This lecture on TED.com by Michael Sandel (Harvard) constructs an argument using this case of Casey Martin and his need for accommodation on the golf course. He suggests that without engaging our moral convictions in a constructive argument, we are doing ourselves a disservice. In the autism sphere, it is very much time for these discussions where “engagement” has become very much like that “ideological food fight.” Some voices are stronger, indeed and others are downright nasty and others still use false facts to present a case. Yet, this is no time to back away. It’s time to think about how to engage ethically in the autism debate.
What is justice, Sandel asks his audience? Like Aristotle, Sandel agrees that justice cannot be determined without an understanding of the following:
1) What abilities we recognize as worthy of honour and recognition and,
2) the purpose of our social institutions.
It seems to me that these are, in fact, the essential questions that we can ask ourselves as we discuss and debate the bigger questions like “what is autism?” and “what kinds of help do autistics need to contribute to society?” The question pertinent here, of course, is how and if we regard autistic individuals as worthy and how we prove that we believe it.
ESTÉE KLAR
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA
Writer/Curator/Founder of The Autism Acceptance Project. Lecturer on autism & the media, and parenting. Graduate student Critical Disability Studies, York University. I like to write about our journey, musings, attitudes towards autism.
After I posted this today, I reviewed some of the blogs out there… particularly the ones who “hate autism,” and those of us who adore our children.
There is a lot of really *bad behaviour* going on still out there. I’d like to ask when did it become okay for people to spread libelous rumours on blog comments? It’s a certain indication when others use children, false rumours about families and the like, that they have no argument/leg to stand on.
That was a great lecture, and a great explanation of Aristotle. There are a lot of different ways of looking at justice.
I am particularly wary of those that are utilitarian based (the greatest good for the greatest number of people), as such systems will leave behind the “outliers” in society every time. One may not be surprised to find out that Peter Singer (who would allow parents to kill unwanted children) is a utilitarian.
One of my favorite ways of approaching justice is by John Rawls, who would have us make policies by imagining ourselves behind a “veil of ignorance”, where we know not what our own position in life is (rich/poor, able bodied/disabled, black/white, etc.). I don’t agree with everything Rawls says, but I think he gets it pretty close.
Joe
Yes, good point bringing up Singer here. I hadn’t thought of it. I haven’t read Rawls but I will now. It sounds as if Rawls uses a “what if” scenario. Would that be accurate?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “what if” scenario, but like most philosophers, he deconstructs things and looks at how might one put them back together again. Rawls laid out his theory in a book called “A Theory of Justice”.
Rawls considers how one might make rules in a society, such that they were “just”. Basically, he starts with everyone making those rules behind the construct of the “veil of ignorance”, then comes up with two overriding principles.
The first principle is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.
The second principle is sometimes referred to as the “maximin” principle. This principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that they are to be of the greatest advantage to the least advantaged members of society, and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Thus, it is recognized that there will be inequalities in any world. And money, power, and prestige are great motivating factors to get people to produce more. But they should only be rewarded more as long as the more they get, the better off are those at the lowest end of the socioeconomic scale.
Also, all public offices are not only to be open to everybody on the basis of merit, but also that everyone should have equal access to the means of developing the skills upon which merit is based.