Abstract
It has been common for researchers and commentators within the discipline of Social and Public Policy to evoke Rawlsian theories of justice. Yet some now argue that the contractualist tradition cannot adequately incorporate, or account for, relations of care, respect and interdependency. Though contractualism has its flaws this article proposes that we should not reject it. Through a critique of one of its most esteemed critics, Martha Nussbaum, it proposes that contractualism can be defended against the capabilities approach she prefers. The article concludes by suggesting how and why the moral philosophy of Thomas Scanlon offers a basis for reconciling the strengths of a contractualist, egalitarian liberalism with those of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This political ‘fuzziness’ becomes important below when reviewing Nussbaum’s views on global capitalism.
Note, the intent here is not to recommend a material resources approach over that of capabilities but, in line with the aim of the article, to suggest that the latter should not be allowed simply to absorb the former.
One referee observed that sceptics of global distributive justice claim that we have humanitarian duties towards the global poor which are not as discretionary as charity. My response is that if such duties are taken to derive from local (usually national) contexts then they will indeed transport too much particularism and thus discretion with them. Therefore such duties must be based upon universal standards that guard against such justificatory frameworks. Ironically, and unfortunately, Miller’s communitarian nationalism and Rawls’ thin universalism both support what I have elsewhere called a ‘minimum demandingness’ view of global justice. My position is therefore closer to the ‘contextualist moral universalism’ of Pogge (and Scanlon, see below). See Fitzpatrick (2008, Ch. 11), Miller (2000), Pogge (2008, pp. 108–110), Rawls (1999).
See Nussbaum (2004, pp. 31–37) for her account of reasonableness, albeit in a philosophical agenda that does not make comparison to Scanlon’s account easy.
How Kantian this is being a matter of some conjecture. O’Neill (2003) characterises him as more Kantian than Rawls, while Scanlon (1998, pp. 5–6; 2003a, b) denies that he is a Kantian at all! Scanlon’s view, though, relies upon a contrast with Kant’s Groundwork and does not take into account the other, anthropological and virtue-based aspects of Kant’s subsequent development.
Though Scanlon here considers only individual animals and not species.
It is in this context that I think Scanlon’s defence of Walzer’s complex equality should be seen.
I should add, against those who imagine that a choice/circumstance distinction supports a kind of individualist neoliberalism, that the point is not to deny Lester healthcare but to reduce the primary, socioeconomic distance between Andrew and Lester by revising social background conditions. A choice/circumstance distinction incorporates the dignity stressed by Anderson but believes that dignity alone cannot determine the just distribution of goods.
References
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.
Barry, Nicholas. 2006. Defending luck egalitarianism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23: 89–107.
Brock, Dan. 1988. Paternalism and autonomy. Ethics 98: 550–565.
Darwall, Stephen. 2006a. The second-person standpoint. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Darwall, Stephen. 2006b. Contractualism, root and branch: A review essay. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34: 404–414.
Deacon, Alan. 2005. An ethic of mutual responsibility? Toward a fuller justification for conditionality in welfare. In Welfare reform and political theory, eds. Lawrence Mead and Christopher Beem, 127–150. New York: Russell Sage.
Deacon, Alan. 2007. Civic labour or ‘Doulia’? Social Policy and Society 6: 481–490.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.
Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, Shelley, and Paul Gellert. 2006. The seductive quality of central human capabilities: Sociological insights into Nussbaum and Sen’s disagreement. Economy and Society 35: 423–452.
Fitzpatrick, Tony. 2003. After the new social democracy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Fitzpatrick, Tony. 2005. The fourth attempt to construct a politics of welfare obligations. Policy & Politics 33: 3–21.
Fitzpatrick, Tony. 2008. Applied ethics and social problems. Bristol: Policy Press.
Hume, David. 1969. A treatise on human nature [1739–40]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hume, David. 1998. An enquiry concerning the principles of morals [1751]. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Practical philosophy. Ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kittay, Eva. 1999. Love’s labor. London: Routledge.
Kittay, Eva. 2006. When caring is just and justice is caring: Justice and mental retardation. Public Culture 13: 559–563.
Knight, Carl. 2005. In defence of luck egalitarianism. Res Publica 11: 55–73.
Lewis, Jane, and Susy Giullari. 2005. The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: The search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society 34: 76–104.
Lister, Ruth. 2002. The dilemmas of pendulum politics: Balancing paid work, care and citizenship. Economy and Society 31: 520–532.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1982. After virtue. London: Duckworth.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1990. Three rival versions of moral inquiry. London: Duckworth.
Malm, Heidi. 2005. Feinberg’s anti-paternalism and the balancing strategy. Legal Theory 11: 193–212.
Matravers, Matt. ed. 2003. Scanlon and contractualism. London: Frank Cass.
Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and national identity. Cambridge: Polity.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1986. The fragility of goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9: 33–59.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Hiding from humanity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice. Harvard: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen, eds. 1993. The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon.
O’Neill, Onora. 2003. Constructivism versus contractualism. Ratio 16: 319–331.
Parfit, Derek. 2001. Equality or priority? In Bioethics, ed. John Harris, 347–386. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pogge, Thomas. 2008. World poverty and human rights, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.
Rawls, John. 1972. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999. The law of peoples. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2000. Lectures on the history of moral philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scanlon, Thomas. 1993. Value, desire, and quality of life. In The quality of life, eds. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, 185–200. Oxford: Clarendon.
Scanlon, Thomas. 1998. What we owe to each other. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Scanlon, Thomas. 2003a. Replies. Ratio 16: 424–439.
Scanlon, Thomas. 2003b. The difficulty of tolerance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schroeter, François. 2004. Reflective equilibrium and antitheory. Nous 38: 110–134.
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2005. Liberalism and paternalism. Legal Theory 11: 169–191.
Tawney, Richard. 2004. The acquisitive society [1921]. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
White, Stuart. 2008. What (if anything) is wrong with inheritance tax? Paper given at Nottingham University, 6th February.
Williams, Fiona. 2002. The presence of feminism in the future of welfare. Economy and Society 31: 502–519.
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to Jonathan Seglow and the referees for their comments and encouragement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitzpatrick, T. From Contracts to Capabilities and Back Again. Res Publica 14, 83–100 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9053-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-008-9053-3