lowry senyneutralidad

8/12/2019 Lowry SENyneutralidad

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lowry-senyneutralidad 1/23

Beyond Equality of What: Sen and Neutrality*

Christopher LowryDepartment of Philosophy, ueen!s "ni#ersity

$hristopher%r%lowry&'mail%$om

Paper presented at Liberal Neutrality: A Re-evaluation

C()", ontr+al, u+e$, ay -rd, .//0

1he influen$e of 2martya Sen!s $apaility approa$h e3tends a$ross a numer ofa$ademi$ dis$iplines and politi$al $onte3ts%4 Within politi$al philosophy, the$apaility approa$h. is prin$ipally re'arded as an important $ontriution to themetri$ of ad#anta'e deate, alon'side su$h other metri$s as (awls!s so$ial primary 'oods, Dwor5in!s resour$es, Cohen!s a$$ess to ad#anta'e, and 2rneson!sopportunity for welfare, amon' others%- 1his paper demonstrates that Sen!sar'uments and position also ear on the lieral deate aout neutrality #ersus

perfe$tionism%6

Sen himself has shied away from enterin' into this se$ond deate%7

1his is unfortunate% 8n$e his #iew!s impli$ations for lieral neutrality are spelledout, the $apaility approa$h yields a distin$ti#e alternati#e in9etween thestandard #ersions of neutrality and perfe$tionism, whi$h will refer to as public

value liberalism%;

* 1his paper is a sli'htly modified #ersion of a wor5in' paper posted on the Philosophy (esear$h Networ5, entitled <Beyond Equality of What: Sen!s Capaility 2pproa$h and its mpli$ations forLieral Neutrality= >http:??papers%ssrn%$om?sol-?papers%$fm@astra$tAid4/0-% For helpful$omments on earlier drafts am espe$ially indeted to Christine Sypnowi$h and Will Gymli$5a% would also li5e to than5 Herome Bi$5ena$h, 2manda Iieault, (ahul Gumar, Jenry Lay$o$5,2ndrew Lister, 2listair a$leod, Him olos, ar'aret oore, Henny SKende, and parti$ipants at

the ueen!s Department of Philosophy Colloquium and the annual meetin's of the CanadianPhilosophi$al 2sso$iation, the Western Canadian Philosophi$al 2sso$iation, the North 2meri$anSo$iety for So$ial Philosophy, and the So$iety of alue nquiry% 1he resear$h for this paper wasfunded in part y the 8ntario Iraduate S$holarship pro'ram%4 Sen de#elops his #iew in a numer of wor5s, see espe$ially Inequality Reexamined >New Mor5:(ussell Sa'e, 4. <Capaility and Well9Bein',= in The Quality of Life, ed% artha Nussaumand 2martya Sen, -/97- >83ford: 83ford "ni#ersity Press, and evelopment as !reedom >NewMor5: 2n$hor, 4%. 1he $apaility approa$h has een ta5en up and de#eloped y many othersOnotaly, artha

Nussaum, !rontiers of "ustice: isability# Nationality# $pecies %embership >Camrid'e, 2:Bel5nap, .//;% y dis$ussion here is $onfined to Sen!s arti$ulation%- Hohn (awls, A Theory of "ustice >Camrid'e, 2: Bel5nap, 44, "ustice as !airness: A

Restatement , ed% Erin Gelly >Camrid'e, 2: Bel5nap, .//4, (onald Dwor5in, $overei&n

'irtue: The Theory and (ractice of )quality >Camrid'e, 2: Jar#ard "ni#ersity Press, .///,I% 2% Cohen, <8n the Curren$y of E'alitarian Husti$e,= )thics >40: /;966, (i$hard2rneson, <Equality and Equal 8pportunity for Welfare,= (hilosophical $tudies 7; >40: 9-%1his deate was laun$hed into prominen$e lar'ely y Sen, <Equality of What@,= in The Tanner

Lectures on *uman 'alues, #ol% i, ed% Sterlin' $urrin, -7-9; >Salt La5e City: "ni#ersity of"tah Press, 40/%6 1his $onne$tion has also een noted y 1homas Jur5a, <Capaility, Fun$tionin', andPerfe$tionism,= Apeiron -7 >.//.: 4-9;.%7 See, howe#er, Sen, Inequality, , n% 4., and 07, n% .;%; owe this $hara$teriKation of the paper!s ar'ument to Will Gymli$5a%

4



ha#e three aims in this paper: >i to show that Sen!s $apaility approa$his at odds with (awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion of neutrality >ii to $ar#e out athird spa$e in the neutrality deate and >iii to e'in to de#elop, from Sen!sapproa$h, the idea of puli$ #alue lieralism as a position that falls within thatthird spa$e%

1he first of these tas5s in#ol#es e3plainin' how the mo#e to $apaility isnot only a mo#e away from primary 'oods, it is also a mo#e away from (awls!sa$$ount of lieral neutrality% identify three interrelated features of Sen!sapproa$h that are at odds with (awls!s neutralism% First, Sen ree$ts (awls!s ideaof a stri$tly politi$al $on$eption of autonomy% Se$ond, Sen shows little interest in$onfinin' himself to reasons, ideas and #alues that are politi$al in the (awlsiansense%0 1hird, Sen!s #iew does not $onfine our $olle$ti#e e#aluation of the 'oodlife to the so$ial domain of $i#il so$iety%

1o ta$5le the se$ond tas5, ar'ue that the neutrality deate deals not onlywith the question of whether sustantial e#aluation of the 'ood has a pla$e in the politi$al domain, ut also with the question of whether politi$al philosophy should

ha#e an aspirational $ommitment, as opposed to $onfinin' its attention to$onditions of le'itima$y% 1he neutrality deate thus has a le'itimation9aspirationdimension as well as a neutrality9perfe$tionism dimensionOwith le'itimationtypi$ally oined to neutrality, and aspiration to perfe$tionism% Jowe#er, there isno in$oheren$e in the idea of perfe$tionism moti#ated y le'itimation%

1he third tas5 in#ol#es ar'uin' that Qperfe$tion for le'itimation! is an aptdes$ription of the position aout neutrality that $an e de#eloped from Sen!s$apaility approa$h% defend that $hara$terisation y identifyin' the le'itima$y9oriented reasons for ree$tin' primary 'oods in fa#our of a metri$ that see5s toaddress human differen$e, in$ludin' illness and disaility%

1he paper pro$eeds in fi#e se$tions% e'in with a rief dis$ussion of theneutrality #ersus perfe$tionism deate and Sen!s $omments thereupon% thenoutline (awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion of neutralism and e3plain the role of primary 'oods within it% >1he se$ond se$tion $an e s5ipped y readers who arealready familiar with the topi$% Ne3t e3plain Sen!s oe$tion to primary 'oodsand its $onne$tion to the question of state le'itima$y% n the fourth se$tion, e3plain why and how Sen!s $apaility approa$h 'i#es importan$e to the puli$e#aluation of the #alue of a$ti#ities and states of ein'% 1he final se$tion $ontainsmy defen$e of the $laim that Sen!s $apaility approa$h puts him at odds with(awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion of neutralism, and of the $laim that Sen!s #iewyields a distin$ti#e third position in the neutrality #ersus perfe$tionism deate%>2lso in$luded is an optional posts$ript, in whi$h dis$uss Norman Daniels!se3tension of (awls, ar'uin' that it does not res$ue (awlsian neutralism and that puli$ #alue lieralism pro#ides a etter fit for Daniels!s approa$h to usti$e andhealth%I: NEUTRALITY VERSUS PERFECTIONISM

elie#e that my ar'uments $an e e3tended to other defenses of lieral neutrality, ut that is eyond the s$ope of this paper%0 artha Nussaum defends her #iew as a form of (awlsian politi$al lieralism, see Nussaum,

!rontiers% ha#e douts that this defen$e wor5s, e#en if her #ersion of the $apaility approa$h isattra$ti#e in other ways%

.



Lieral neutrality is a position aout what ma5es the authority of the statele'itimate% 1he le'itima$y question is a #e3in' one for lierals e$ause theydefend the $laim that <politi$al power is always $oer$i#e power= to'ether with a#iew of the person that 'i#es pride of pla$e to indi#idual freedom% 1he tas5, then,

is to pro#ide a ustifi$ation of the so$ial and institutional arran'ements shaped >orshapeale y the state!s power that all memers of so$iety $an defensily ee3pe$ted to e ale to re$on$ile with their freedom and equality as $itiKens%Lieral neutralists $laim that when a so$iety $ontains a di#ersity of world #iewsthat respe$t the ri'hts of others, any defensile ustifi$ation of state authority must e a neutral one that does not appeal to $laims aout the intrinsi$ superiority ofany parti$ular $on$eption of the 'ood%4/

State perfe$tionism $omes in many forms, not all of them lieral% 44 Whatthey share in $ommon is the defense of at least some de'ree of oe$ti#ity aout#alue paired with the $laim that the state should play a role in the promotion ofoe$ti#e #alue% NietKs$hean perfe$tionism pursues that 'oal y funnelin' so$ial

resour$es into the produ$tion of a few e3traordinary spe$imens of humanity%Communitarian perfe$tionism instru$ts the state to promote a sin'le shared$ommon way of life% n lieral #ersions, perfe$tionist 'oals are tempered yre$o'nition of the #alue of $ultural pluralism >$ontra $ommunitarianism and a$ommitment to e'alitarianism >$ontra NietKs$he%4. 1his paper is $on$erned onlywith the third 'roup% Lieral perfe$tionists defend state a$tions that are ustified y an appeal to a limited oe$ti#e $on$eption of well9ein' >limited in the sensethat it y no means en$ompasses all aspe$ts of life and they do so for e'alitarianreasons4- and in a way that aims to 'i#e due wei'ht to the importan$e of $itiKensha#in' the freedom and opportunity to pursue a plurality of $on$eptions of the'ood% Note that perfe$tionism so des$ried is, li5e neutralism, a position aout the ustifi$ation of state a$tions%46

Some alternati#e des$riptions of the deate $hara$teriKe perfe$tionism asany #iew defendin' state a$ti#ities that promoteOy intention or in effe$tO parti$ular ways of life o#er others%47 find su$h des$riptions unhelpful% Neutralistlieralism fa#ors ways of life that do not #iolate the ri'hts of others, that are$ondu$i#e to a puli$ ethos of $i#ility, and that support the sur#i#al and

(awls, Restatement , 6/%4/ Will Gymli$5a, +ontemporary (olitical (hilosophy: An Introduction, .nd% ed% >83ford: 83ford"ni#ersity Press, .//., .40%44 Perfe$tionism $an also e de#eloped as a stri$tly ethi$al #iew% y fo$us here is perfe$tionismwithin politi$al theory%4.

