Disability Visibility CH.1 Final Report Blogpost

Mason Lanza

Professor Oliver

Section 10

12/9/23

Disability Visibility Chapter One 

Disability Visibility is a collection of personal essays written by people with disabilities. While these stories encompass a wide range of experiences, each essay shares the need to recognize the minority of people dealing with disabilities. In its entirety, the book argues that people with disabilities need to be seen. It is a plea for empathy. 

Chapter one focuses on the counterproductive nature of utilitarianism in response to this plea. Championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and now carried on through Peter Singer, utilitarianism is not inherently destructive. Its premise is that the most ethical decision is the one that derives the greatest satisfaction (or utility). The welfare of the majority is paramount, and its supporters argue for increased awareness for the happiness of others.  On its surface, this is logical and even empathetic. However, utilitarianism can be weaponized as a means to oppress the needs of the minority. Chapter one of the book, taken directly from Harriet Johnson’s essay Unspeakable Conversations, illustrates this point. 

Harriet Johnson was a lawyer and disability rights activist. In her debate with Peter Singer in 2001, Singer defended his utilitarian views: “[Singer] spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies [after birth] and replacing them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible.” Herein lies the issue of utilitarianism. It is not, in fact, a careful consideration of ethics. It dismisses the idea that others' happiness is subjective and unquantifiable. It is, instead, a cost-benefit analysis. It only asks the questions “Who benefits? Who is harmed? If both occur, does the benefit outweigh the harm?” Take the illustration of euthanizing newborns. Singer outright dismisses the idea that killing disabled newborns affects their happiness. He believes that those with disabilities are inherently “worse off.” From here, his assumption is that the presence of a disability will invariably predict a poor quality of life. So, the cost of euthanization is low. But, he would argue, the hassle that euthanization saves parents, caretakers, and loved ones is immense. The benefit is immense. Through this cold, cost-benefit analysis, utilitarianism can promote the oppression of any minority, not just disabled people. Especially when the market is “structured by prejudice,” as Johnson notes.

To better understand how prejudice shapes our ethics, it’s worth revisiting John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance. This concept simply suggests that our circumstances shape our biases. So, the best way to make informed ethical decisions and decide how society should operate is to imagine that we sit behind a veil of ignorance that precludes us from knowing who we are. By being stripped of our circumstances, we would arrive at more egalitarian ethics and our prejudices may not exist. Unfortunately, because we do not sit behind a veil of ignorance, our beliefs most closely align with the circumstances we inhabit. Take the example of Peter Singer and engage in the thought experiment that John Rawls proposed. 

Let’s assume Peter Singer sits behind the veil. For the sake of argument, let’s also assume that Singer’s ethics have been implemented and it is now legal to euthanize children born with a disability. The likelihood of this is roughly 8%. As Peter Singer sits behind the veil, he does not yet know whether he will be born with or without a disability. He ponders whether he can safely rely on his 92% chance of being born unhindered by disability. But there is an 8% chance that his life will be over before he even leaves his seat behind the veil. And so upon second thought, as Singer is tasked with considering how society should operate, will Singer now rebuke the claim that he once made, that euthanizing disabled children is justifiable? Maybe he wouldn’t. But I think he would. Should he be born with a disability and allowed to survive, Singer’s ethics would almost certainly change. When we stop to consider, independent of our circumstances, the impact of our beliefs, we should have pause. This pause is the gateway to empathy. Our empathy is accessed by looking opposite ourselves. It is accessed by contemplating what might be instead of what is. What might it be like to have a disability? What might it be like to be a different race? What might it be like to be a different sex? Empathy cripples power structures, it rebukes discrimination, and it draws us closer to egalitarianism. 

If we sat behind the Veil of Ignorance and were forced to admit that we know nothing about who we are and who we might be, what power structures would exist? Would racism? Would patriarchy? Would complementarianism? I’m inclined to believe that they would not. Because unlike utilitarianism, egalitarianism forces us to reckon with the experiences of others. It urges us, just as Harriet Johnson and her fellow authors urge us, to see.