Download
1 / 10
100 likes | 123 Views
Delve into the intersection of autism, ethics, and the idea of a good life, considering the spectrum of autism, neurodiversity, and the compatibility of autism with a flourishing life.
E N D
Autism, Ethics and the Good LifeRoyal Society, London, 2 April 2012How different is too different? Autism, diversity, and the idea of a good life Dr Jackie Leach Scully Reader in Social Ethics and Bioethics Newcastle University jackie.scully@ncl.ac.uk
Outline • Autism as a spectrum • Two different ideas of the ‘good life’ • Is autism compatible with a/the good life? • The ‘goodness of diversity’? • Expanding the repertoire
Autism as a spectrum • Autism as ‘disability’ or ‘difference’ • Distinguishing between • phenotypic variation • Impairment • disability
Neurodiversity claim • Autism (or some forms of it) is a natural (phenotypic) variation • It takes forms that are more or less impairing • And which in interaction with social, environmental and attitudinal factors will be more, less, or not at all disabling
Two different meanings of ‘good life’ • The possibility of an individual having a life worth living, good quality of life • More general concept of ‘the’ good life • the sorts of experiences that we would choose if we could (love, health, work satisfaction) vs the ones we wouldn’t (pain, injustice) • repertoire of models, templates for what we think of as a flourishing life
Leading to two different questions • Can autistic people have good lives? • Can autism be part of the concept of the good life?
Is autism compatible with a good life? • ‘Low functioning’: • More or less possible to have a good life • But hard to include in standard general ideal of ‘good life’ • ‘High functioning’: • Definitely possible to have a good life • But could still be argued that even minor sensory, communicative, cognitive impairments/differences make even high fn autism incompatible with ‘the’ good life
Going back to the neurodiversity claim • Autism represents a phenotypic variation • It takes forms that are more or less impairing • And which in interaction with social, environmental and attitudinal factors will be more, less, or not at all disabling... • ...but it is a variation from normativity and as such does not fit with normative picture of the good life • There would be ways to modify social practices or attitudes that might make some forms of autism less or not at al disabling • But this requires financial and other resources of time and effort: why should we bother?
The idea of ‘goodness of diversity’ • Diversity is good in itself • Variation (genetic, phenotypic, behavioural) contributes to the good life for humans by providing a degree of embodied diversity that would not otherwise be present • This is the case even for some disabling variations
How might embodied diversity contribute to ‘the good life’? • Providing range of abilities (that help address problems.....) Enriching the ways of being human and kinds of experiences humans have (the more the better?) • Enabling particular experiences (eg caring and being cared for) • Increasing capacity of moral imagination (imagining ourselves as other or imagining that others are selves) • Enlarging repertoire of ways of thinking about ‘the good life’ • It’s interesting!