2lthou'h $ommunitarians $an a$$ept that there are many different #aluale ways of li#in'>inter9$ommunity pluralism, to the e3tent that they are $ommitted to fosterin' the onds of$ommunity #ia a sin'le shared way of life, their position is at odds with intra9$ommunity

pluralism%4- For instan$e, that the well9ein' of ea$h $itiKen is of equal and oe$ti#e importan$e% Cf%Dwor5in, $overei&n 'irtue, 7%46 Ste#en Wall, <Perfe$tionism in oral and Politi$al Philosophy,= in The $tanford )ncyclopedia

of (hilosophy, Sprin' .// ed%, ed% Edward Ralta,http:??plato%stanford%edu?ar$hi#es?spr.//?entries?perfe$tionism9moral?%47 See Gymli$5a, Introduction, 4/%

-



stren'thenin' of lieral demo$rati$ norms and neutralists defend the state promotion of su$h ways of life on the asis of neutral ustifi$ations%4; 1he anti9 perfe$tionism of lieral neutrality is est lo$ated at the le#el of state ustifi$ation%

1he fo$us on ustifi$ation, howe#er, tends to underemphasiKe anotherfeature of the positionsOnamely, that perfe$tionist theories typi$ally ha#e an

aspirational quality, whi$h is often asent in neutralist theories% Lieral perfe$tionism is typi$ally moti#ated y a pro'ressi#e politi$s that is $on$erned toad#an$e the well9ein' or human flourishin' of all $itiKens, parti$ularly thosewhose a$$ess to #aluale a$ti#ities is hampered y e$onomi$ disad#anta'e%4 1hisamitious #iew of the purpose and s$ope of state authority depends on at least two$laims: >i lieral demo$rati$ norms $an e ustified in terms of well9ein'$ontriution, and >ii the proe$t of well9ein' promotion $an su$$essfully in$ludean a$ti#e leadership role for the state% (awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion ofneutralism ree$ts oth of those $laims, and adopts instead the more modest 'oalof defendin' the $ore features of lieral institutions as a fair asis for le'itimatin'the authority of the state%40 n other words, politi$al lieralism ar'ues that the state

should do what it must do to e le'itimate whereas the standard #ersions of perfe$tionism 'o further to ar'ue that the state should also do whate#er it $an doto promote well9ein'Oa 'oal deemed pursuale in part e$ause of perfe$tionisttheories! typi$ally less demandin' standards of le'itima$y%

1he lin5s etween perfe$tionism and aspiration and etween neutralityand le'itimation are quite stron' in the literature, ut they are not $on$eptuallyne$essary% 1he third position that will e'in to de#elop from Sen!s $apailityapproa$h $an e des$ried as perfe$tionism moti#ated y le'itimation% 1hat position, whi$h $all puli$ #alue lieralism, is moti#ated y two thou'hts$on$ernin' $ertain $onditions of le'itima$y >spe$ified in Se$tion that relate tothe fair distriution of ad#anta'e: >i that (awls!s neutralist lieralism is unale tosatisfy those $onditions in a way that adequately ta5es into a$$ount humandifferen$e, in$ludin' illness and disaility and >ii that o#er$omin' this limitationrequires some puli$, politi$al en'a'ement with questions aout perfe$tionist#alueOmore spe$ifi$ally, questions aout whi$h Qdoin's! and Qein's! are#aluale%

1urnin' now to Sen!s $omments on the neutrality deate, he has dire$tlyreferred to the issue of state neutrality twi$e in his writin's, oth times in afootnote% 1hose two $omments should first e addressed, in order to $ut off theoe$tion that the question of $apaility and neutrality was resol#edOin fa#or ofneutralismOnearly twenty years a'o in <Husti$e: eans #ersus Freedoms=%4 nthat arti$le, Sen ar'ues that (awls was mista5en when he $laimed that $apaility

4; (awls, Theory, -.;9%4 Christine Sypnowi$h, <Equality: From ar3ism to Lieralism >and Ba$5 2'ain,= (olitical

$tudies Revie, 4 >.//-: ---96-%40 Comprehensi#e lieralism ree$ts only the se$ond of these perfe$tionist $laims, see Gymli$5a,

Introduction, $h% ;%4 2martya Sen, <Husti$e: eans #ersus Freedoms,= (hilosophy and (ublic Affairs 4 >4/: 4449.4%

6



$omparisons require a prior spe$ifi$ation of one parti$ular $omprehensi#e #iew ofthe 'ood%./ Sen responds,

Capaility refle$ts a person!s freedom to $hoose etween alternati#e li#es>fun$tionin' $ominations, and its #alue need not e deri#ed from one parti$ular <$omprehensi#e do$trine= demandin' one spe$ifi$ way of li#in'%.4

1his passa'e shows that Sen is not a $ommunitarian perfe$tionist, ut we $annottherefore infer that he is neutralist% Similarly, Sen!s a'reement with (awls that people should not e $ompensated for their $hoi$es of ends >their so9$alled inter-

end variation does not demonstrate a $ommitment to neutrality, e$ause holdin' people responsile for the effe$ts of their $hoi$es is also $ompatile with lieral perfe$tionism%..

n the first of his two notes on neutrality, Sen re$o'niKes neutrality .- asimportant, espe$ially for (awls!s theory%

f e#ery possile list of primary 'oods >and e#ery way of doin' an inde3ma5es some people!s ends #ery well ser#ed and others terrily minutely so,then the important feature of <neutrality= is lost, and the entire line of reasonin'of <usti$e as fairness= is si'nifi$antly undermined%.6

Jowe#er, this passa'e is not a dire$t endorsement of neutrality% oreo#er, Sen!sse$ond note, whi$h is made in the $onte3t of Inequality Reexamined !s $riti$aldis$ussion of (awls!s politi$al $on$eption of usti$e, e3presses ami#alen$etoward the neutralist proe$t%

1here is a related ut lar'er issue re'ardin' the e3a$t role of Qneutrality! in politi$al lieralism and the feasiility and desiraility of imposin' neutrality ontheories of usti$e and fairness% 1he dis$ussion here ears on that issue, ut shall not, here, 'o on to a fuller treatment of that lar'er prolem%.7

1his shows that the question of $apaility and neutrality is a li#e one% 1he fullertreatment towards whi$h Sen 'estured has not yet surfa$ed% 1his paper!s fifthse$tion ta5es on that tas5 ut first, some e3position of (awls%

II: R AWLS’S NEUTRALISM AND PRIMARY GOODS (Optional)

1his se$tion e3plains the roles that (awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion of neutralismand his do$trine of primary 'oods play in his proe$t of spe$ifyin' the le'itima$y$onditions for lieral state authority% 1he $onne$tion etween neutrality and primary 'oods is $learest in the $hallen'es asso$iated with inequalities in so$ialand e$onomi$ power% For reasons outline elow, (awls needs a metri$ ofad#anta'e that all $itiKens $an e e3pe$ted to a$$ept in li'ht of their self9

./

Hohn (awls, <1he Priority of (i'ht and deas of the Iood,= (hilosophy and (ublic Affairs 4>400: .749;%.4 Sen, <eans #ersus Freedoms,= 440%.. id%, 4./, see also Sen, Inequality, 07%.- t is not entirely $lear whether Sen!s understandin' of Qneutrality! here is the ustifi$ation9$entered one that has e$ome dominant% t may e that he has in mind Q$onsequential neutrality!,whi$h is not what the leadin' neutralists defend, see Gymli$5a, <Lieral ndi#idualism and Lieral

Neutrality,= )thics >40: 00-9/7%.6 Sen, <eans #ersus Freedoms,= 4./, n% .-, see also Inequality, 07, n% .;%.7 Sen, Inequality, , n% 4.%

7



understandin' as ea$h other!s moral equals% Je defends the do$trine of primary'oods as meetin' this le'itima$y9related desideratum on the asis that thedo$trine meets the requirements of neutrality% > will ar'ue in the fourth se$tionthat Sen!s $ritique is est understood as oe$tin' to the $laim that the primary'oods metri$ adequately meets the needs of le'itimation%

Lieral neutrality is a position that $on$erns the pla$e of ideas of the 'oodwithin the puli$ politi$al domain% Neutralists emphasiKe that a maor $hallen'efor state le'itima$y is presented y the reasonale disa'reement aout what 'i#es#alue and meanin' to our li#es that is $hara$teristi$ of modern lieraldemo$ra$ies% 1hat emphasis on reasonale disa'reement is sometimes thou'ht toimply that a neutral state must astain entirely from appealin' to ideas of the 'oodin ustifyin' its a$tions% 1his is a mista5e% (awls!s theory distin'uishes etween$on$eptions of the 'ood that are politi$al and ones that are not% Neutralism in(awls!s theory ta5es the form of the requirement that the ideas of the 'ood thatthe state appeals to in ustifyin' its a$tions must e limited to politi$al ones% 1hislimitation is part of what ma5es it reasonale to e3pe$t free and equal $itiKens to

e ale to a$$ept those ustifi$ations% Politi$al $on$eptions of the 'ood are partial,rather than $ompleteOmeanin' that they fall far short of $o#erin' all aspe$ts oflife% Colle$ti#e deate and pursuit of perfe$tionist ideals that $o#er the full ran'eof human #alues are allowed and en$oura'ed y (awls in the so$ial domain of$i#il so$iety >as well as in personal and familial $onte3ts% Je emphasiKes thedifferen$e etween the politi$al and so$ial domains% While oth domains in#ol#e$olle$ti#e forms of human intera$tion, the so$ial is $hara$teriKed y freeasso$iations and so is #oluntary in a way that the politi$al is not% 1he in$omplete$hara$ter of politi$al $on$eptions of the 'ood is a ne$essary ut not suffi$ient$ondition for their ein' politi$al% 1o e3plain what else is needed for a $on$eptionto $ount as politi$al, some further a$5'round is required%

