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
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T15:34:31.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Two cheers for capabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Richard J. Arneson
Edited by
Harry Brighouse  and
Ingrid Robeyns
Richard J. Arneson
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy at University of California, San Diego
Harry Brighouse
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ingrid Robeyns
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Get access

Summary

What is the best standard of interpersonal comparison for a broadly egalitarian theory of social justice? A broadly egalitarian theory is one that holds that justice requires that institutions and individual actions should be arranged to improve, to some degree, the quality of life of those who are worse off than others, or very badly off, or both. I shall add the specification that to qualify as broadly egalitarian, the theory must in some circumstances require action to aid the worse off or very badly off even when such action would not maximize the aggregate sum of utility, welfare, or well-being. Any such view needs a standard of interpersonal comparison that allows us to distinguish better-off from worse-off persons. Recently two types of standard have attracted adherents. One is the resource-oriented approach developed by John Rawls and others, and the other is the capability approach associated with the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum 1988, 1999, 2006; Sen and Nussbaum 1990; Sen 1992, 1993; Rawls 1996, 1999). Rawls has affirmed that the proper measure is an index of primary social goods: flexible, multi-purpose resources such that any rational person wants more rather than fewer of them.

Sen presents the capability approach as correcting a basic flaw in Rawls's suggestion. To see the criticism, suppose for simplicity that the resourcist ranks people's condition by their income and wealth (the power to buy whatever goods are available for sale).

Keywords

Amartya Sencapability approachJohn Rawlsprimary social goodssocial justice theory
Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Justice
Primary Goods and Capabilities
 , pp. 101 - 128
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. 1999. “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 1990. “Primary Goods Reconsidered,” Nous 24, 3: 429–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 1998. “Real Freedom and Distributive Justice,” in Laslier, J.-F., Fleurbaey, M., Gravel, N., and Trannoy, A. (eds.), Freedom in Economics: New Perspectives in Normative Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 165–96.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. 2000. “Equal Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted,” Journal of Political Philosophy 7: 488–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 2003. “Equality, Coercion, Culture, and Social Norms,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 2, 2: 139–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 2006. “Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: ‘Good Enough’ Is Not Good Enough,” in Kaufman, A. (ed.), Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17–43.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 2003. “Democratic Equality: Rawls's Complex Egalitarianism,” in Freeman, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–76.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1988. “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (Supplementary Volume), pp. 145–84.
Nussbaum, M. 1999. “Women and Cultural Universals,” in Nussbaum, M. (ed.), Sex and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (esp. chs. 1–3 and 5).Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2000. “Equality or Priority?” in Clayton, M. and Williams, A. (eds.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: Macmillan and St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 2001. “Capability and Freedom: A Defence of Sen,” Economics and Philosophy 17: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T. 2010. “A Critique of the Capability Approach,” in Brighouse, H. and Robegns, I. (eds.), Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1996 [1993]. Political Liberalism (Second Edition). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999 [1971]. A Theory or Justice (Revised Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, S. 2003. “What is Egalitarianism?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1993. “Capability and Well-Being,” in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds.), The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 30–53.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. and Nussbaum, M. C. 1990. “Aristotelian Social Democracy,” in Bruce Douglas, R., Mara, G. M., and Richardson, H. S. (eds.), Liberalism and the Good. New York: Routledge, pp. 203–52.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. 1998. “Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 27: 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×