Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warr...

Research

Links

View graph of relations

Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method. / Degerman, Dan.
In: Human Welfare, Vol. 3, 2014, p. 42-52.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Degerman, D 2014, 'Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method', Human Welfare, vol. 3, pp. 42-52. <http://hwc.gtc.ox.ac.uk/documents/HWJVolume3/degerman.pdf>

APA

Degerman, D. (2014). Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method. Human Welfare, 3, 42-52. http://hwc.gtc.ox.ac.uk/documents/HWJVolume3/degerman.pdf

Vancouver

Degerman D. Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method. Human Welfare. 2014;3:42-52.

Author

Degerman, Dan. / Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors : a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method. In: Human Welfare. 2014 ; Vol. 3. pp. 42-52.

Bibtex

@article{7dee3125011b4ab1a229a4c779a617bd,
title = "Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors: a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method",
abstract = "Recent literature faults the Aristotelian essentialist foundation of Nussbaum{\textquoteright}s capabilities approach for failing to qualify a particular list of capabilities. This paper defends the Aristotelian essentialist method, and posits that it justifies the selection of particular capabilities to the omission of others. Certain fringe capabilities can be justly excluded because they conflict with assumptions that the human is a fundamentally social and reasonable creature.The paper grants that critics are correct in claiming that the use of a list will preclude certain conceptions of human good, which may conflict with liberal commitments. Yet, the paper argues, all societies prohibit some of theirmembers from realizing their ideas of good, and in light of this, the capabilities list{\textquoteright}s publicized shape of human nature seems preferable to the implicit constructs at work within liberal theory.",
author = "Dan Degerman",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "42--52",
journal = "Human Welfare",
issn = "2048-9080",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Essentialist capabilities versus humorless warriors

T2 - a defense of Nussbaum's Aristotelian Method

AU - Degerman, Dan

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Recent literature faults the Aristotelian essentialist foundation of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach for failing to qualify a particular list of capabilities. This paper defends the Aristotelian essentialist method, and posits that it justifies the selection of particular capabilities to the omission of others. Certain fringe capabilities can be justly excluded because they conflict with assumptions that the human is a fundamentally social and reasonable creature.The paper grants that critics are correct in claiming that the use of a list will preclude certain conceptions of human good, which may conflict with liberal commitments. Yet, the paper argues, all societies prohibit some of theirmembers from realizing their ideas of good, and in light of this, the capabilities list’s publicized shape of human nature seems preferable to the implicit constructs at work within liberal theory.

AB - Recent literature faults the Aristotelian essentialist foundation of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach for failing to qualify a particular list of capabilities. This paper defends the Aristotelian essentialist method, and posits that it justifies the selection of particular capabilities to the omission of others. Certain fringe capabilities can be justly excluded because they conflict with assumptions that the human is a fundamentally social and reasonable creature.The paper grants that critics are correct in claiming that the use of a list will preclude certain conceptions of human good, which may conflict with liberal commitments. Yet, the paper argues, all societies prohibit some of theirmembers from realizing their ideas of good, and in light of this, the capabilities list’s publicized shape of human nature seems preferable to the implicit constructs at work within liberal theory.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

SP - 42

EP - 52

JO - Human Welfare

JF - Human Welfare

SN - 2048-9080

ER -