(awls emphasiKes that they are se#eral types of prin$iples of usti$e, andthe desi'n of ea$h must ta5e into a$$ount the $hara$ter of the interpersonalrelationship elon'in' to the domain to whi$h the respe$ti#e prin$iples apply% Jis$hief $on$ern is Qso$ial usti$e!, whi$h applies to the so$ial, politi$al ande$onomi$ institutions shaped >and shapeale y the state!s e3er$ise of itsmonopoly on the use of #iolent for$e% 1he spe$ial relationship rele#ant to thisdomain is the politi$al relationshipOthat of $o9$itiKens% 2t the $entre of thisrelationship is the fa$t that a so$iety!s asi$ stru$ture is $oer$i#ely imposed on all$itiKens >y all $itiKensOimposed e$ause they are sue$t to it in a way that isin#oluntary% (awls ree$ts the Lo$5ean mo#e that points to emi'ration as always ali#e option%.; 1hou'h $itiKens may and $an lea#e, the $ost of that $hoi$e is too'reat for it to $ount as #oluntary% . Jen$e, e3plainin' the idea of the asi$stru$ture is important for e3plainin' the politi$al relationship%

1he purpose of the asi$ stru$ture is to re'ulate so$ial $ooperation, and inso doin' it lar'ely determines $itiKens! life prospe$ts% So$ial $ooperation is whatma5es possile a 'ood life for any yet to e effi$ient, so$ial $ooperation requires

.; (awls, Restatement , -96%

. id%, 40.%

;



a ran'e of so$ial positions $hara$teriKed y si'nifi$ant inequality%.0 We $an thin5of a so$ial position as spe$ifyin' a set of #o$ations with suffi$iently similar le#elsof ad#anta'e% Despite the inequality of the so$ial positions, ea$h is #ital to thesu$$ess of the whole $ooperati#e s$heme% 1hus, at this le#el of astra$tion, thead#anta'e of ea$h $itiKen depends on the willin' parti$ipation of all% Now, the

requirement of ,illin& parti$ipation $ould $on$ei#aly e met #ia a so$iety9wide elief in naturally unequal so$ial $lasses >e%'%, a $aste system% Jowe#er, (awls is$on$erned to spe$ify fair so$ial $ooperation, meanin' that the terms thereof must e $ompatile with a stan$e of moral equality% 1hus we arri#e at the (awlsianidea of so$iety as a fair system of so$ial $ooperation etween $itiKens re'arded asfree and equal% 1he politi$al relationship is prin$ipally defined y the sear$h forfair terms of $ooperation, the $oer$i#e imposition of whi$h y the state isre$on$ilale with a stan$e of moral equality and whi$h are responsi#e to thereasonale disa'reement that a$$ompanies lieral freedoms%

1his #iew of so$iety, whi$h (awls ta5es to e present in the puli$ politi$al $ulture of modern lieral demo$ra$ies, $an e seen as a premise that must

e 'ranted in order for politi$al lieralism to 'et off the 'round% 2 puli$$on$eption of usti$e has to eOas (awls puts itOQwor5ed up! from that idea% 2nidea that is politi$al in the (awlsian sense, then, is one that stems from an analysisof the politi$al relationship and the asso$iated #iew of so$iety% 2 $on$eption of usti$e meets the le'itima$y9moti#ated requirements of neutrality if that$on$eption $ounts as a defensile way of fleshin' out the idea of so$iety as a fairsystem of so$ial $ooperation% What does su$h fleshin' out in#ol#e@ 2re we to e'in with the (awlsian idea of so$iety and then import ideas of the 'ood in orderto 'i#e it more $ontent@ No% (awls demands that his theory e Qfree9standin'!%Husti$e as fairness is to $ontain only politi$al #alues that <arise in #irtue of $ertainspe$ial features of the politi$al relationship, as distin$t from other relationships%=.

(awls!s idea of the urdens of ud'ment helps to e3plain why this is so%What (awls $alls the urdens of ud'ment are <the many osta$les to the

$orre$t >and $ons$ientious e3er$ise of our powers of reason and ud'ment in theordinary $ourse of politi$al life%=-/ (awls asserts that reasonale people willreasonaly disa'ree aout whi$h $onsiderations matter, or at least how to wei'hthose $onsiderations, or at least what ud'ment those wei'hted $onsiderationsyield% 1his is e$ause politi$s deals with espe$ially $omple3 questions,impressionisti$ e#iden$e and often se#ere $onfli$ts and, more importantly:

1he way we assess e#iden$e and wei'ht moral and politi$al #alues is shaped %%% y our total e3perien$e, %%% TandU in a modern so$iety with its numerous offi$esand positions, its many di#isions of laor, its many so$ial 'roups and often theirethni$ #ariety, $itiKens! total e3perien$es differ enou'h for their ud'ments to

di#er'e to some de'ree on many if not most $ases of any si'nifi$ant$omple3ity%-4

.0 1his effi$ien$y $laim is a standard assumption, prin$ipally 'rounded on the thou'ht thatle'itimate self9interest is oth a morally ustifiale and a powerful $onsideration% For a $riti$aldis$ussion of this assumption, see I% 2% Cohen, If ou.re an )&alitarian# *o, +ome ou.re $o

Rich/ >Camrid'e, 2: Jar#ard "ni#ersity Press, .///%. (awls, Restatement , 40.%-/ id%, -7%-4 id%, -;%



1hese osta$les e3plain, and are reinfor$ed y, the fa$t of reasonale pluralism,whi$h refers to the fa$t that o#er time lieral freedoms ine#italy produ$e adi#ersity of $omprehensi#e do$trines that are reasonale and yet irre$on$ilale e$ause of their opposin' understandin's of human ein's! relation to theworld%-.

1his reasonale disa'reement means that the tas5 of fleshin' out the ideaof so$iety as a fair system of so$ial $ooperation $annot e a$$omplished ydrawin' on shared features of $omprehensi#e do$trines, e$ause other than the(awlsian idea of so$iety and a re$o'nition of the urdens of ud'ment, there islittle else that reasonale $omprehensi#e do$trines ne$essarily share% 1he$onstru$tion of the $on$eption of usti$e must pro$eed on the asis of that narrowinitial s$ope of a'reement, y see5in' out e3tensions that reasonale people $anreasonaly e e3pe$ted to a$$ept% For (awls, to e reasonale is to: >i a$$ept >for politi$al purposes the (awlsian idea of so$iety >ii a$$ept that that idea must efleshed out in a way that respe$ts the urdens of ud'ment and >iii e willin' toendorse and uphold a puli$ $on$eption of usti$e that has een fleshed out in this

way% (awls see5s to $onstru$t in this manner politi$al #ersions of all the $on$eptsthat are ne$essary for a theory of so$ial usti$e% 1hese politi$al #ersions do notaim to $apture the full meanin' that has histori$ally een atta$hed to these$on$epts% (ather, they are to a$t as surro'ates that preser#e as mu$h of what isimportant in the $ommon #ersions as is possile in li'ht of the $onstraintsimposed y politi$al lieralism%

Q2d#anta'e! is one of these $on$epts that politi$al theory $annot dowithout% n order to formulate fair terms of so$ial $ooperation >the urdens and enefits of whi$h will not e equally di#ided, politi$al a'reement is needed onwhat is to $ount as ad#anta'eous% (awls offers primary 'oods as that metri$ ofad#anta'e% 1he do$trine of primary 'oods is one of the partial, politi$al$on$eptions of the 'ood that are in$orporated into his theory% 1he politi$al$hara$ter of primary 'oods $an e e3plained #ia their $onne$tion to (awls!s politi$al $on$eption of the person as $itiKen% 2lthou'h primary 'oods are oftendes$ried in the literature as thin's that a person is presumed to want, whate#erelse he wants, this $eases to e the fa#ored des$ription in (awls!s later writin's% --

nstead, he emphasiKes that primary 'oods are est understood as those thin's that people in a lieral demo$ra$y need as citi0ens%-6 For (awls, a $itiKen is someonewho is willin' and ale to e a free and equal parti$ipant in a fair $ooperati#es$heme%-7 1his politi$al $on$eption of the $itiKen prunes the idea of what a $itiKenis to only those aspe$ts that $an e drawn from the (awlsian idea of so$iety%

(awls ar'ues that we $an arri#e at a similarly politi$al $on$eption ofad#anta'e y startin' with the idea of the $itiKen as an free and equal parti$ipantin fair so$ial $ooperation% Je does so in two steps% First, he $onne$ts the politi$al$on$eption of the $itiKen to his idea of the two moral powers% What enales people to see the point of so$ial $ooperation and thus to e ,illin& to en'a'e in it

-. id%, -96, -6, 4%-- (awls, Theory, ;.%-6 (awls, Restatement , ;/%-7 id%, .6%

0



is the $apa$ity for a $on$eption of the 'ood% -; What enales people to e$ommitted to re$ipro$ityOwhi$h in#ol#es, amon' other thin's, a $ommitment toaide y a'reed9upon fair terms of $ooperation e#en when doin' so $ontradi$tsone!s own ad#anta'eOand thus to e able to en'a'e in fair so$ial $ooperation isthe sense of usti$e%

(awls then $onne$ts the two moral powers to his $on$eption of ad#anta'e%Je ar'ues that primary 'oods are pre$isely the $onditions that are ne$essary forthe de#elopment and e3er$ise of the two moral powers% 1he politi$al lierties arene$essary for the de#elopment and e3er$ise of the sense of usti$e, and the $i#illierties ma5e possile the de#elopment and e3er$ise of the $apa$ity to form, tore#ise, and rationally to pursue a $on$eption of the 'ood% - Freedom of mo#ementand free $hoi$e of o$$upation are se$ured a'ainst a a$5'round of di#erseopportunities, and therey ma5e it possile for people to pursue their permissile$on$eptions of the 'ood, in$ludin' their re#ised ones, whate#er these may e% -0

