librsnet@mail.ru
Moral Issues in Special Education. Robert F. Ladenson
self-determined choices, while not sufficient, nonetheless are as essential for fulfillment of capacities as they are for aspiration fulfillment. Capacity fulfillment results primarily from a person’s choices concerning those of her capacities to which she attaches the greatest importance, her decisions to endeavor developing them, and her diverse choices concerning how best she can do so. Furthermore, aspects and qualities of choice crucial for seeking capacity fulfillment are themselves developed most effectively through, and exemplified in, the making of choices. John Stuart Mill states the above point clearly and persuasively in the following passage from his classic essay “On Liberty”:
He who chooses his plan of life for himself employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision. And these qualities he requires and exercises exactly in proportion to the part of his conduct which he determines according to his own judgment and feelings is a large one.15
Crucial relationships between receipt of an appropriate K–12 education and meaningful development of the abilities Mill identifies in the above passage are clear and relevant to life as lived in the United States.
Acquiring greater knowledge throughout the years of K–12 schooling, for instance, enhances an individual’s observational powers, thereby increasing the range of objects, whether natural or social, he can identify and observe. Developing the abilities to analyze, abstract, hypothesize, and interpret through study of such subjects as mathematics, the sciences, history, and literature (even at the K–12 level) vastly augments a person’s reasoning powers, acumen in making judgments, and discrimination to decide.
Advancements in literacy and communication skills resulting from an appropriate K–12 education tend both to stimulate and to increase the frequency of successful outcomes in gathering materials for decision. Intellectual self-confidence gained from efforts put forth in successful learning experiences during the K–12 years (e.g., working one’s way through challenging assignments) supports the resolve needed to follow through and act upon decisions one has made.
The above mentioned abilities, with respect to which an appropriate K–12 education is reasonably calculated to facilitate development, qualify a person to take advantage of potentially valuable opportunities she otherwise would not have had in virtually every significant area of her life. Especially important, such knowledge and abilities foster self-discovery by vastly increasing the likelihood a person will find interests that broaden, deepen to become abiding, and point her toward choices which, in Feinberg’s words, develop her “chief aptitudes into genuine talents in a life that gives them scope.”16
The Meaning of “Educational Deprivation” in Contemporary American Society
A deprived person lacks resources needed for a reasonable chance to attain success in seeking a good life. In contemporary America an appropriate K–12 education is such a needed resource. Without it, a person is unlikely to gain knowledge and develop abilities needed for deliberation that concerns (a) exercising the rights, fulfilling the responsibilities, and exemplifying the ideals of membership in the American democratic body politic and (b) having a reasonable chance for success in seeking the basic human good of self-fulfillment; both of these are essential for seeking a good life.
To reiterate the reasons, first, in regard to (a), a person lacking the abovementioned knowledge and abilities cannot understand American democracy in moral terms from either a practical or a theoretical standpoint. Insofar as moral concern, and hence moral understanding, is integral to a good life, then something immensely important is missing from the life of a person who can inhabit the nomos—that is, enter into the moral world—of his own society to only a limited extent at best.
Second, in regard to (b), as Alan Gewirth states, to seek a good human life is to seek for self-fulfillment. Correlatively, there is no deeper source of unhappiness for a person capable of development and growth than to realize that she faces a life without any reasonable prospects for success in seeking self-fulfillment. In the case of American children who have not received an appropriate K–12 education, such a realization tends strongly to result in feelings of futility and ultimate hopelessness. This has devastating consequences for development of the self-confidence and motivational energy that success in seeking a good life requires.
Self-fulfillment is a basic good from the standpoint of American society, but for that very reason, relative to the United States, a person who reasonably apprehends her life as utterly lacking prospects for success in seeking self-fulfillment is a deprived individual.
Justification of the Judgment That the U.S. Government Has a Morally Required Responsibility to Assure That Children in Group A Are Provided an Appropriate K–12 Education
Most people (other than philosophical anarchists) consider some kinds of activities morally required functions of governments and other kinds of activities as discretionary for a government to do, in the sense of being morally justified but not morally required governmental responsibilities. There are, however, some important cases where from a moral standpoint it is a matter of deep and intense controversy whether a given kind of activity is required, discretionary, or unjustified for a government to undertake.17
In such cases, reasoned disagreement of opinion leads quickly to questions at the core of systematic philosophical reflection upon the subject of morality, encompassing in a broad sense the domains of moral theory, political philosophy, legal philosophy, and practical and professional ethics. Unsurprisingly, no settled consensus exists among philosophers about the answers to these questions.
Many of the philosophical debates and discussions that have pursued the questions most fully and deeply, have largely concerned, either explicitly or implicitly, contrast and comparison among four theories, all of which have been developed to analyze the concept of social justice. Each theory views a different idea as central to the concept.18 The following are the four theories paired respectively with the ideas they posit as central to the concept of social justice:
(1) utilitarianism—happiness/avoidance or minimizing of unhappiness;
(2) Rawlsian Justice as fairness—fairness;
(3) Nussbaum’s capabilities account of social justice—human dignity; and
(4) moderate libertarianism—liberty (freedom).
The discussion immediately below thus proceeds in the following way. Four separate arguments are set forth for the conclusion that American children in Group A have a moral right to receive an appropriate K–12 education. Each argument proceeds from the standpoint of a different one of the above major philosophical theories of social justice.
As with all philosophy, none of the four arguments closes the question at issue for once and for all. Each argument, however, has strong prima facie plausibility in the following respect. It is reasonable to believe that all of the arguments would be acknowledged by a substantial number of qualified persons in fields such as moral theory, political philosophy, legal philosophy, and philosophy of education as deserving careful and considered responses.
The fact that the conclusions of four arguments—each of which is grounded in a different major philosophical theory of justice—reach an overlapping consensus provides a strong justification of the judgment that American children in Group A have a moral right to receive an appropriate K–12 education.
Utilitarianism
According to utilitarianism, developed in its classic form by John Stuart Mill, the idea of well-being, understood to encompass both happiness and the absence of unhappiness, is essential to morality. Mill regarded assessment of human actions in terms of the extent to which they promote happiness and/or avoid, prevent, or minimize unhappiness for the greatest number of individuals as critical to understanding and applying all moral concepts.
In Principles of Political Economy Mill distinguished between “necessary” and “optional” governmental functions but did not identify a standard to apply for drawing the