Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:46:34.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Intellectual History and Defending the Capabilities Approach

from Part I - Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

By
D. Weinstein
Edited by
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti ,
Siddiqur Osmani  and
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

For Martha C. Nussbaum, the history of political philosophy possesses philosophical value for reasons that are seldom explicitly argued. It is not so much that past political philosophers are worthy of our attention primarily because they identified philosophical problems that we continue to consider significant. Rather, we should pay especially close attention to those who also managed to arrive at solutions to these problems similar to our own. Their significance for us stems less from the fact that we recognize their purported philosophical problems as our own problems and more from the fact that we sometimes discover their purported solutions to these problems mirroring or overlapping with our own. Consensus with the dead warrants philosophical claims as much as consensus with the living. For Nussbaum, discovering that T. H. Green’s philosophical liberalism emulates her version of the capability approach warrants its credibility. Intellectual history is sometimes philosophically very useful. The hermeneutical conundrums raised by this manipulation of intellectual history are considerable.

Keywords

Martha C. NussbaumT. H. Greenintellectual historyanalytical philosophizingepistemic justification
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 76 - 91
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, E. 1906. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. 1969. ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Berlin, I. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press: 118–172 (‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ first published 1958).Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. J. 2002. ‘The Constellation of Hermeneutics, Critical Theory and Deconstruction’, in Dostal, R. J. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer. Cambridge University Press: 267–282.Google Scholar
Bosanquet, B. 2001. The Philosophical Theory of the State. South Bend, IL: St. Augustine’s Press (first published 1899).Google Scholar
Charles, D. 1988. ‘Perfectionism in Aristotle’s Political Theory: Reply to Martha Nussbaum’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1 (suppl. vol.): 185–206.Google Scholar
Crocker, D. and Robeyns, I. 2009. ‘Capability and Agency’, in Morris, C. W. (ed.). Amartya Sen. Cambridge University Press: 60–90.Google Scholar
Flathman, R. E. 1993. Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality and Chastened Politics. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. 1989. ‘Text and Interpretation’, in Michelfelder, D. P. and Palmer, R. E. (eds.). Dialogue and Deconstruction. Albany: State University Press of New York: 21–51.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1985. ‘Utilitarianism’, in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. X: Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society (ed. Robson, J. M.). University of Toronto Press: 203–260 (first published 1863).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1988. ‘Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1 (suppl. vol.): 145–184.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1990. ‘Aristotelian Social Democracy’, in Douglass, B, Mara, G and Richardson, H (eds.). Liberalism and the Good. London: Routledge: 203–252.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1993. ‘Social Justice and Universalism: In Defense of an Aristotelian Account of Human Functioning’. Modern Philology 90 (suppl.): S46–73.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000a. ‘Aristotle, Politics and Human Capabilities’. Ethics 111: 102–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000b. Women and Human Development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2003. ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice’. Feminist Economics 9: 33–59.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011a. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011b. ‘Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism’. Philosophy and Public Affairs 39: 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011c. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, revised ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2006. ‘Capability, Happiness and Adaptation in Sen and J. S. Mill’. Utilitas 18: 20–32.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2016. ‘Capability, Objectivity and “False Consciousness”: On Sen, Marx and J. S. Mill’. International Journal of Social Economics 43: 1207–1218.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1993. ‘Capability and Well-Being’, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A (eds.). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 30–53.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2004. ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32: 315–356.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 2005. Lectures on the Ethics of T. H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and J. Martineau. Boston, MA: Adamant Media (first published 1902).Google Scholar
Skorupski, John [unpublished]. ‘Spencer and the Moral Philosophers: Mill, Sidgwick, Moore’. Available at: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophy/dept/staffprofiles/?staffid=116 (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Sumner, L. W. 2006. ‘Utility and Capability’. Utilitas 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallach, J. R. 1992. ‘Contemporary Aristotelianism’. Political Theory 20: 613–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, D. 2004. ‘English Political Theory in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Gaus, G and Kukathas, C (eds.). Handbook of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 410–426.Google Scholar
Weinstein, D. 2007. Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinstein, D. 2016. ‘Why Sen’s Interpretation of the Liberal Tradition Matters and Is Also Problematic to Understanding His Social Economics’. International Journal of Social Economics 43: 1219–1232 (special issue on Sen, guest-edited by D. Weinstein).Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. 2011. ‘Can Coherence Generate Warrant Ex Nihilo? Probability and the Logic of Concurring Witnesses’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 337–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×