1he same is true for in$ome and wealth, sin$e these are all9purpose means% 1heso$ial ases of self9respe$t also support the e3er$ise of the se$ond moral power,

thou'h somewhat less dire$tly, in that they <enale people to ad#an$e their endswith self9$onfiden$e%=- 8f the primary 'oods, (awls says the least aout how thetwo moral powers are de#eloped or e3er$ised #ia the powers and prero'ati#es ofoffi$es and positions of authority and responsiility% Nonetheless, these 'oodsha#e a $lear enou'h lin5 to the e3er$ise of the $apa$ity for a sense of usti$e%

1herefore, (awls!s defense of the do$trine of primary 'oods as a politi$al$on$eption runs as follows% Sin$e reasonale $omprehensi#e do$trines do nota'ree on a full $on$eption of the person, we need a politi$al $on$eption of the person as $itiKen that is uilt up only from the impli$ations of #iewin' so$iety as afair system of so$ial $ooperation% 1his politi$al $on$eption of the $itiKen ma5esroom for a'reement on the needs of people as $itiKens, from whi$h the list of primary 'oods, (awls ar'ues, $an e drawn forth%

III: SEN’S O!ECTION TO PRIMARY GOODS

2s preparation for dis$ussion of the $apaility approa$h and its rele#an$e for theneutrality #ersus perfe$tionism deate, this se$tion e3plains Sen!s oe$tion to primary 'oods and its earin' on the question of state le'itima$y% Sen ar'ues that(awls mista5es primary 'oods for what is #aluale, ma5in' him 'uilty of Q'oodsfetishism!%6/ n Sen!s #iew, what is #aluale is the power that primary 'oods 'i#e people to pursue their oe$ti#es% Je a$$uses (awls of fo$usin' only on the

Qmeans to freedom!, when what matters is the Qe3tent of freedom!%64

do not thin5 Sen!s oe$tion is est phrased in terms of $har'in' (awlswith 'oods fetishism or with #aluin' only the means to freedom, e#en thou'h this-; id%, ;%- id%, 67%-0 id%, 70%- id%, 7%6/ Sen, <Equality of What@,= .4;%64 Sen, Inequality, -;90%



is, in fa$t, the phrasin' Sen $hooses% What he should ha#e said is that (awlsmista5enly defends primary 'oods as an adequate indi$ator of positi#e freedom%Consider the followin' passa'e from (awls:

T1Uhe worth, that is, the usefulness of Tthe asi$U lierties %%% is estimated y theinde3 of primary 'oods%%%% 1he differen$e prin$iple, in ma3imiKin' the inde3a#ailale to the least ad#anta'ed, ma3imiKes the worth to them of the equallierties enoyed y all% Met some ha#e more in$ome and wealth than others,and so more all9purpose means for realiKin' their ends%6.

1he asi$ lierties ha#e worth for an indi#idual to the e3tent that she $an ma5euse of them to pursue her ends% 2 person!s share of primary 'oods estimates thisworth% 1herefore, primary 'oods are meant to tell us how well a person $an ma5euse of her lierties in pursuit of her endsOin other words, how mu$h power shehas to pursue her ends%

Sen!s oe$tion should e understood not as a$$usin' (awls of denyin'that positi#e freedom is what matters, ut rather as ree$tin' the adequa$y of primary 'oods as an indi$ator of positi#e freedom% 1he oe$tion is ased on theimportan$e of what Sen $alls Qinter9indi#idual #ariation!% 1his refers to

differen$es in what will $all conversion ability, whi$h Sen des$ries as <what power Ta personU has to $on#ert primary 'oods into the fulfillment of TherUends%=6- (awls rules out differen$es in $on#ersion aility% Je ar'ues that for the purpose of formulatin' the fundamental prin$iples of a theory of usti$e, it isappropriate to adopt a simplifyin' assumption that ta5es all $itiKens to e <normaland fully $ooperatin' memers of so$iety%=66 Je writes,

TWUe ha#e made an important a$5'round assumption: namely, that withrespe$t to the 5inds of needs and requirements that politi$al usti$e should ta5einto a$$ount, $itiKens! needs and requirements are suffi$iently similar for aninde3 of primary 'oods to ser#e as a suitale and fair asis for interpersonal$omparisons in matters of politi$al usti$e%67

2$$ordin' to this assumption, a 'i#en share of primary 'oods in$reases positi#efreedom in rou'hly the same way for e#eryone% nter9indi#idual #ariation isdisre'arded%

Sen ree$ts (awls!s simplifyin' assumption for se#eral reasons% First,differen$es in $on#ersion aility do not merely $onstitute e3$eptional $ases% 1hesedifferen$es are per#asi#e, applyin' to all se$tors of humanity%6; 1o ma5e this$laim plausile, Sen points to numerous sour$es of #ariation, in$ludin': <a'e, se3, physi$al and mental health, odily prowess, intelle$tual ailities, $limati$$ir$umstan$es, epidemiolo'i$al #ulneraility, TandU so$ial surroundin's%=6

Se$ond, Sen $laims that these differen$es are si'nifi$ant in their effe$ts: <ToUur physi$al and so$ial $hara$teristi$s ma5e us immensely di#erse $reatures%=60

Finally, and most importantly, these differen$es are to a lar'e e3tent morally6. (awls, Restatement , 46%6- Sen, Inequality, 07%66 (awls, Restatement , 0%67 id%, 4/%6; 2martya Sen, <(i'hts and Capailities,= in %orality and 1b2ectivity: A Tribute to "3 L3 %ac4ie,ed% 1ed Jonderi$h, 4-/960 >London: (outled'e V Ge'an Paul, 407, 46.%6 Sen, Inequality, .0%60 id%

4/



aritrary6 in mu$h the same way as the natural and so$ial $ontin'en$ies to whi$h(awls famously draws our attention%7/ 1he $laim then is that differen$es in$on#ersion aility are per#asi#e, profound and morally aritrary% 1o furtherstren'then Sen!s ar'ument, will now e3plain how these points relate to statele'itima$y, whi$h requires returnin' riefly to (awls%

1he morally aritrary natural and so$ial $ontin'en$ies that (awlsaddresses affe$t a person!s e$onomi$ talentOher aility to $on#in$e others tooffer hi'h rewards for her laor power% (awls therefore ar'ues that in the $ase ofe$onomi$ rewards, appeals to moral desert are unwarranted and yet henonetheless defends an e$onomi$ system with differential rewards that fa#or thosewhose $ontriutions are more #alued y others% n (awls!s #iew, the moralaritrariness of talent does not 'i#e us $ause to ree$t the pra$ti$e of 'i#in' hi'her pay to those who wor5 harder or etter rather, it 'i#es us reason to implement ata3 and transfer system that adusts the le#els of ad#anta'e atta$hed to the #ariousso$ial positions so that the o$$upants of the least ad#anta'ed position enefit inasolute terms from the inequalities of the $ooperati#e s$heme% 1his framewor5

spe$ifies how indi#iduals $an ta5e ad#anta'e of their pla$e in the distriution oftalent in a way that they $an reasonaly e3pe$t those least fa#ored y thatdistriution to e ale to reasonaly a$$ept%

(awls!s theory thus yields a hierar$hy of so$ial positions and it affirms theappropriateness of the differential le#els of ad#anta'e that are atta$hed to them%1hat is, the theory in effe$t defends the $laim that it is ust that so$ial position P$omes with le#el of ad#anta'e 2, that position $omes with le#el B, and so on% Note, howe#er, that that $laim is not equi#alent to the $laim that it is ust that a parti$ular position $omes with a parti$ular share of primary 'oods% Primary 'oodsare meant to ser#e as pro3y for positi#e freedom and, as ar'ued at the e'innin'of this se$tion, (awls and Sen a'ree that ad#anta'e is ultimately a matter of positi#e freedom% Jen$e, the fundamental $laim aout differential ad#anta'e isthat it is ust that a parti$ular position $omes with a parti$ular le#el of positi#efreedom% 1he defensiility of sustitutin' primary 'oods for positi#e freedom is afurther $laim% n order to le'itimate the state imposition of (awls!s #ersion of the asi$ stru$ture, oth the Qfundamental $laim! and the $laim aout primary 'oodsmust e defended as thin's that all memers of so$iety $an reasonaly ee3pe$ted to e ale to re$on$ile with their freedom and equality as $itiKens%

(awls!s ar'uments in fa#or of the fundamental $laim are quite stron'%Sin$e my disa'reement is fo$used elsewhere, will treat those ar'uments as fully$on#in$in' for the present purposes% 1he further $laim aout primary 'oods,howe#er, is under$ut y Sen!s oe$tion% 2n ideal of $itiKenship that rules out6

8ne short$omin' of the $apaility approa$h is that Sen typi$ally fails to distin'uish etween$apaility9redu$in' fa$tors that are $learly morally aritrary >e%'%, $hroni$ illness and ones thatare not >e%'%, unhealthy $hoi$es% than5 (ahul Gumar and ar'aret oore for first drawin' myattention to this $on$ern, whi$h is raised y Hoshua Cohen, <2martya Sen: nequalityree3amined,= "ournal of (hilosophy . >47: .7900, and Norman Daniels, <Equality of What:Welfare, (esour$es, or Capailities@,= in "ustice and "ustification: Reflective )quilibrium in

Theory and (ractice, ./09-4 >New Mor5: Camrid'e "ni#ersity Press, 4; ori'inally pulishedin (hilosophy and (henomenolo&ical Research 7/ >4/: .-9;% 1his paper lea#es this issueunresol#ed% See, howe#er, note 04%7/ Sen, <eans #ersus Freedoms,= 44.%

