Advertisement

Philosophia

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Human Dignity as the Essence of Nussbaum’s Ethics of Human Development

  • Vasil GluchmanEmail author
Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Martha C. Nussbaum, in the context of ancient philosophy, formulated ethics of human development based on 10 basic human capabilities (and opportunities) as a precondition of meaningful human development, i.e. the ability to live a dignified human life. The paper, thus, deals with a capabilities approach with the aim of analysing the content of the idea of human dignity in Nussbaum’s understanding and its place in the conception of ethics of human development, since human dignity is the very core of the conception in question.

Keywords

Martha C. Nussbaum Ethics of human development Capabilities approach Human dignity 

References

  1. Banicki, K. (2015). Therapeutic arguments, spiritual exercises, or care of the self: Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, and Michel Foucault on ancient philosophy. Ethical Perspectives, 22(4), 601–634.Google Scholar
  2. Bendik-Keymer, J. (2014). From humans to all of life: Nussbaum’s transformation of dignity. In F. Comim & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Capabilities, gender, equality (pp. 175–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claassen, R., & Düwell, M. (2013). The foundations of capability theory: comparing Nussbaum and Gewirth. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16, 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crocer, D. A. (1995). Functioning and capability: The foundations of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s development ethic. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 153–198). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Melo-Martı’n, I., & Salles, A. (2011). On disgust and human dignity. Journal of Value Inquiry, 45, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drydyk, J. (2012). A capability approach to justice as a virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubiel-Zielińska, P. (2016). Moral dilemmas in professions of public trust and the assumptions of ethics of social consequences. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 6(1–2), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Formosa, P., & Mackenzie, C. (2014). Nussbaum, Kant, and the capabilities approach to dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17, 875–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics, subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Foucault, vol. I (1954–1984). In P. Rabinow (Ed.). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  10. Glover, J. (1995). The research programme of development ethics. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 116–139). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gluchman, V. (2012). Ethics of social consequences: Methodology of bioethics education. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 2(1–2), 16–27.Google Scholar
  12. Gluchman, V. (2017a). G. E. Moore and theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 7(1–2), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gluchman, V. (2017b). Nature of dignity and human dignity. Human Affairs, 27(2), 131–144.Google Scholar
  14. Gluchmanová, M. (2013). The teacher as a moral agent: Humanity and human dignity in the teaching profession. In V. Gluchman (Ed.), Morality: Reasoning on different approaches (pp. 131–140). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  15. Jayawickreme, E., & Pawelski, J. O. (2013). Positivity and the capabilities approach. Philosophical Psychology, 26(3), 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalajtzidis, J. (2013). Ethics of social consequences as a contemporary consequentialist ethical theory. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 3(3–4), 159–171.Google Scholar
  17. Kalajtzidis, J. (2018). Ethics of social consequences as a hybrid form of ethical theory? Philosophia.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-018-0013-7 (forthcoming).
  18. Kant, I. (1797/1983). Ethical philosophy: The metaphysical principles of virtue, trans. J.W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  19. Komenská, K. (2016). Bioetické reflexie pohrôm a katastrof – nové výzvy pre súčasnú etiku. Filosofický časopis, 63(5), 761–770.Google Scholar
  20. Li, X. (1995). Gender inequality in China and cultural relativism. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 407–425). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Losyk, O. (2014). Mnemonic paradoxes of human dignity. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 4(1–2), 15–31.Google Scholar
  22. Mill, J. S. (1991). On liberty. In J. Grey & G. W. Smith (Eds.), J. S. Mill: On liberty (in focus) (pp. 108–128). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Misseri, L. E. (2015). Consequentialism, humankind and dignity. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 5(3–4), 197–203.Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Human capabilities, female human beings. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 61–104). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame, and the law (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nussbaum, M. C. (2009). The therapy of desire: Theory and practice in hellenistic ethics (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). The new religious intolerance: Overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, M. C. (2016). Anger and forgiveness: Resentment, generosity, justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Petrufová Joppová, M. (2018). Spinozian consequentialism of ethics of social consequences. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 8(1–2), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polomská, J. (2018). Human dignity within ethics of social consequences. In V. Gluchman (Ed.), Ethics of social consequences: Philosophical, applied and professional challenges (pp. 137–183). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Roduit, J. A., Heilinger, J.-C., & Bauman, H. (2015). Ideas of perfection and human enhancement. Bioethics, 29(9), 622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sachdev, K. N. (2015). Normative analyses of human dignity among professionals. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 5(3–4), 205–210.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidtz, D. (1998). Are all species equal? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 1, pp. 197–220). Salt Lake City: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  42. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Simut, C. C. (2016). Staying young today. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 6(1–2), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slote, M. (1985). Common-sense morality and consequentialism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, T. (2000). Viable values: A study of life as the root and reward of morality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Švaňa, L. (2015). War, terrorism, justice and ethics of social consequences. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 5(3–4), 211–225.Google Scholar
  47. Švaňa, L. (2016). On two modern hybrid forms of consequentialism. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 6(3–4), 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ucnik, L. (2018). Ethico-political engagement and the self-constituting subject in Foucault. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 8(1–2), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vorhaus, J. (2015). Dignity, capability, and profound disability. Metaphilosophy, 46(3), 462–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolf, S. (1995). Martha C. Nussbaum: Human capabilities, female human beings: Commentary. In M. C. Nussbaum & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture, and development: A study of human capabilities (pp. 105–115). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ethics and BioethicsUniversity of PrešovPrešovSlovakia

Personalised recommendations