FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4308449780> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4308449780 endingPage "845" @default.
• W4308449780 startingPage "839" @default.
• W4308449780 abstract "Reviewed by: The Disabled Contract: Severe Intellectual Disability, Justice and Morality by Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry Matthew S. Smith (bio) and Michael Ashley Stein (bio) Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry, The Disabled Contract: Severe Intellectual Disability, Justice and Morality (Cambridge UP, 2021) ISBN 9781316591482, 314 pages. Traditional social contract theorists have been criticized for failing to adequately account for persons with intellectual, developmental, or other disabilities (IDD).1 Various philosophers have attempted to retrofit social contract theory to accommodate this group, with varying degrees of success.2 Hence, whether social contract theory can convincingly incorporate those with IDD and thereby form the basis for ensuring their agency and attendant human rights has remained an open question. Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry attempts to put that question to bed. Over nearly 300 pages, he takes up in turn various proposed solutions and one by one demonstrates their inability to incorporate certain people with what he terms “severe intellectual disability,” or collectively, “PSID.”3 Indeed, the title The Disabled Contract misleads in that Beaudry actively proves the opposite, namely, that there is no workable disabled contract—at least within the constraints of social contract theory. As he more elegantly concludes, “the social contract has exhausted its resources to help societies treat PSID and other disabled people fairly.”4 At its core, social contract theory holds that moral duties arise from reciprocal individual contributions. Social contract theorists posit that in any given society, its individual members will seek to cooperate with others for individual or collective advantage. Hence, they assume that individuals’ shared desire for cooperation will lead them to agree on common rules of engagement that reward fair dealings and promote mutual advantage. That agreement both becomes the font of moral duty, fairness, and justice among members of a society, [End Page 839] and also provides a theoretical foundation for morally valid government based on individuals’ consent. In essence, fair processes generate fair outcomes for life lived beyond the veil and mediated by an ethically just government. But fair for whom? In such constructs, persons with disabilities, as well as other historically marginalized groups, find themselves at a marked disadvantage. Non-disabled individuals are presumed to be less likely to cooperate with disabled peers because they perceive them to be less advantageous partners, or socalled “unprofitable” contractors. Thus, when individual refusals to cooperate are aggregated, a majority non-disabled society will sideline or oppress its disabled minority.5 In practice, societies the world over have long functioned this way, epitomizing a “rotten social contract,”6 even though such perceptions of persons with disabilities as undesirable contractors rely on deeply entrenched but empirically suspect biases and stigma.7 Tellingly, many philosophers themselves harbor such biases, leading them to exclude persons with disabilities from their constructs, as did John Rawls in his classic “veil of ignorance” formulation.8 Others outright devalue the lives of people with disabilities.9 Prominent among them, Peter Singer distinguishes “normal” human beings from certain people with disabilities who are “merely conscious beings” lacking “morally significant” capacities for rationality. In his utilitarian view, “when the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.”10 Thus, in stark contrast to Beaudry, who digs into moral grounds for accommodating PSID in society, Singer’s ethic provides moral cover for euthanizing them. Fortunately, [End Page 840] outright devaluations of disabled lives are met increasingly with forceful critiques, such as William Alford’s recent essay exposing some of Singer’s conclusions as “essentially reiterations of his preconceptions.” 11 Countering disability bias in theoretical discourse is much more than idle chatter. The COVID-19 pandemic has all too starkly shown how societal failures to value disabled lives carry fatal consequences.12 It should not be hard to find reasons why disabled lives matter. Yet Beaudry convincingly argues that it is impossible to do so without abandoning social contract theory. A grim prognosis, to be sure, since social contract theory has undergirded much of modern moral and political philosophical thought. Moreover, Beaudry’s critique bodes poorly for numerous theorists who have attempted..." @default.
• W4308449780 created "2022-11-12" @default.
• W4308449780 creator A5047614673 @default.
• W4308449780 creator A5054426043 @default.
• W4308449780 date "2022-11-01" @default.
• W4308449780 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4308449780 title "The Disabled Contract: Severe Intellectual Disability, Justice and Morality by Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry" @default.
• W4308449780 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2022.0040" @default.
• W4308449780 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4308449780 type Work @default.
• W4308449780 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4308449780 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4308449780 hasAuthorship W4308449780A5047614673 @default.
• W4308449780 hasAuthorship W4308449780A5054426043 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C200113983 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C54726253 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C108170787 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C139621336 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C144024400 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C17744445 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C190253527 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C199539241 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C200113983 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C36289849 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C54726253 @default.
• W4308449780 hasConceptScore W4308449780C94625758 @default.
• W4308449780 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4308449780 hasLocation W43084497801 @default.
• W4308449780 hasOpenAccess W4308449780 @default.
• W4308449780 hasPrimaryLocation W43084497801 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W1604124411 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2363763227 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2373059859 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2378398722 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2559995079 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2888049751 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W417381818 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W4224213942 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W4322730087 @default.
• W4308449780 hasRelatedWork W2739368782 @default.
• W4308449780 hasVolume "44" @default.
• W4308449780 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4308449780 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4308449780 workType "article" @default.