It is a longstanding problem for theorists of justice that many victims of injustice seem to prefer mistreatment, and perpetuate their own oppression. One possible response is to simply ignore such preferences as unreliable 'adaptive preferences'. Capability theorists have taken this approach, arguing that individuals should be entitled to certain capabilities regardless of their satisfaction without them. Although this initially seems plausible, worries have been raised that undermining the reliability of individuals' strongly-held preferences impugns their rationality, and further excludes already marginalised groups. I argue that such criticisms trade on an ambiguity between two uses of the term 'adaptive preference'. An adaptive preference is often assumed to be irrational, and an unreliable guide to its possessor's best interests. However, I suggest a preference may also be adaptive in the sense that it is an unreliable guide to our distributive entitlements, and that this does not require an assessment of individuals' rationality. I consider this distinction in relation to disability, arguing that this clarification allows us to justifiably ignore some disabled individuals' preferences, in the context of theorising about distributive justice, without disrespecting or undermining their rationality or culture. account of wants only as they are given', 2 and so assume that those who claim to be satisfied are, indeed, satisfied, and entitled to nothing further. bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Most people have a clear sense of what they mean by disability, and have little trouble identifying conditions they consider disabling. Yet providing a clear and consistent definition of disability is far from straightforward. Standardly, disability is understood as the restriction in our abilities to perform tasks, as a result of an impairment of normal physical or cognitive human functioning (in combination with our social, political, and environmental context, and our resource share). However, which inabilities matter? We are all restricted by our bodies, and are all incapable of performing some tasks, but most of these inabilities are not considered disabilities. If, then, we are to avoid the category of disability becoming overly broad—and thus politically and practically useless—we need some way of picking out the specific inabilities that are disabling. I argue that our answer should be informed by an account of the opportunities individuals are entitled to be able to perform as a matter of justice. Thus, to be disabled is to have these opportunities restricted, and not to deviate from the species norm or lack any ability that might improve our well-being.

When thinking about disability in the context of justice, our focus should not be on the ways in which people’s bodies and minds function differently. Instead, we should shift our focus to the limitations that this leads to—for particular people, in particular contexts. And, at least from the perspective of justice, only a subset of these limitations matter. Specifically, those that prevent individuals from having control in certain domains of their life, by restricting the availability of acceptable options or the ability to choose between them. Our theory of justice should be concerned with the lives individuals can lead, and not with whether their bodies and minds function typically. What matters is that people can be mobile, form relationships, engage in leisure, and so on—not how they achieve these things. The problem that disability raises is not the mere fact of difference, but the ways in which that difference is accommodated (or not) and the limitations it may cause. Indeed, on my definition of disability, to be disabled just is to be unable to exercise the control over our life that everyone should be able to. Our focus, then, should not be on whether someone has received a particular diagnosis, or on the most visible deviations from what we take to be the species norm, but on whether people have access to central capabilities. Achieving justice does not require ‘normalisation’, or the elimination of difference, but enabling all individuals to control their lives as they choose.