ABSTRACT
The primary goods inadequately capture the force of our egalitarian concerns, leading us to treat people similarly when a relevant inequality still exists among them. This chapter argues that neither of the lines of criticism shows us that a theory of justice using primary social goods misses the target of our egalitarian concerns, at least for purposes of the just design of basic social institutions. It focuses on "equal opportunity for welfare" run afoul of Rawls' insistence that individual conceptions of the good are incommensurable, that is, with the fact of pluralism. The chapter defends the primary goods against these criticisms about inflexibility, a deeper issue about justification remains. It emphasizes a relationship between normal functioning and opportunity, one of the primary social goods. The chapter responds to the charge about variability and inflexibility; then it may be possible to address the claim that justice is concerned with capabilities.
