The primary goods approach seems to take little note of the diversity of human beings. … If people were basically very similar, then an index of primary goods might be quite a good way of judging advantage. But, in fact, people seem to have very diferent needs varying with health, longevity, climatic con- ditions, location, work conditions, temperament, and even body size (afect- ing food and clothing requirements.) … Judging advantage purely in terms of primary goods leads to a partially blind morality. Indeed, it can be argued that there is, in fact, an element of “fetishism” in the Rawlsian framework. Rawls takes primary goods as the embodiment of advantage, rather than taking advantage to be a relationship between persons and goods. (Sen 1979: 215–216)
* Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Value.
