 Rawls’s theory as it stands is, however, by no means the last word on justification of the social minimum. For example, Rawls’s own discussion abstracts away from disability but a theory of the social minimum obviously needs to include the claims of disabled people. How far can a ‘contractualist’ approach like that set out by Rawls be extended to include disabled people? (See Nussbaum 2006, chapter 2, for discussion of this question, and for wider discussions of justice and disability see Barnes 2016, Begon 2021.) Does a Rawlsian, egalitarian liberal approach need supplementing (or replacing with?) an alternative that can perhaps better capture the claims of disabled people?