Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A response to Torbjörn Tännsjö

• Authors: Gibson Quinn Hiroshi
• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

The consideration of the problem of healthcare allocation as a special case of distributive justice is especially alluring when we only consider consequentialist theories. I articulate here an alternative Rawlsian non-consequentialist theory which prioritizes the fairness of healthcare allocation procedures rather than directly setting distributive parameters. The theory in question stems from Rawlsian commitments that, it is argued, have a better Rawlsian pedigree than those considered as such by Tännsjö. The alternative framework is worthy of consideration on its own merits, but it also casts light on two related difficulties with Tännsjö’s approach: (i) the limits of his supposedly ecumenical methodology, which is revealed to be dialectically suspect and (ii) issues with the type of abstraction and idealization from actual judgements and preferences which the approach requires.

Keywords

EN

Consequentialism; Rawls; Contractualism; healthcare fairness; distributive justice

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii - Uniwersytet Jagielloński
• Journal: Diametros
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 68
• Pages: 9-23

Dates

published

2021-05

Contributors

author

Gibson Quinn Hiroshi

• American University of Beirut

References

• Cohen G.A. (1997), “Where the Action is: On the Site of Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1): 3-30.
• Cohen G.A. (2003), “Facts and Principles,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3): 211-245.
• Cohen G.A. (2008), Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
• Daniels N. (2001), “Justice, Health, and Healthcare,” American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2): 2-16.
• Goodin R. (2020), “Setting Health-Care Priorities: A Reply to Tännsjö,” Diametros, September: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1597
• Miller D. (2013), “Political philosophy for Earthlings,” [in:] D. Miller, Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice (1st edition), Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
• Rescher N. (1969), “The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy,” Ethics 79 (3): 173-186.
• Roebyns I. (2008), “Ideal Theory in Theory and Practice,” Social Theory and Practice 34 (3): 341-362.
• Sen A. (2006), “What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?,” Journal of Philosophy 103: 215–38.
• Singer P. (2009), “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” New York Times Magazine. URL = https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html [Accessed 27.12.21].
• Stemplowska Z. (2008), “What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory?,” Social Theory and Practice 34 (3): 319-340.
• Stemplowska Z., Swift A. (2012), “Ideal and Nonideal Theory,” [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, D. Estlund (ed.), Oxford University Press: 373-389.
• Tännsjö T. (2019), Setting Health-Care Priorities: What Ethical Theories Tell Us, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Identifiers

DOI

10.33392/diam.1682