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

2. Core Ideas and the Framework
69
our religious identities are a matter of rational deliberation and decisionmaking,
then we will judge the choice to physically self-harm because of
one’s religion differently than if we have an account of identity where
there is much less scope for choice and rational deliberation regarding
our religious affiliation or other group memberships.
In short, different ontological and explanatory options are available
in module C1, and they may have effects on various other elements or
dimensions of the capability theory that are being constructed. However,
we should be careful and not mistakenly conclude that ‘anything goes’
when we add additional ontological theories, since there should not be
any conflicts with the propositions of the A-module — and, in addition,
some ontological and explanatory accounts are much better supported
by critical analysis and empirical knowledge.
For some capability theories, the prioritising, weighing or aggregating
of dimensions (functionings and capabilities) may not be needed. For
example, one may simply want to describe how a country has developed
over time in terms of a number of important functionings, as a way of
giving information about the evolution of the quality of life that may
give different insights than the evolution of GDP (e.g. Van Zanden
et al. 2014). Weighing dimensions is therefore not required for each
capability theory or capability application, in contrast to the selection of
dimensions, which is inevitable.
However, for some other choices that one can make in B1, the
capabilitarian scholar or practitioner needs to make choices related to
the weighing of the different dimensions. If that is the case, then there are
different methods for how one could weigh. When considering which
weighing method to use, the same factors are relevant as in the case of
selecting the dimensions: the purposes of one’s capability theory, and
the constraints one has to take into account when choosing a method.
In contrast to the overview works that have been written on how to
select dimensions (e.g. Alkire 2002; Robeyns 2005a; Byskov forthcoming),
capability scholars have written much less about which methods one
could use to decide on the weights given to each dimension, specifically