Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1Introduction: Social primary goods and capabilities as metrics of justice
- PART ITHEORY
- PART IIAPPLICATIONS
- 6Capabilities, opportunity, and health
- 7What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability
- 8Primary goods, capabilities, and children
- 9Education for primary goods or for capabilities?
- 10Gender and the metric of justice
- PART IIICONCLUDING ESSAY
- Index
- References
9 - Education for primary goods or for capabilities?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1Introduction: Social primary goods and capabilities as metrics of justice
- PART ITHEORY
- PART IIAPPLICATIONS
- 6Capabilities, opportunity, and health
- 7What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability
- 8Primary goods, capabilities, and children
- 9Education for primary goods or for capabilities?
- 10Gender and the metric of justice
- PART IIICONCLUDING ESSAY
- Index
- References
Summary
Imagine that you are a newly appointed education minister for a revolutionary government. The old order is done away with and there is no significant resistance. You have, therefore, a free hand to reconstruct the education system at will. You are committed to justice, so will want to ensure that educational opportunities are distributed justly. But what should those educational opportunities consist in? In so far as it is within your power to influence their content, what theory of the metric of justice should you turn to?
Our contention in this paper is that both Rawls's social primary goods theory and Sen and Nussbaum's capabilities approach offer some resources to guide your thinking. But neither will do on its own, and even jointly they leave a good deal undetermined. We do not have alternative proposals to hand; our conclusion is the rather prosaic one that the two approaches can complement each other, but that more work needs to be done.
EDUCATION AS A PRIMARY GOOD?
Let's turn first to the social primary goods. One natural move is to say that education is a social primary good in Rawls's sense. Rawls does not say this himself, so what is the basis on which one might make the move? His theory of justice applies at the level of ideal theory and, importantly, is designed in a model which assumes that no one is chronically and severely impaired.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Measuring JusticePrimary Goods and Capabilities, pp. 193 - 214Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
1999. Intercultural Education and Literacy: An Ethnographic Study of Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in the Peruvian Amazon. London: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. “What Rights (if any) do Children Have?” in and (eds.), The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford University Press, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
2003. “Human Well-Being: Concepts and Conceptualizations.” Paper delivered at Seminar on Capabilities, Sustainable Development and Freedom: University of Pavia, September 2003.
2004. “Capability Approach and Subjective Well-Being.” Paper delivered at Seminar on Capabilities and Happiness: St. Edmund's College, University of Cambridge, March 2004.
1980. “Children, Paternalism, and Education: A Liberal Argument,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 9, 4: 338–58.Google Scholar
and 2006. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. “The Capability Approach in Practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy 14, 3: 351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. “Amartya Sen's Capability Approach to Education: A Critical Exploration,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 37, 1: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
April 1992. “Race and the Schooling of Black Americans,” The Atlantic Monthly, 284: 68–78.Google Scholar
2003. “The Capabilities Approach and Gendered Education: An Examination of South African Complexities,” Theory and Research in Education 1: 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “Global Inequality, Capabilities, Social Justice and the Millennium Development Goal for Gender Equality in Education,” International Journal of Educational Development 25, 2: 111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.
- 27
- Cited by