44



differen$es in $on#ersion aility is o#erly e3$lusi#e 'i#en the epidemiolo'y ofhuman differen$e%74 8n$e we assume a $itiKenry that e3hiits su$h differen$e, it isno lon'er reasonale to e3pe$t that $itiKens who affirm the fundamental $laimO that it is ust that a parti$ular so$ial position $omes with a parti$ular le#el of positi#e freedomOwould also e ale to reasonaly a$$ept the reformulation that

repla$es positi#e freedom with primary 'oods% 1his is e$ause under thereformulation, the entitlements atta$hed to a parti$ular so$ial position would yield$onsideraly different le#els of positi#e freedom, dependin' on the morallyaritrary distriution of $on#ersion aility amon' the o$$upants of that position%1his differential reward $onfli$ts with the fundamental $laim%

(awls defends primary 'oods out of a desire to measure ad#anta'ewithout measurin' positi#e freedom% But this strate'y restri$ts the rea$h ofe'alitarian distriuti#e usti$e to $itiKens with physi$al and mental ailities >andhealth states within the normal ran'e% f state authority is to e le'itimated, thenthe asi$ stru$ture >and its distriuti#e effe$ts must e re$on$ilale with thefreedom and equality of all $itiKens, re'ardless of $on#ersion aility% See5in' a

solution to the prolems with primary 'oods is therefore a part of the tas5 ofle'itimation%We mi'ht e tempted to ar'ue that the prolems at hand would e dealt

with y the differen$e prin$iple, sin$e the purpose of that prin$iple is to miti'atethe effe$ts of natural lottery% Jowe#er, the differen$e prin$iple is desi'ned toaddress disad#anta'e etween so$ial positions, not within them% CitiKens with low$on#ersion aility do not form a distin$t so$ial position, e$ause there is none$essary $orresponden$e etween $on#ersion aility and e$onomi$ talent% n the$ase of $on#ersion aility, any miti'atin' effe$t produ$ed y the differen$e prin$iple would e a$$idental% Le'itima$y $onsiderations 'i#e us reason, then, tode#elop an adequate metri$ of ad#anta'e% Su$h a metri$ is a$hie#ale, Sen ar'ues,if we measure positi#e freedom more dire$tly, usin' the notion of $apaility%

IV: SEN’S C APAILITY APPROAC"

1his se$tions e3plains why and how Sen!s $apaility approa$h 'i#es importan$eto the puli$ e#aluation of the #alue of a$ti#ities and states of ein'% Sendes$ries $apaility as Qwell9ein' freedom!, the freedom to a$hie#e well9ein'%Je has in mind a roust $on$eption of freedom that in$ludes the presen$e ofso$ial and personal resour$es% Capaility $an equally e thou'ht of as a measureof real opportunity, and find this more intuiti#e%7. Sen!s proposal, then, is that

we measure a person!s positi#e freedom in terms of the real opportunity she has toa$hie#e well9ein'% n his approa$h, a person!s well9ein' is measured y ud'in'the #alue of her Qfun$tionin's!, whi$h are des$ried as Qdoin's! and Qein's!% 274 1here is a push in the literature on disaility to des$rie disaility in terms of a $ontinuum andto emphasiKe how indi#iduals ine#italy o$$upy #arious lo$ations alon' that $ontinuum durin'their life span% 1he $onsequen$e is that disaility e$omes re$o'niKed as a normal part of thehuman $ondition% See Herome E% Bi$5ena$h, <Disaility and Equality,= "ournal of La, and

)quality . >.//-: 947%7. 2martya Sen, +ommodities and +apabilities >2msterdam: North9Jolland, 407, 79;%

4.



fun$tionin' is anythin' that persons $an do or e% 1he $ate'ory of Qdoin's!in$ludes 'eneral a$ti#ities li5e mo#in' aout or $ommuni$atin' with others, aswell as #ery spe$ifi$ a$ti#ities li5e $hewin' spearmint 'um or 'oin' to see Renton Broadway%

Note that this in$lusi#eness e3tends to oth worthwhile and tri#ial thin's%

1he notion of fun$tionin's is not inherently e#aluati#e% Consequently, a person!swell9ein' $annot e measured simply y listin' her fun$tionin's% 1he #alue ofthose fun$tionin's must also e ud'ed% 1he worthwhile a$ti#ities and states of ein' that enri$h a person!s life must e distin'uished from her tri#ial doin's and ein's that ma5e no $ontriution to her well9ein'% 2 'ood life is a life wherethere is #alue in what a person mana'es to do and to e% 2s a des$ription of$apaility, we $an therefore repla$e Qthe freedom to a$hie#e well9ein'! with Qthe'enuine opportunity to en'a'e in #aluale a$ti#ities and a$hie#e #aluale states of ein'!% 2 person has a hi'h le#el of positi#e freedom when a wide ran'e of#aluale a$ti#ities and #aluale states of ein' are li#e options for her%7- Senrefers to su$h a ran'e as a Q$apaility set!% Jow, then, do we $ompare the #alue of

different $apaility sets@Sen ree$ts the Q$ount method!Owhi$h e#aluates $apaility sets a$$ordin'to the numer of options in ea$h setOon the 'rounds that there is an o#ious and$ompellin' sense in whi$h a person is 'i#en more positi#e freedom y a set ofoptions she ud'es to e #aluale than y a set of the same numer of options she ud'es to e worthless or detrimental%76 Sen ar'ues that the e#aluation of$apaility sets requires ud'in' the #alue of the options themsel#es% 77 We need to$ome up with a list of whi$h fun$tionin's are #aluale, and then we ha#e to ran5the memers of the list in terms of how mu$h #alue they ea$h ha#e% 1his earsresemlan$e to what Iriffin $alls an Qoe$ti#e9list a$$ount of well9ein'!, whi$his not surprisin' sin$e Sen is si'nifi$antly oe$ti#ist aout well9ein'% 7; Jewrites that <the Qlimits! of oe$ti#ity e3tend well into the assessment of well9 ein'%=7 Jowe#er, he does not defend a uni#ersal ran5in' of #alualefun$tionin's% n fa$t, in his theory the e#aluation of fun$tionin's is doneultimately y indi#iduals% Je ar'ues that oe$ti#ism aout well9ein' is$ompatile with 'i#in' $entrality to indi#idual e#aluations, e$ause e#en withoe$ti#ism, it is not unreasonale for different people to e#aluate fun$tionin's

7- ore spe$ifi$ally, $apaility is a measure of a person!s feasile $ominations of fun$tionin's%1o illustrate, ima'ine two people >Peter and (o'er and three fun$tionin's >'oin' to uni#ersity,a$ti#ely parti$ipatin' in the so$ial life of the uni#ersity, and 'raduatin' det free% Suppose that ane3amination of fun$tionin's one at a time indi$ates oth Peter and (o'er are free to a$hie#e ea$hof the fun$tionin's, ut if we loo5 at whi$h $ominations of fun$tionin's they are free to a$hie#e,

we find out that (o'er has the so$ial and personal resour$es to a$hie#e the $omination of allthree, whereas Peter is only free to a$hie#e either 4 and . ut not -, or 4 and - ut not .Othat is, ifhe 'oes to uni#ersity, he has to $hoose etween an a$ti#e so$ial life or 'raduatin' det free%1herefore, we $on$lude that (o'er has a hi'her le#el $apaility than Peter he has a more #alualeran'e of options he has more positi#e freedom%76 2martya Sen, Rationality and !reedom >Camrid'e, 2: Bel5nap, .//., 4-%77 Sen, <Capaility and Well9Bein',= -7%7; Hames Iriffin, 5ell-6ein&: Its %eanin&# %easurement and %oral Importance >83ford:Clarendon, 40;, --%7 Sen, +ommodities, -7%

4-



differently% Je $laims this e$ause >i he defends a $on$eption of oe$ti#ity thatis Qposition9dependent!, and >ii he e3pe$ts the #alue ran5in' of fun$tionin's to ein$omplete%70 Consequently, when measurin' one person!s $apaility, the #alue ofher ran'e of feasile fun$tionin's options is to e ud'ed in li'ht of her ownQ#aluation fun$tion!Othat is, in li'ht of her own eliefs aout the #alue of

fun$tionin's%8f $ourse, as a metri$ of ad#anta'e, the $apaility approa$h is primarilymeant to e used in so$iety9wide appli$ations, rather than to measure people!sindi#idual le#els of positi#e freedom% Sen!s ree$tion of a uni#ersal oe$ti#eran5in' of the #alue of fun$tionin's >i%e%, a uni#ersal #aluation fun$tion presentsa si'nifi$ant $hallen'e in this re'ardOespe$ially e$ause he also ar'ues a'ainstthe feasiility of Qinter9#aluation9fun$tional! $omparisons of well9ein'%7

Comparin' different people!s well9ein' requires not only listin' and $omparin'their doin's and ein's it also requires atta$hin' #alues to those fun$tionin's% 2sa result, interpersonal $omparisons of either well9ein' or $apaility require >atleast partial a'reement amon' the rele#ant people!s eliefs aout the #alue of

doin's and ein's% 1he so$ial e#aluation of $apaility is possile only insofar as a$ommon so$iety9wide #aluation fun$tion $an e estalishedOthat is, a puli$ran5in' of the #alue of spe$ified a$ti#ities and states of ein'% ;/ Defendin'$apaility as our metri$ of ad#anta'e in#ol#es defendin' the need for a puli$ran5in' of #aluale fun$tionin's that is defensily appli$ale to all $itiKens%

2 puli$ #aluation fun$tion ma5es it possile to ud'e how mu$hdisad#anta'e is imposed y #arious fa$tors affe$tin' $on#ersion aility% "sin' thestandard 5inds of empiri$al data familiar to e$onomists, we $an $he$5 whetherthere are any $onsistent dis$repan$ies in the a$hie#ement of the parti$ularfun$tionin's on the puli$ list% f any su$h dis$repan$ies $an e relialy tra$ed to parti$ular un$hosen personal or en#ironmental features, then it $an e inferredthat those features typi$ally produ$e $on#ersion impairments% 1hese impairmentsare differen$es in $on#ersion aility that redu$e the le#el of positi#e freedom thata person 'ets from a parti$ular share of primary 'oods% 1o fulfill the requirementsof the fundamental $laim dis$ussed ao#e >namely, that ea$h so$ial position ustly$omes with a parti$ular le#el of positi#e freedom, whi$h should e suffi$ientlysimilar for all o$$upants of that position, we must see5 to determine how est tomiti'ate or remo#e the identified $on#ersion impairments% 1he desi'n of the asi$stru$ture must $ontain an institutional $ommitment to those 'oals if that stru$tureis to e somethin' that it is reasonale to e3pe$t $itiKens of #aryin' $on#ersion

