Disability, Handicap and the Environment: Amundsen’s Argument

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Amundsen’s Argument about Environmental Handicap
Objections
Response
Reference

A disability is a sunshade word that covers activity confines, impairments and participation constraints. Impairment refers to a difficult in physical operation of an individual or inability to function properly at certain points on the body (Amundsen, 1992). Activity confine is a difficulty encountered by a person. According to Amundsen, environmental concepts play a significant role in determining the effectiveness of a disabled person (Amundsen, 1992). The ultimate aim of this context is to examine Amundsen’s argument concerning environmental concept of handicap and disability and provide the possible objections. It then looks at whether and why the objection succeeded or failed.

Amundsen’s Argument about Environmental Handicap

The first initial thing to note is that there is a difference between disability and disease. According to Amundsen, disability is the umbrella term that refers to limitations in terms of participation in activities, mutilation and activity limitation. A disease is a complication or failure of the body to undertake its duties (Amundsen, 1992). Therefore, when a disability is concerned, a disease is just like an effect from its causes. It is clear that health care has ethical significance in an extensive part since health is a precondition to the chance to undertake other goods. Disability is definitely lack of species typical functioning at the essential individual level. This shows that disability is the characteristic nearby biomedical cause of the loss of chance, which in turn, is the foundation of healthcare morals. According to Amundsen, disability limits opportunity. The limitation appears to follow easily from the reality that disabilities entail species-atypical operation together with the fact that species-typical operation is an efficient way of procuring the products present in the environment in which a person of a particular species recognizes itself. This response appears to be obvious sufficient in observation of the biological or evolutionary rule that members of species matches well into their environments (Amundsen, 1992). Functionally a typical species member would not match well as typical members into the species’ typical environment. However, as it always is in biology, things are not this easy. Difficulties come up from the fact that the surroundings in which members of the human species undertake their objectives is broadly built by human beings themselves. Nothing slight or metaphysical is meant here. The issue is not that people “built theoretical worlds,” but that people build buildings (Amundsen, 1992). The chances, which are lost to a disabled individual, are to be characterized not only to the species-atypical of the individual’s biology, but also to the architectural blueprint of the building in which some of those chances inhabit.

It is evident enough that not all elements of a disabled individual’s environment have been socially developed. Social decisions are engrossed in the drawings of stairways, but not in the force of gravity (Amundsen, 1992). For the available objectives, people’s interests will lie in socially constructed features of the surrounding. Insinuation of distinguishing these from “natural” surrounding elements will be discussed in the conclusion.

Objections

According to Amundsen’s argument, disability limits opportunity in the sense that the limitations follow the species, typical of an individual through obstructing the species from obtaining the goods available in the surrounding. What this means is that handicap is a condition that only limits an individual from acquiring the available resources from the environment he or she lives. The objection assumes that am supporting Amundsen’s argument but what am saying is that, handicap is the inability to undertake some significant functions in life particularly on the environment that the species lives in as Amundsen states. However, Amundsen forgot that other physically handicapped people love their lives the way it is because it enables them to live their dreams.

There are some blind people who love how they live because lack of visual depictions enable them to avoid committing sin since most sins begin from seeing followed by desiring. For example, one famous blind gospel artist from Africa loves her life because she is living her dream. She is earning well from her talent and she can serve other purposes like teaching the word of God. Besides, there is a physically handicapped person from Australia who has no both hands and legs but is able to play, walk, swim and perform other activities without assistance. What should Amundsen say about such people? They are truly handicapped but they still can acquire everything they need and undertake anything they wish despite their conditions. Therefore, Amundsen’s argument was not correct to some extent because he never considered all the factors involved for a species to lack something from the environment.

Besides, not all people who are normal with no physical disability are able to acquire everything from their surroundings. Several poor people are not privileged to obtain everything from the environment because rich people deny them. For example, people are dying of hunger and it is not because they cannot acquire food but because they have no required resources to acquire it. That is very different from handicappers.

Response

The only problem is that this argument has no enough supporting materials and examples from the society. The best thing that Amundsen did was to provide concrete argument with sufficient supporting information and examples. That made him triumphant in his work that made him famous in handling disability concepts (Amundsen, 1992). If the objection argument above could be considered and published, several people would concur and support it. However, the objection failed because it was very shallow with no supporting information and examples.

Reference

Amundsen, R. (1992). “Disability, handicap, and the environment.” Journal of Social Philosophy,23(1), 105-119.

Click Here To Order Now!

Disability, Handicap and the Environment: Amundsen’s Argument

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)