 The problem with resourcism, however, is that it looks potentially “fetishistic” (Sen 1992): it asks us, in its simplest form, to focus on resource holdings—income/wealth—without considering what different people can do or be in virtue of these holdings. Individuals’ needs differ, e.g., due to differences in health conditions. Resourcism, at least in its most straightforward form, seems not to take account of this variability. Sen and others argue that it is a merit of the capability approach that it is sensitive to these differences – the approach advises that individuals might require different amounts of resources to achieve a given level of capability. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of ‘equality of resources’ can be seen as trying to address this problem by, in effect, regarding differences in needs as a kind of difference in ‘resources’ (for example, a person who needs more income to achieve something due to a health condition is said to have fewer ‘resources’ by virtue of this health condition and therefore as a candidate for getting additional income). However, and putting aside other objections to this theory, one can ask whether it is ultimately just using the language of ‘resources’ to try to talk about what Sen calls capabilities. It seems better to talk explicitly in terms of capabilities (see also Oosterlaken 2020 for a discussion of the resourcist-capability theorist debate). 