70 Position9dependen$e is the idea that people in different positions $an ha#e 'ood reason to $omeup with different answers to the same e#aluati#e e3er$ise% Sen denies that the e#aluation of well9

ein' is person9relati#e, ut he does thin5 that is position9dependent% Sen writes, on pa'e -7 of+ommodities, that <an oe$ti#ist #iew would not ne$essarily rule out the possiility ofinterpersonal #ariations of well9ein' ran5in's=Osee also evelopment , $h% 47% 1he $laim aoutin$ompleteness is the idea that when we loo5 at a person!s eliefs aout the #alue of fun$tionin's,it may often e the $ase that not all pairs of fun$tionin's $an e ran5ed y those eliefs, see Sen,+ommodities, 4;%7 Sen, +ommodities, 70%;/ Sen writes on pa'e 0 of evelopment that <in arri#in' at an <a'reed= standard for social

evaluation%%%, there has to e some 5ind of a reasoned <$onsensus= on wei'hts, or at least on aran'e of wei'hts%=

46



aility to reasonaly a$$ept% 1he in$orporation of that $ommitment is thus a$ondition for the le'itima$y of lieral state authority%

1ypi$ally, what $auses un$hosen personal features to yield $on#ersionimpairments is not only >and sometimes not at all the nature of those features% 2lar'e >and sometimes o#erwhelmin' $ausal role is played y the so$ial response

to those features, whi$h in$ludes how mu$h or how little the features are ta5eninto a$$ount in the $olle$ti#e desi'n of our physi$al and so$ial en#ironments% ;4

We should e3pe$t therefore that miti'atin' or remo#in' $on#ersion impairmentswill in#ol#e a $omination of e3tra resour$es, physi$al and institutionala$$ommodations, and, importantly, state support for efforts to re#ise so$ialen#ironments in the dire$tion of 'reater in$lusion%

V: C APAILITY AND PULIC V ALUE LIERALISM

Sen!s #iew is at odds with (awls!s politi$al lieral #ersion of neutralism in at

least three ways that will presently identify yet neither does the $apailityapproa$h fit the mold of the standard #ersions of lieral perfe$tionism, as wille3plain elow% nstead, the $apaility approa$h $an e ar'ued to yield a thirddistin$ti#e position in this deateOpuli$ #alue lieralism% 1his position is$ompatile with the neutralist an3iety aout aspirational perfe$tionism, e#enwhile it ar'ues a'ainst the adequa$y of neutralist usti$e% 1he result is a defense ofa limited role for puli$ e#aluation of the 'ood in the politi$al sphere ustified ythe needs of le'itimation% 1he first two features of Sen!s #iew that will dis$ussin this se$tion $onfli$t spe$ifi$ally with the politi$al lieral $hara$ter of (awls!sneutralism, and they ha#e to do with how Sen en#isions the de#elopment of a puli$ ran5in' of #aluale fun$tionin's%

First, he appeals to the Q$onstru$ti#e role! of demo$ra$y in the formationof #alues%;. Je applauds how the pra$ti$e of demo$rati$ institutions fostersQreasoned s$rutiny! of one!s inherited #iews, and he spe$ifies that eliefs aout#alue are politi$ally important only if they $an sur#i#e reasoned s$rutiny% ;- 1hissu''ests a $on$eption of indi#idual autonomy that is more roust than the politi$al lieral #ersion that (awls defends% 2lthou'h Sen does not 'o so far as todefend ill!s ideal of indi#iduality, where a$ti#ely questionin' one!s inherited#iews is re'arded as a 5ey $omponent of the 'ood life, Sen!s position doesnonetheless seem to demandOor at least permit and praiseOthe state promotionof reasoned s$rutiny%;4 am in$lined towards an intermediate position etween the e3treme #ersion of the iomedi$al

and so$ial $onstru$ti#ist models of disaility, ut do not fleshin' out that position here% For animportant $ontriution to that deate, see Herome E% Bi$5ena$h, (hysical isability and $ocial

(olicy >1oronto: "ni#ersity of 1oronto Press, 4-%;. Sen, evelopment , 47-96%;- Sen, Rationality, 7/: <TWUe $an 'o e#en further and require reasoned s$rutiny as a requirementof a preferen$e orderin' to ha#e an important status in the e#aluation of freedom% %%% T2U#aluational ran5in' that $an sur#i#e reasoned s$rutiny has a $entral role in the assessment offreedom% n the use of <preferen$e= as the asis of e#aluation of the opportunity aspe$t offreedom, a spe$ial pla$e must e 'i#en to the #aluational interpretation of preferen$e, $ominedwith the need for $ompatiility with reasoned s$rutiny%=

47



1his 'oes a'ainst (awls!s response to reasonale pri#ate $ommunitarians Oindi#iduals who elon' to the o#erlappin' $onsensus #ia their permissile$on$eption of the 'ood, yet re'ard their own $omprehensi#e do$trine as <alreadyformed and firmly held, and in this sense 'i#en%= ;6 8f $ourse, there is noindi$ation that Sen!s #iew demands the $oer$i#e imposition of lieral norms in

pri#ate life, ut (awls insists furthermore that neither should the state non9$oer$i#ely promote lieral norms in the pri#ate li#es of the <many persons TwhoUmay not e3amine their a$quired eliefs and ends ut ta5e them on faith, or esatisfied that they are matters of $ustom or tradition%= ;7 Sen!s ar'uments implythat it is important for the state to non9$oer$i#ely en$oura'e a lieral stan$e ofrational re#isaility towards one!s inherited #iews%;; 1he roadenin' andstren'thenin' of so$ial pra$ti$es of reasoned s$rutiny is $laimed to play a 5ey rolein fa$ilitatin' o#erlap amon' people!s eliefs aout #alue, upon whi$h a puli$ran5in' of fun$tionin's $an e ased%

Se$ond, the $ontent of that o#erlappin' a'reement in Sen!s #iew is at oddswith (awls!s politi$al lieralism% n (awls!s #iew, a defensile $on$eption of

usti$e must not only e ale to e the site of an o#erlappin' $onsensus, it mustalso e ustifiale on the asis of Qpoliti$al #alues!% (awls introdu$es the idea ofthe o#erlappin' $onsensus as a response to worries that the stri$tly politi$al >in the(awlsian sense ustifi$ation of usti$e as fairness $ould not $arry suffi$ient psy$holo'i$al for$e to earn so$iety9wide alle'ian$e% Je $on$edes this point, utar'ues that usti$e as fairnessOin its politi$al lieral reformulationO$an also eaffirmed from within the many different reasonale $omprehensi#e do$trines fornon9politi$al reasons pe$uliar to ea$h, $ementin' $itiKens! support for it% 1hestri$tly politi$al ustifi$ation, howe#er, must e pro#ided alon'side su$haffirmation% 8therwise, politi$al lieralism would e <politi$al in the wron'way%=;

Sen oe$ts to ma5in' the pro#ision of stri$tly politi$al ustifi$ations anasolute requirement for a theory of usti$e% Je is ri'htly $on$erned that the$onstraints of politi$al lieralism lea#e (awls!s theory little power to address thefull ran'e of inusti$es in so$ieties that la$5 endorsement of the (awlsian idea ofso$iety or that la$5 politi$al norms of toleran$e and puli$ reason%;0 > ar'ue in thene3t se$tion that the $onstraints of politi$al lieralism also restri$t the aility toaddress parti$ular inusti$es within lieral demo$ra$ies asso$iated with $on#ersionimpairments% n Sen!s approa$h, there is no indi$ation that the o#erlappin'a'reement on #aluational ran5in's must e ased >or e ale to e ased on ideasand #alues that are politi$al in the (awlsian sense%

;6

Hohn (awls, <1he Basi$ Lierties and 1heir Priority,= in The Tanner Lectures on *uman'alues, #ol% iii, ed% Sterlin' $urrin, 490 >Salt La5e City: "ni#ersity of "tah Press, 40., .7%;7 id%, .0%;; For a dis$ussion of $on$eptions of autonomy in $omprehensi#e and politi$al lieralism, see WillGymli$5a, <1wo odels of Pluralism and 1oleran$e,= in Toleration, ed% Da#id Jeyd, 0494/7>Prin$eton: Prin$eton "ni#ersity Press, 4;, and Liberalism# +ommunity# and +ulture >83ford:83ford "ni#ersity Press, 40, $h% 6%; (awls, Restatement , 40%;0 Sen, Inequality, 79% See also <What Do We Want from a 1heory of Husti$e@,= "ournal of

(hilosophy 4/- >.//;: .479-0%

4;



