Justice? Yes, but at what cost?
How far must society go to accommodate the blind?
Driving around DC this weekend, I noticed for the first time signs along one street that read “Blind Child.” Intrigued, I did some research and discovered that that many states will, if requested, post street signs around the houses of deaf and blind children alerting drivers to be extra cautious. Such signs are a relatively inexpensive way society can help increase the safety of children for whom circumstance has unfairly made dangerous the most basic of activities.
The signs got me thinking. What else could society do to help eliminate some of the unequal consequences of blindness? A few obvious things come to mind: crosswalks that beep; braille in more places; bills of different sizes; buses that tell you what stop you’re coming to. A scan of the American Foundation for the Blind public policy page suggests many more (the striking thing about the issues that organizations like this lobby for is that they are not about the endless promotion of one community’s interests; they are about minimizing the inequality the blind community faces).
While we could compile a long list of steps that could be taken to help the blind, the more interesting question from a public philosophy perspective is what steps must be taken. The challenge, of course, is this: blindness takes away such a basic human function that there is probably nothing society can do to make blindness inconsequential. There are obviously things society can do to make the consequences of blindness less unequal. The question is, at what cost?
We’ve written numerous times on the demands of justice: to what degree must we dedicate ourselves (including time and resources) to the pursuit of justice? In the philosophical literature, the answers to this question tend to demand great sacrifice in pursuit of justice, to the point of stopping just before falling below “basic sufficiency” or at significant risk of worsening one’s life.
Alternatively, we could take a utilitarian approach: for some public policy change, compare the costs to society (generally monetary) to the benefits. For many public policy issues relevant to the blind, we are likely to all benefit. Buses that announce their location is something I find very useful, particularly in a city I don’t know well. Crosswalks that beep regularly prevent me from walking into traffic while listening to my ipod and tweeting from my phone. Other public policy changes – say requiring schools to stock large print books – would have some cost but, likely, great benefit to society.
It seems we should do something. But how much, as always, remains the question.
-Marc
Related posts:
- Financial transparency and distributive justice
- Swine flu and global justice
- Can presidents have fun?
- A place where justice can’t exist
- Does symbolism matter in the pursuit of justice?
ShareComments
One Response to “Justice? Yes, but at what cost?”
Leave a Reply
Perhaps we should look to the Findings in the 2008 revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act: “in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers;”