一个理由的三个缺陷:对努斯鲍姆能力清单背后推理的批判性考察

IF 0.1 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
M. Arun
{"title":"一个理由的三个缺陷:对努斯鲍姆能力清单背后推理的批判性考察","authors":"M. Arun","doi":"10.12658/m0650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Who should decide what makes one’s life good? This is a long-standing question that has recently led to an unresolved discussion between two leading figures of the contemporary political and social theory, namely Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. In this discussion, addressing the adverse effects of unjust social conditions on people’s choices such as the problem of adaptive preferences, Nussbaum proposes a philosophically-informed list of aspects of the good life developed from a particular normative account. However, the reasoning behind her proposal, I argue, involves three flaws that appear due to absence of a sociologically-informed account of people’s choices. First, considering that unjust social conditions can adversely affect not only people’s choice on aspects of good life, but also their choices in achieving these aspects, developing a list from a philosophical account of the good life cannot be a solution against these adverse effects. Second, Nussbaum excessively generalises her findings based on data involving a quite limited number of disadvantaged women in a way that her findings are applicable to all disadvantaged people living in varied social settings. Third, both existing empirical evidences and the qualitative data I collected in three distinct settings of Turkey demonstrate that disadvantaged people are not necessarily those who, as Nussbaum implicitly addresses, are unable to develop sophisticated/reasoned judgements on their material conditions, but might be those who must have developed the ability of deliberately adapting their preferences to make a living within given structural inequalities.","PeriodicalId":53769,"journal":{"name":"Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Flaws in One Justification A Critical Examination of Nussbaum’s Reasoning Behind Her List of Capabilities\",\"authors\":\"M. Arun\",\"doi\":\"10.12658/m0650\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Who should decide what makes one’s life good? This is a long-standing question that has recently led to an unresolved discussion between two leading figures of the contemporary political and social theory, namely Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. In this discussion, addressing the adverse effects of unjust social conditions on people’s choices such as the problem of adaptive preferences, Nussbaum proposes a philosophically-informed list of aspects of the good life developed from a particular normative account. However, the reasoning behind her proposal, I argue, involves three flaws that appear due to absence of a sociologically-informed account of people’s choices. First, considering that unjust social conditions can adversely affect not only people’s choice on aspects of good life, but also their choices in achieving these aspects, developing a list from a philosophical account of the good life cannot be a solution against these adverse effects. Second, Nussbaum excessively generalises her findings based on data involving a quite limited number of disadvantaged women in a way that her findings are applicable to all disadvantaged people living in varied social settings. Third, both existing empirical evidences and the qualitative data I collected in three distinct settings of Turkey demonstrate that disadvantaged people are not necessarily those who, as Nussbaum implicitly addresses, are unable to develop sophisticated/reasoned judgements on their material conditions, but might be those who must have developed the ability of deliberately adapting their preferences to make a living within given structural inequalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12658/m0650\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12658/m0650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

谁来决定一个人的生活是美好的?这是一个长期存在的问题,最近在当代政治和社会理论的两位领军人物,即Amartya Sen和Martha Nussbaum之间引发了一场悬而未决的讨论。在这个讨论中,为了解决不公正的社会条件对人们选择的不利影响,比如适应性偏好的问题,努斯鲍姆从一个特定的规范描述中提出了一个关于美好生活的哲学知识清单。然而,我认为,她的建议背后的理由涉及三个缺陷,这些缺陷是由于缺乏对人们选择的社会学知识的解释而出现的。首先,考虑到不公正的社会条件不仅会对人们对美好生活的选择产生不利影响,而且会对他们在实现这些方面的选择产生不利影响,从美好生活的哲学解释中制定一个清单不能解决这些不利影响。其次,努斯鲍姆过度概括了她的发现,她的发现基于涉及相当有限数量的弱势妇女的数据,她的发现适用于生活在不同社会环境中的所有弱势群体。第三,现有的经验证据和我在土耳其三个不同的环境中收集的定性数据都表明,弱势群体不一定是那些像努斯鲍姆暗示的那样,无法对他们的物质条件做出复杂/理性判断的人,而可能是那些必须发展出有意识地调整自己的偏好以在给定的结构性不平等中谋生的能力的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three Flaws in One Justification A Critical Examination of Nussbaum’s Reasoning Behind Her List of Capabilities
Who should decide what makes one’s life good? This is a long-standing question that has recently led to an unresolved discussion between two leading figures of the contemporary political and social theory, namely Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. In this discussion, addressing the adverse effects of unjust social conditions on people’s choices such as the problem of adaptive preferences, Nussbaum proposes a philosophically-informed list of aspects of the good life developed from a particular normative account. However, the reasoning behind her proposal, I argue, involves three flaws that appear due to absence of a sociologically-informed account of people’s choices. First, considering that unjust social conditions can adversely affect not only people’s choice on aspects of good life, but also their choices in achieving these aspects, developing a list from a philosophical account of the good life cannot be a solution against these adverse effects. Second, Nussbaum excessively generalises her findings based on data involving a quite limited number of disadvantaged women in a way that her findings are applicable to all disadvantaged people living in varied social settings. Third, both existing empirical evidences and the qualitative data I collected in three distinct settings of Turkey demonstrate that disadvantaged people are not necessarily those who, as Nussbaum implicitly addresses, are unable to develop sophisticated/reasoned judgements on their material conditions, but might be those who must have developed the ability of deliberately adapting their preferences to make a living within given structural inequalities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society
Insan & Toplum-The Journal of Humanity & Society SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信