1he third non9neutralist feature of Sen!s #iew is ar'ualy at odds with politi$al and $omprehensi#e lieral neutralists ali5e%; 8f the three features dis$uss, it is the most $entral to the $apaility approa$h as a whole% 1his feature isthe fa$t that the e#aluations of doin's and ein's required for the $reation of the puli$ list una#oidaly ta5e pla$e in the puli$ politi$al sphere >as well as in $i#il

so$iety and pri#ate life% Sen endorses puli$ deate aout #alues as part of thedemo$rati$ promotion of reasoned s$rutiny, whi$h in turn is important for thefeasiility of a puli$ #aluation fun$tion%/ Statements aout the #alue of doin'sand ein's are $entral to world #iews% dentifyin' whi$h a$ti#ities and states of ein' are #aluale ma5es up a lar'e part of most full $on$eptions of the 'ood% 8f$ourse, it is not the mere fa$t that non9politi$al ideas of the 'ood are #oi$ed anddis$ussed in puli$ deate that puts Sen!s #iew at odds with neutralism% n(awls!s Qwide #iew! of puli$ reason, it is appropriate for non9politi$al ideas ofthe 'ood to e #oi$ed in puli$ politi$al deate, so lon' those ideas are uttressed y politi$al ar'uments supportin' the proposal in question in due $ourse%4 (awlsendorses the #oi$in' of non9politi$al #alues in the puli$ sphere on the 'rounds

that doin' so $an fa$ilitate mutual understandin' etween 'roups with #erydifferent perspe$ti#es% Jowe#er, politi$al ar'uments are to e 'i#en prin$ipalwei'ht in the dis$ussion and ensuin' de$isions% Sen!s #iew does not $ontain this politi$al lieral requirement% Jis emphasis on reasoned a'reement throu'h puli$deate lea#es open the possiility of non9politi$al ideas of the 'ood playin' a role Operhaps e#en a lar'e roleOin the $reation of a puli$ #aluation fun$tion% n thene3t se$tion ar'ue furthermore that su$h a role is ine#itale if we are to e3tendthe s$ope of usti$e to all $itiKens re'ardless of $on#ersion aility% Creatin' the puli$ list, whi$h is itself a partial $on$eption of the 'ood, thus in#ol#es deate inthe puli$ politi$al sphere on questions aout the 'ood that neutralists ar'ueshould e $ontained within $i#il so$iety and pri#ate life%

8n the ustifi$ation9$entered understandin' of the neutrality #ersus perfe$tionism deate, the fa$t that Sen!s #iew is at odds with neutralism su''eststhat his #iew is therefore $ommitted to a form of perfe$tionism% 1hatunderstandin' of the deate, howe#er, misses the le'itimation9aspiration dynami$ etween neutralism and perfe$tionism as ea$h is standardly arti$ulated in theliterature% Perfe$tionist theories typi$ally defend a state duty to en$oura'e $itiKensto $ome to #alue and pursue oe$ti#ely worthwhile ways of li#in'% 2spirational proe$ts of this 5ind are not ruled out y the mo#e to measure ad#anta'e>$on$ei#ed of as positi#e freedom in terms of $apaility% But neither do thefeatures of Sen!s #iew $ommit him to aspirationalism% What Sen!s ar'uments do$ommit him to is puli$ #alue lieralism% 1his position >in9etween neutrality andaspirational perfe$tionism defends a limited role for the puli$ delieration aoutthe 'ood life within state forums, the results of whi$hOif su$$essfulOare to eused y the state to ensure fair terms of $ooperation for $itiKens with #aryin'$on#ersion aility, therey fulfillin' a $ondition for lieral state le'itima$y%

; 8n $omprehensi#e lieralism, see Dwor5in, $overei&n 'irtue, and Gymli$5a, <1wo odels=, Introduction, $h% ;, and <1wo 1heories of Husti$e,= Inquiry -- >4/: 944%/ Sen, evelopment , 47-%4 Hohn (awls, <1he dea of Puli$ (eason (e#isited,= 7niversity of +hica&o La, Revie, ;6>4: ;790/%

4



CONCLUSION

1o address inusti$es relatin' to differen$es in $on#ersion aility >in$ludin'

illness and disaility, what is ultimately required is a spe$ifi$ation of thea$ti#ities and states of ein' that people reasonaly want to e li#e options forthem% Puli$ delieration aout the 'ood is an una#oidale element in the$onstru$tion of su$h a list% 1his demands re#isin' our understandin' of theneutrality #ersus perfe$tionism deate% ha#e ar'ued that Sen!s $apailityapproa$h yields a distin$ti#e third position: puli$ #alue lieralism% Defendin' puli$ #alue lieralism in#ol#es defendin' the feasiility of a puli$ politi$ale3er$ise that is at odds with neutralism% Creatin' a puli$ #aluation fun$tion presents a formidale $hallen'e in li'ht of the multiple di#ersities of modernlieral demo$ra$iesOone that must e fa$ed if lieral theory is to affirm the full$itiKenship of all memers of so$iety re'ardless of $on#ersion aility%

40



POSTSCRIPT: D ANIELS’S E#TENSION OF R AWLS (Optional)

(awls e3pli$itly adopts a numer of idealiKations in order to ma5e his >still #erylar'e proe$t more feasile and to $onfine his attention to what he ta5es to e the$entral $on$erns of so$ial usti$e% 1he simplifyin' assumption that rules out

differen$es in $on#ersion aility is one of those idealiKations%.

t $onfines ourattention to only those memers of so$iety whose physi$al and mental ailitiesmeet or e3$eed a threshold that is defined y what (awls ta5es to e ne$essary for ein' a Qnormal and fully $ooperatin'!- parti$ipant in fair so$ial $ooperation%6

1his assumption is important for (awls!s neutralist proe$t e$ause it ma5es it possile to measure ad#anta'e without measurin' positi#e freedom, the latter ofwhi$h we ha#e seen requires e#aluatin' the thin's >i%e%, doin' and ein's that people ha#e the positi#e freedom to do% n a numer of important wor5s, NormanDaniels ar'ues for an e3tension of (awls!s theory to allow it to address diseaseand disaility%7 Daniels $laims that his e3tension is in line with (awls!s lar'er proe$t, and (awls indeed $ites the e3tension appro#in'ly%;

Daniels!s strate'y is to roaden the s$ope of fair equality of opportunity eyond (awls!s fo$us on employment9related opportunities% 1o do this, heintrodu$es the idea of the Qnormal opportunity ran'e! of a so$iety% <1he normalopportunity ran&e for a 'i#en so$iety is the array of life plans reasonale personsin it are li5ely to $onstru$t for themsel#es%= Daniels ar'ues that 'uaranteein' people a fair share of that ran'e $an e defended within a (awlsian framewor5 asa #ital part of what people need in order to e <normal, fully fun$tionin' memersof so$iety%=0 Je $onne$ts this to disease and disaility #ia the idea of normal>spe$ies9typi$al fun$tionin'% Followin' the >not un$ontro#ersial iomedi$alapproa$h, he defines disease and disaility as departures from the normalfun$tional or'aniKation of a spe$ies% Disease and disaility are thus understood as

impairments to normal fun$tionin', whi$h, in turn, are ar'ued to redu$e a person!s share of the normal opportunity ran'e elow what is fair% Jealth $areneeds are therefore a matter of usti$e if we 'rant that se$urin' for ea$h her fairshare of the normal opportunity ran'e is also a matter of usti$e%

. For (awls!s dis$ussion of temporary illness and a$$ident, see Restatement , 4/9;%- t is not entirely $lear what the relation is in (awls!s thou'ht etween ein' Qnormal! and ein'Qfully $ooperatin'!% t is implausile that one must e the former in order to e the latter yet torequire that one must e Qnormal! in addition to bein& fully cooperatin& would e diffi$ult to

ustify simply on the asis of the politi$al $on$eption of the $itiKen% do not, howe#er, pursue thatline of $riti$ism here%6 (awls, Restatement , 4/% See also Hohn (awls, (olitical Liberalism, papera$5 ed% >New Mor5:Columia "ni#ersity Press, 4;, 40-%7

See espe$ially Norman Daniels, "ust *ealth +are >Camrid'e: Camrid'e "ni#ersity Press,407 "ustice and "ustification: Reflective )quilibrium in Theory and (ractice >New Mor5:Camrid'e "ni#ersity Press, 4; <Demo$rati$ Equality: (awls!s Comple3 E'alitarianism,= inThe +ambrid&e +ompanion to Ra,ls, ed% Samuel Freeman, .649; >New Mor5: Camrid'e"ni#ersity Press, .//-%; (awls, (olitical Liberalism, 406, n% 46, and Restatement , 47, n% 70% Daniels, "ust *ealth +are, --%0 Daniels, "ustice and "ustification, .4;% Je also emphasiKes the $onne$tion etween a person!sfair share of the normal opportunity ran'e and her fundamental interest in ein' ale to re#ise her$on$eption of the 'ood, see "ust *ealth +are, .0%

4



1here are two features of Daniels!s e3tension that are meant to preser#e(awlsian neutralism% First, health $are needs are not in$orporated into the list of primary 'oods, ut rather e$ome part of what is required for se$urin' fairequality of opportunity% 1he intended $onsequen$e of this mo#e is to preser#e thetheory!s aility to measure ad#anta'e without measurin' positi#e freedom%

Se$ond, the idea of normal >spe$ies9typi$al fun$tionin' is put forth as ein' aleto directly identify the memers of an important set of $on#ersion impairmentsO namely, the set that des$ries disease and disaility% 1his identifi$ation is meantto o$$ur without any ud'ments of the #alue of parti$ular doin's and ein's% t isindependent of the spe$ifi$ation of the normal opportunity ran'e% Daniels ar'uesthat althou'h the idea of the normal opportunity ran'e e3plains why disease anddisaility are matters of usti$e, the idea is not needed for identifyin' the$on#ersion impairments related to them%

Daniels!s strate'y is $ommendale in many ways, ut am not $on#in$edthat it wor5s% Jis roadenin' of the s$ope of fair equality of opportunityundermines the point of the do$trine of primary 'oods for (awlsian neutralism,

and his #iew ultimately requires the #ery same 5ind of e#aluation of doin's and ein's as defended y Sen% will defend those two $laims in turn%1o e3plain why Daniels! roadenin' of opportunity under$uts (awlsian

neutralism, it is important to 5eep in mind how fair equality of opportunity andthe differen$e prin$iple $omine to miti'ate the effe$ts of the morally aritrarynatural and so$ial $ontin'en$ies that (awls hi'hli'hts% 1he natural $ontin'en$iesma5e differen$es in people!s nati#e endowments morally undeser#ed, ut e$auseit is rational for so$iety to harness those endowments >rather than le#elin' themdown, (awls offers the differen$e prin$iple to miti'ate the effe$ts of the naturallottery% 1he so$ial $ontin'en$ies, the most important of whi$h is the family,$ompound this moral prolem, sin$e they unequally distriute the $han$es peopleha#e to $ulti#ate their nati#e endowments ut e$ause >for a whole host ofreasons usin' state power to aolish the family is an unattra$ti#e proposition,(awls offers the prin$iple of fair equality of opportunity to miti'ate the talent9related effe$ts of so$ial $ontin'en$ies, in$ludin' the family%

