Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | S | Social Theory and Practice

The moral personhood of individuals labeled "mentally retarded": a Rawlsian response to Nussbaum.

Article Excerpt
When it comes to disabilities, we live in a deeply segregated society. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 49.7 million Americans have a disability--that is, roughly 16% of the population, or one out of every six people. But when "we" nondisabled people go to our workplaces, sporting events, movie theaters, concert halls, places of worship, cafes, restaurants, and bars--where are "they"--our peers with disabilities? In our daily lives, most nondisabled citizens hardly see or hear citizens with disabilities and even more rarely interact with them socially. (1) It is very difficult to identify which of these 49.7 million individuals have been labeled as being "mentally retarded," as figures and definitions vary immensely. (2) At any rate, an unscientific survey of my academic colleagues reveals that there are very few people labeled "mentally retarded" to be seen on campuses, not even working in cafeterias or sweeping the hallways. I start with this point because it is at these largely segregated university campuses that some academics write on topics of ethics and justice, inadvertently or purposely omitting people labeled "mentally retarded" from consideration.

In this paper, I defend two main points. First, in trying to change society so that we include people labeled with "mental retardation," we need to make claims of justice in addition to appeals to virtue. The second point is that when making claims of justice, we need not give up Rawlsian contractualism in favor of the capabilities approach (as Martha Nussbaum argues), because a closer reading of Rawls is more inclusive than Nussbaum's interpretation. (3)

When considering the status of virtues within political theories, the question arises: can one have a liberal political framework and continue to endorse a theory about the virtues that works within that framework?

One question I have about virtue theories is whether they can guide us in persuading citizens who are intolerant of people with disabilities that they have reason to change their beliefs or at least their behaviors. In discussing civic virtue in the housing context, Lawrence Blum examines the problem that blacks are still stigmatized as undesirable and unfit neighbors, and thus whites will move out of any neighborhood as soon as the percentage of blacks reaches a certain "tipping point." (4) This situation is also mirrored when it comes to having people with disabilities as neighbors. Whenever a group home tries to buy property in a given community, residents often protest that having people labeled "mentally retarded" living nearby will decrease the value of their homes. The reasons they give vary widely but are usually grounded in a lack of experience with such neighbors. The stigma attached to people with disabilities has deep roots in the history of this country; in fact, there were laws prohibiting people with disabilities from appearing in various public places because nondisabled people considered them unsightly and upsetting nuisances. (5)

Let's consider the following challenge as a way into the philosophical issues. What is the best way of convincing our fellow citizens that the people moving into their neighborhood are not only their new neighbors, but fellow citizens too? I can think of at least five approaches to try:

(1) We could appeal to their economic interests, saying: "Look, these are people who pay taxes, consumers who buy groceries and clothes and electronic goods like everyone else, and whose needs create jobs in this community. In fact, some of them even work and contribute to the economy." (This is the idea of mutual advantage.)

(2) We could appeal to their sense of personal virtue and say: "It would be generous and kind of you to welcome them into your neighborhood--it's the kind of thing that isn't too much effort for you, but brings great benefit to others, like working for an afternoon in a soup kitchen, or walking three miles to raise funds to cure a mysterious disease."

(3) We could show them that their fears have no basis in fact: while people labeled "mentally retarded" may have been misperceived as being threatening, dangerous to small children, or otherwise detrimental to the neighborhood, there is little evidence to support these negative stereotypes.

(4) We could appeal to civic virtues and say something like this: "Being an American citizen means being tolerant of difference and diversity, and being open-minded. If you are a good citizen, then you should be willing to live near people who are different from you, not just people who are similar to you. And if you want to live in a segregated neighborhood (or a 'gated community') then perhaps this is not the right country for you."

(5) We could take a universalist view. We could say simply: "These are persons who are members of the moral community just like you and me. They have a right to live here just as you do. It's not a matter of charity, or mutual advantage." If we are universalists, we argue: "This is a matter of justice for our fellow citizens." I am reminded here of a remark that was made in the movie Borat. Borat (the Kazhakstani journalist character created by the British actor Sacha Baron Cohen) is visiting a right-wing rally and starts a conversation with a rather conservative man who turns out to be quite homophobic. The man says something like this: "Well, I can't stand gays, but they have rights too and I gotta respect that. This is America." This man retains his claim to make bigoted statements in private, but acknowledges that in a public space he must recognize the rights of other citizens.

I think that the justice-oriented perspective emphasizing the rights of people with disabilities is most likely to convince others to change their behavior, even though (like Borat's homophobe) they may never change their beliefs and prejudices about people they do not understand. It is a matter of justice that people with disabilities should have equal chances to live in communities and to access education that helps them achieve their potential.

Still, there is no conflict between endorsing theories of justice and recognizing that personal virtues also support the flourishing of civil societies. Theories of justice don't stop us from devising new and surprising ways to encourage individuals to develop the personal virtues that support robust inclusion of people with disabilities. Theories of justice remind us that we must structure our social institutions so that they include people with disabilities in every aspect of our daily life, because they are moral persons and they are owed a place at the table as a matter of justice. In so doing, theories of justice are the key to robust inclusion, because there are many things that virtuous and benevolent individuals cannot accomplish without social coordination.

Perhaps it makes sense to argue, as does Victoria Costa, that the connection between justice...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!