Capable or Incapable? Disability and Justification in Martha Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rsth.42125Keywords:
Martha Nussbaum, Eva Kittay, Jean Porter, Thomas Aquinas, capabilities approach, disability theoryAbstract
This article evaluates Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach for its treatment of disability and philosophical grounding. A summary of Nussbaum’s claims on how her theory includes people with disabilities is followed by Eva Kittay’s demonstration that in
Nussbaum’s approach exclusion results from the ambiguous role of human dignity. The argument then shows that Jean Porter’s appeals to virtue and human nature provide stronger philosophical grounding for making judgments about human flourishing than Nussbaum’s non-metaphysical liberalism, insufficient to account for her theory of capabilities. While Porter’s account of human nature does not escape Shane Clifton and Hans Reinders’ concerns about the exclusion of people with disabilities from the human ideal, her and John Berkman’s recovery of Thomistic ideas of infused virtue and grace do provide a more inclusive concept of the human telos.
References
Aristotle. 2012. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Susan D. Collins and Robert C. Bartlett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226026763.001.0001
Aquinas, Thomas. 2012. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Laurence Shapcote. Lander, WY: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine.
Berkman, John. 2013. “Are Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities Sacramental Icons of Heavenly Life? Aquinas on Impairment.” Studies in Christian Ethics 26(1): 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946812466494
Birdsall, William F. 2014. “Development, Human Rights, and Human Capabilities: The Political Divide.” Journal of Human Rights 13: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2013.824268
Clark, John P. 2009. “Capabilities Theory and the Limits of Liberal Justice: On Nussbaum’s Frontiers of Justice.” Human Rights Review 10(4): 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-008-0109-8
Clifton, Shane. 2010. Crippled Grace: Disability, Virtue Ethics, and the Good Life. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF]. 1987. Donum Vitae. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kekes, John. 1985. “Human Nature and Moral Theories.” Inquiry 28: 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748508602053
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. Abingdon: Routledge.
———. 2005. “Equality, Dignity and Disability.” In Perspectives on Equality: The Second Seamus Heaney Lectures, edited by Mary Ann Lyons and Fionnuala Waldron, 93–119. Dublin: Liffey.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. “Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities.” Ethics 111: 102–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/233421
———. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
———. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Porter, Jean. 2005. Nature as Reason: A Thomistic Theory of the Natural Law. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Reinders, Hans S. 2008. Receiving the Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. 2010. “Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations – Pathways to Human Development.” http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2010