1o relate this more dire$tly to the dis$ussion in this paper, these featuresof (awls!s #iew $an e rephrased in terms of their $onne$tion to so$ial positionsand le#els of ad#anta'e% (awls wisely re$o'niKes that se$urin' a distriution ofad#anta'e that meets the $hallen'es presented y the morally aritrary natural andso$ial $ontin'en$ies requires addressin' oth how ad#anta'e is distriuted amon'the #arious so$ial positions and how indi#iduals $ome to o$$upy those positions%f the asi$ stru$ture does what it $an to se$ure a fair pro$ess in determinin' who'oes where >whi$h in#ol#es, at least, oth adequate edu$ational opportunities andfair hirin' pra$ti$es, ut fails to distriute ad#anta'e fairly amon' the so$ial positions, or #i$e #ersa, then distriuti#e usti$e is in$omplete% 1he se$ond ofthese tas5s is handled y the differen$e prin$iple% 1he purpose of the do$trine of primary 'oods is to allow that prin$iple to wor5 without needin' to measure positi#e freedom, and so to stay within neutralist $onstraints% 1he first tas5Othatof ensurin' a fair pro$ess y whi$h indi#iduals end up in the #arious so$ial

Daniels, "ust *ealth +are, 77%

./



positionsOfalls to fair equality of opportunity% 1his is why (awls limits hisdis$ussion of opportunity to employment9related ones% Jis opportunity prin$ipleis desi'ned to ma5e sure that there is no inusti$e in how the so$ial $ontin'en$iesthat we ha#e reason to lea#e inta$t affe$t the pro$ess y whi$h indi#iduals end upin the #arious so$ial positions% (awls resists a more roust $on$eption of

opportunity e$ause of the worry that su$h a $on$eption would trespass into theterritory of positi#e freedom in a way that would undermine his theory!s aility tomeasure ad#anta'e within neutralist $onstraints% When Daniels roadens thes$ope of opportunity, he does pre$isely that% 1he reason for this result is that the$on#ersion impairments Daniels addresses $annot e spe$ified independently ofspe$ifyin' the normal opportunity ran'e%

2 si'nifi$ant part of Sen!s moti#ation for de#elopin' the $apailityapproa$h as a way to measure positi#e freedom was the thou'ht that we $annot ud'e dire$tly how disad#anta'eous a parti$ular inter9indi#idual #ariation isOandso $annot dire$tly identify and wei'ht $on#ersion impairments% Daniels is moreoptimisti$ in this re'ard% Je ar'ues that the iomedi$al s$ien$es >roadly

$onstrued to in$lude, e%'%, e#olutionary theory areOat least potentiallyOale tofully des$rie normal fun$tionin' for humans in a way that is puli$ly a$$eptaleand free from a de'ree of normati#ity that would run afoul of (awlsianneutralism%0/ will now e3plain why share Sen!s douts%

t is important to distin'uish etween what normally a human ody $an doand what normally a human $an do with his ody% 1his is the differen$e etweena$tions, su$h as mo#in' my arm in a forward ar$, and a$ti#ities, su$h as throwin'a aseall% Prior to the e#aluation of doin's and ein's, we $an tal5 aout whatnormally a ody $an do, and therey draw up a list of a$tions that a person la$5sthe aility to do% Jowe#er, we $annot identify whi$h of those la$5s aredisad#anta'eousOor how 'reatly soOwithout as5in' what is important aout thea$ti#ities >i%e%, doin's or ein's that the person is $ut off from e$ause of not ein' ale to do the spe$ified a$tions%04

Perhaps that puts the point too stron'ly% 1here is some plausiility to thesu''estion that if we limit our fo$us to what Sen sometimes $alls Qasi$! doin'sand ein's, we $ould defend these as ha#in' an all9purpose #alue similar toin$ome and wealth% We $ould then a#oid so$ial e#aluation of the a$ti#ities thatthese asi$ fun$tionin's enale, on the assumption that asi$ fun$tionin's are#alued no matter what else one #alues% 1his proposal $an e stren'thened yfo$usin' instead on a sli'htly different distin$tion etween what will $allQmeans9fun$tionin's! and Qends9fun$tionin's!%

1o illustrate that distin$tion $onsider two of the Qdoin's! mentionedearlier: mo#in' aout and seein' Rent on Broadway% 1hese are oth fun$tionin's,and oth ar'ualy #aluale ones, ut while the latter $an easily des$ried as anend, the former is not%0. 1his is important, e$ause when we are des$riin' a #iew

0/ Daniels, "ust *ealth +are, .09-/%04 ta5e this analysis to e $ompatile with the so$ial $onstru$ti#ist point in disaility dis$ussionsthat addressin' disaility should in#ol#e re#isin' so$ial en#ironments away from an Qaleist! iasthat prioritiKes the needs and aims of ale9odied, neurotypi$al indi#iduals%0. n some $onte3ts mo#in' aout mi'ht at the same time e an end as well% For e3ample, when $hoose to not sit perfe$tly still, one of my ends is to simply mo#e aout >e%'%, fid'etin', stret$hin',

.4



of the 'ood life y referen$e to the parti$ular a$ti#ities and states of ein' itattriutes #alue to, those fun$tionin's, want to su''est, are all Qends9fun$tionin's!Othat is, fun$tionin's that are also ends% While seein' Rent onBroadway $ould easily e $onsidered an element of the 'ood life, mo#in' aout per se is not% (ather, mo#in' aout is #alued primarily as a means to the #arious

ends that it opens up for a person% f we were to des$rie a parti$ular #iew of the'ood life a$$ordin' to its ran5ed list of #aluale fun$tionin's, these would not emeans9fun$tionin's% Neutralism $ould therefore e satisfied if the puli$delieration aout the #alue of fun$tionin's were limited to means9fun$tionin's%

oreo#er, if we loo5 at a wide #ariety of different ends9fun$tionin's fromdifferent #iews of the 'ood life, thin5 we will find that they depend on arelati#ely small numer of the same means9fun$tionin's% For e3ample, $onsiderhow wide a #ariety of spe$ifi$ #aluale a$ti#ities are opened up y ha#in' the$apaility to a$hie#e the four followin' means9fun$tionin's: mo#in' aout,$ommuni$atin' with others, per$ei#in' one!s surroundin's and manipulatin'small oe$ts% 1herefore, a fairly short ut powerful list of means9fun$tionin's

mi'ht well e #alued instrumentally y a wide #ariety of $on$eptions of the 'ood,whi$h would seem to pass the test of lieral neutrality% We mi'ht well thin5 thatthis proposal would adequately a$$ount for inter9indi#idual #ariation% Con#ersionimpairments $an plausily e thou'ht of as ein' lo$ated at the le#el of means9fun$tionin's% When a person has a $on#ersion impairment with respe$t to a parti$ular ends9fun$tionin', that $an typi$ally e e3plained in terms of a$on#ersion impairment with respe$t to one >or more of the means9fun$tionin'sthat are ne$essary for that ends9fun$tionin'% t would seem therefore that we $ould'et what we need for addressin' $on#ersion impairments simply y identifyin' adefensily in$lusi#e list of means9fun$tionin's%

1he prolem is: Jow do we $ome up with a defensile list of means9fun$tionin's@ 2nd how do we wei'ht the memers of that list@ 8ne possiility isto loo5 for the means9fun$tionin's that are #alued y all, and atta$h to them toonly whate#er wei'ht a#oids $ontro#ersy% (awls would ree$t that strate'y as ein' politi$al in the wron' way% nstead, his approa$h su''ests that we shouldsee5 to identify a list of means9fun$tionin's all of whose memers $an edefended as politi$al in the (awlsian sense, y see5in' to identify the #ariousmeans9fun$tionin's that enale people to e normal and fully $ooperatin'memers of so$iety% (awls emphasiKes the two moral powers in this re'ard% Jedes$ries them as $apailities the #alue of whi$h $an e defended y politi$allieralism%0- 1he two moral powers, howe#er, are too 'eneral to e of mu$h use inthe present e3er$ise% For instan$e, almost e#ery $on$ei#ale means9fun$tionin'would seem to e important for the $apa$ity to pursue and re#ise a $on$eption ofthe 'ood%

We mi'ht loo5 instead to Daniels% Je ar'ues that people need a fair shareof the normal opportunity ran'e if they are to e normal and fully $ooperatin'memers of so$iety% 1his su''ests that we should see5 to determine whi$h means9fun$tionin's are most important for 'uaranteein' people their fair share%

et$%% than5 Stephen Lei'hton for this point%0- (awls, Restatement , 4;%

..



Jowe#er, $omparin' means9fun$tionin's in terms of their instrumental #alue for people!s a$$ess to the normal opportunity ran'e is equi#alent to spe$ifyin' howmu$h power parti$ular means9fun$tionin's 'i#e people to pursue <the array of life plans reasonale persons in Ta so$ietyU are li5ely to $onstru$t for themsel#es=Oor, usin' Sen!s terminolo'y, to pursue the 5inds of li#es they ha#e reason to

#alue%06

n other words, this strate'y in#ol#es fillin' in the $ontent of the normalopportunity ran'e as part of the tas5 of measurin' positi#e freedom, whi$h issomethin' that Daniels had hoped to a#oid y appealin' to the iomedi$alapproa$h% do not see any way around this% 1he iomedi$al approa$h $an identifythe spe$ies9typi$al norm for what a human ody $an do, ut it $annot e3plainwhi$h fun$tionin's are #aluale or how 'reatly so unless the approa$h attriutes#alue to parti$ular ends9fun$tionin's, whi$h 'oes a'ainst the reason for appealin'to the approa$h initially% su''est therefore that puli$ #alue lieralism, ratherthan (awlsian neutrality, is the model that pro#ides the est fit for Daniels!sapproa$h to usti$e and health%

06 Daniels, "ust *ealth +are, --%

lowry senyneutralidad

Documents