Gordon John-Stewart
Earned his M.A. and B.A. degrees in philosophy and history at the University of Konstanz in Germany (2001), Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Göttingen in Germany (2005).
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Winter;41(4):754-67, Table of Contents. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12087.
In this article, I question the general idea that inclusive education--i.e., to teach all students in one class--is a moral human right. The following discussion shows that the widespread view in disability studies that there is a moral human right to inclusive education can be reasonably called into question by virtue of the proposed counter arguments, but without denying that inclusive education is of utmost importance. Practically speaking, the legal human right to inclusive education is of great practical value for impaired students, and for their basic right to be free from discrimination in education, since their concern thereby gains great legal and moral force. But, theoretically speaking, this particular human right lacks an attainable consensus concerning proper moral justification.
在本文中，我对全纳教育——即将所有学生放在同一个班级授课——是一项道德人权这一普遍观点提出质疑。以下讨论表明，残疾研究中的普遍观点认为全纳教育存在道德人权，鉴于所提出的反驳论点，这一观点可被合理地质疑，但并不否认全纳教育至关重要。实际上，全纳教育的法定人权对残疾学生具有重大的实际价值，对他们在教育中免受歧视的基本权利也具有重大价值，因为他们的诉求由此获得了强大的法律和道德力量。但是，从理论上讲，这项特定的人权在适当的道德正当理由方面缺乏可达成的共识。
