Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:11:36.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction: Social primary goods and capabilities as metrics of justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Ingrid Robeyns
Affiliation:
Professor of Practical Philosophy at the Erasmus University Rotterdam
Harry Brighouse
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin, Madison
Harry Brighouse
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ingrid Robeyns
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Get access

Summary

THE METRIC OF JUSTICE

Over the last decades, political theorists and philosophers have at length debated the question what the proper metric of justice is. In other words, they have sought to answer the question “what should we look at, when evaluating whether one state of affairs is more or less just than another?” Should we evaluate the distribution of happiness? Or wealth? Or life chances? Or some combination of these and other factors? The Rawlsian social primary goods approach and the capability approach are two prominent answers to this question. The aim of this volume is to present a systematic study of these two approaches to measuring justice.

Building on the work of John Rawls, some theorists use the social primary goods approach. Social primary goods are, according to Rawls, those goods that anyone would want regardless of whatever else they wanted. They are means, or resources (broadly conceived), and this approach says that we should compare holdings of such resources, without looking closely at what individuals, possessed of heterogeneous abilities and preferences, can do with them. Rawls (2001, pp. 58–61) specifies the social primary goods in a list as follows:

i) The basic liberties (freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, etc.) are the background institutions necessary for the development and exercise of the capacity to decide upon and revise, and rationally to pursue, a conception of the good. Similarly, these liberties allow for the development and exercise of the sense of right and justice under political and social conditions that are free. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Justice
Primary Goods and Capabilities
, pp. 1 - 14
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. 1989. “Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare,” Philosophical Studies 56: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berges, S. 2007Why the Capability Approach is Justified,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24, 1: 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchardt, T. 2008. “Measuring Inequality: Putting the Capability Approach to Work,” in Craig, G., Burchardt, T., and Gordon, D. (eds.), Social Justice and Public Policy: Seeking Fairness in Diverse Societies. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1989. “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics 99: 906–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, N. 1981. “Health Care Needs and Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 10, 2: 146–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. 1985 Just Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bundestag, Deutscher 2008. Lebenslagen in Deutschland: Dritter Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht. Berlin: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981. “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 10: 283–345.Google Scholar
,Equalities Review 2007. Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Freeman, S. 2006. “Book Review – Frontiers of Justice: The Capabilities Approach versus Contractarianism,” Texas Law Review 85, 2: 385–430.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. 2003. “The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen's Ideas on Capabilities,” Feminist Economics 9: 301–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2004. “Beyond the Social Contract: Capabilities and Global Justice,” Oxford Development Studies 32, 1: 3–18.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M. 2003. Libertarianism without Inequality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T. 2002. “Can the Capability Approach be Justified?Philosophical Topics 30, 2: 167–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1982. “Social Unity and Primary Goods,” in Sen, A. and Williams, B. (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–85.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1985. “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14, 3: 223–52.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1988. “The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 17, 4: 251–76.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999a. A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999b. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. 2006. “Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled,” Journal of Ethics 10: 419–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2005. “Assessing Global Poverty and Inequality: Income, Resources and Capabilities,” Metaphilosophy 36, 1/2: 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. “Equality of What?” in McMurrin, S. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press pp. 196–220.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1990. “Justice: Means Versus Freedoms,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 111–21.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
,UNDP. 1990–2007/8. Human Development Report. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×