books and articles
Evan Riley (2011). Against Sen Against Rawls On Justice. Indian Journal of Human Development 5 (1):211-221.
Deborah A. Kissinger (2003). Renegotiating the Social Contract: Hobbes to Rawls. Dissertation, University of Hawai'i
Cynthia A. Stark (2009). Contractarianism and Cooperation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):73-99.
Kimberly K. Smith (2008). Animals and the Social Contract. Environmental Ethics 30 (2):195-207.
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.
Samuel Richard Freeman (2007). Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
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.
Jonathan Quong (2007). Contractualism, Reciprocity, and Egalitarian Justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):75-105.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads97 ( #19,274 of 1,699,805 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #39,449 of 1,699,805 )
How can I increase my downloads?