How to (Consistently) Reject the Options Argument

It is commonly thought that disability is a harm or bad difference because having a disability restricts valuable options in life. In his recent essay Disability, Options and Well-Being, Thomas Crawley offers a novel defense of this style of reasoning (formulated as the Options Argument) and argues that we and like-minded critics of this brand of argument are guilty of an inconsistency. Our aim in this article is to explain why our view avoids inconsistency, to challenge Crawley's positive defense of the Options Argument, and to suggest that this general line of reasoning employs a double standard.