Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Clarifications 109 choice-making process. Thus, we will shift our normative concern from capabilities to functionings for those who are incapable of deciding for themselves. In empirical research, this implies, for example, that it is fine to study the quality of life of small children by focussing on a range of functionings (e.g. Phipps 2002). But the paternalism claim is not limited to the case of infants and the severely cognitively disabled: one could also apply this argument — at least to some extent and in some areas — to all adults. Adults, too, often make systematically irrational or mistaken choices. We are often not able to choose what is best for us simply because of our psychological makeup; many of our choices are the result of the impulsive, unreflective, habit-driven part of our brain rather than the deliberative and reflective part. There is mounting empirical evidence of our systematic failures in choice-making, that we are influenced by a large number of arbitrary factors in making choices and that we often harm our own interests in non-deliberate and non-intentional ways (e.g. Ariely 2010; Kahneman 2011). It is entirely consistent for a capability theory to argue that we have strong reasons to protect people against their own systematic irrationalities, just as it is consistent for the capability approach to argue that there are stronger reasons why we should allow people to make the errors that follow from their own systematic irrationalities: both positions follow from choices made in the B-modules. Summing up, we have here a first normative consideration that can help us to decide whether some (limited or fuller) focus on functionings rather than capabilities is acceptable, namely the question of whether there are mechanisms that justify paternalism. A second normative consideration in the choice between capabilities and functionings stems from the importance given to personal responsibility in contemporary political philosophy. If one believes that the moral aim should be to establish equality of opportunity, then it follows that one should, at least as an ideal, favour equality of capability over equality of functionings. If equality of capability becomes the ideal, then each person should have the same real opportunity (capability), but once that is in place, each individual should be held responsible for his or her own choices. It is important to stress, however, that philosophers and social scientists working on issues of social justice do not at all agree on whether equality of opportunity (capabilities)
110 Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice should be the goal, rather than equality of outcome (functionings). On the one hand, the responsibility-sensitivity principle is widely endorsed not only in political philosophy but also in the mathematical models being developed in normative welfare economics. If one wants to endorse and implement this principle of responsibility-sensitivity, then specifications and applications of the capability approach should focus on capabilities, rather than functionings. On the other hand, scholars have objected to the weight given to personal responsibility, both within the highly abstract theorising about ideals and when considering more applied and practical issues. At a highly abstract theoretical level, philosophers disagree on whether we should endorse responsibilitysensitivity in developing the capability approach (Fleurbaey 2002; Vallentyne 2005; Wolff and De-Shalit 2007). Moreover, for applied work, serious epistemological hurdles may ultimately lead us to drop the responsibility-sensitivity principle for practical reasoning about the actual world: in practice, it is often impossible to know what the causal factors were that led someone to make decisions that lowered her achieved wellbeing, and hence it is difficult or even impossible to know whether the causal factors are those for which one could be held morally responsible or not. Thirdly, there may be institutional considerations that have an influence on whether we choose functionings, capabilities, or a mixture (Robeyns 2016b). Take the example of a government that has, with the broad support of the population, set up a welfare state arrangement, which includes certain welfare rights. Then this government may demand from citizens who want to be part of this societal arrangement that they proactively aim to master, secure, or maintain certain functionings, such as being able to read and write, or to speak a language that does not exclude one from holding a job. A welfare state arrangement that offers citizens relatively generous welfare rights can legitimately induce or perhaps even force citizens and legal residents to choose certain functionings that are needed in order to justly participate in that welfare state arrangement. But here, again, one has to pay attention to detail and be careful, since we would want to distinguish between those who didn’t exercise a functioning but had the capability versus those who didn’t exercise a functioning but due to inability didn’t have the capability in the first place. For example, if the political community believes that it is
Page 1 and 2:
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justi
Page 4 and 5:
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Acknowledgements 3 1. Intr
Page 8 and 9:
3. Clarifications 89 3.1 Introducti
Page 10:
4.7 What about power and political
Page 14 and 15:
Acknowledgements In 1998, when I st
Page 16 and 17:
Acknowledgements 5 the capability a
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction Many people who en
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction 9 capability approa
Page 22 and 23:
1. Introduction 11 Moreover, it bri
Page 24 and 25:
1. Introduction 13 Countries Outsi
Page 26 and 27:
1. Introduction 15 capabilities of
Page 28 and 29:
1. Introduction 17 their collaborat
Page 30 and 31:
1. Introduction 19 This book has a
Page 32 and 33:
2. Core Ideas and the Framework Th
Page 34 and 35:
2. Core Ideas and the Framework 23
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: 2. Core Ideas and the Framework 59
Page 98: 2. Core Ideas and the Framework 87
Page 101 and 102: 90 Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Ju
Page 111 and 112: 100 Wellbeing, Freedom and Social J
Page 119: 108 Wellbeing, Freedom and Social J
Page 171 and 172:
160 Wellbeing, Freedom and Social J
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 262 and 263:
Index abortion 15, 145 advantage 25
Page 264 and 265:
Index 253 Fleurbaey, Marc 154 flour
Page 266 and 267:
Index 255 political institutions 14
Page 268:
show all

Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?