Inappropriate Artefact, Unjust Design? Human Diversity as a Key Concern in the Capability Approach and Inclusive Design

Abstract

Human beings differ from one another in countless ways. Within political philosophy this fact has been emphasized by the capability approach. A recurring example is that a bicycle often does not expand what a disabled person can do or be. Within engineering human diversity has been addressed by social design movements like universal/inclusive design. These movements seek practical solutions for its challenges, by creating products that do expand the capabilities of formerly excluded user groups. An example is a manually operated tricycle for disabled people in developing countries, or buildings that are accessible for wheelchairs. Using insights from analytical philosophy of technology I will first argue that the commonalities between both perspectives run deeper than one might think; The concern for human capabilities is deeply engrained in the nature of technical artifacts and engineering design. Secondly, I will give a philosophical account of the meaning of and grounds for statement like ‘this bicycle is inappropriate for disabled users’. One might say that the capability approach and the inclusive design movement offer a forceful reminder to philosophy of technology of the importance of such statements in light of human diversity. However, to make a step from a judgment of inappropriateness to a judgment of injustice – as we do in the case of wheelchair-unfriendly buildings – requires further normative principles. The capability is able to contribute to this, considering its arguments for the normative value of some human capabilities.