Don’t do it for my Sake

Abstract

AbstractIt seems obvious the state should fulfil the obligation to ameliorate the disabling effects of impairments. However, the state is distrusted by much of the disabled community, and for good reason. Even when making a genuine attempt to advance disabled people’s interests, it often assumes it knows what these are, ignoring the views of intended beneficiaries. Disabled individuals should not be treated as passive beneficiaries, whose voices are side-lined, but respected as autonomous agents. This demands a commitment to anti-paternalism. Often paternalism is objectionable because it fails by its own terms: not actually conferring benefits. Yet even if successful, paternalism should be avoided. Paternalist redistribution is not merely objectionable because it misuses individuals’ good, but because it mistakes the aim of redistribution. Our goal should not be ensuring individuals lead the best possible life, but that they can control the shape of their life, exercising broadly specified opportunities however they choose.