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-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:41:14.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The Politics of Wonder

The Capabilities Approach in the Context of Mass Extinction

from Part I - Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

By
Jeremy Bendik-Keymer
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

Nussbaum’s capabilities approach harks back to ancient Greek phūsis at the origin of the philosophical tradition, but it is a form of environmental humanism developing Enlightenment values. This complexity is not without its tensions. Using the contradictions I find contained in Nussbaum’s commitment to wonder as a universally important ethical experience, I push her extension of moral regard for other species farther than it can currently go. Nussbaum has transformed the Enlightenment concept of dignity to include other forms of life. Her considered position is a form of biocentric individualism. Biocentric individualism is the view that individual lives as such have dignity. However, I will show that her outlook, grounded in wonder, presents insurmountable obstacles to her biocentric individualism. I resolve these by suggesting that moral individualism ought to be jettisoned when species are not morally individualized in their form of life. I motivate this argument through the risk of a mass extinction cascade, which characterizes our planetary ecological situation and poses a threat both to human development and the moral and ethical commitments of the capabilities approach. I propose one general criterion for reasonable institutions regarding this risk, surrounding it with a call for environmental humanism in political culture.

Keywords

other species capabilitieswonderMartha C. Nussbaummass extinctionenvironmental humanismmoral individualismunit problemreasonable institutions
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 227 - 244
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

Bendik-Keymer, J. 2006. The Ecological Life: Discovering Citizenship and a Sense of Humanity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. 2013. ‘The Moral and the Ethical: What Conscience Teaches Us about Morality’, in Gluchmann, V (ed.). Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 11–23.Google Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. 2014a. ‘From Humans to All of Life: Nussbaum’s Transformation of Dignity’, in Comim, F and Nussbaum, M. C. (eds.). Capabilities, Gender, Equality: Toward Fundamental Entitlements. New York: Cambridge University Press: 175–192.Google Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. 2014b. ‘Living Up to Our Own Humanity: The Elevated Extinction Rate and What It Says about Us’. Ethics, Policy and Environment 17/3: 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. 2016. ‘“Goodness Itself Must Change” – Anthroponomy in an Age of Socially Caused, Planetary Environmental Change’. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 6/3–4: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. 2017. ‘The Reasonableness of Wonder’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 18/3: 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendik-Keymer, J. and Haufe, C. 2017. ‘Anthropogenic Mass Extinction: The Science, the Ethics, and the Civics’, in Gardiner, S and Thompson, A (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press: 427–437.Google Scholar
Bostrom, N. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. 2006. The Second Person Standpoint. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fineberg, J. 1997. The Innocent Eye. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Flanders, C. 2014. ‘Public Reason and Animal Rights’, in Wissenberg and Schlosberg 2014: 44–57.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 2000. Natural Goodness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. 1977. The Virtues: The Stanton Lectures, 1973–74. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Görke, M. 2003. The Death of Our Planet’s Species: A Challenge to Ecology and Ethics. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. and Johnson, C. 2009. Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1975. Early Greek Thinking. Trans. D. F. Krell and F. A. Capuzzi. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Holland, B. 2012. ‘The Environment as Meta-Capability: Why a Dignified Human Life Requires a Stable Climate System’, in Thompson and Bendik-Keymer 2012: 145–164.Google Scholar
Keulartz, J. 2017. ‘Toward an Animal Ethics for the Anthropocene’, in Bovenkerk, B and Keulartz, J (eds.). Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans. New York: Springer: 243–264.Google Scholar
Keulartz, J. and Swart, J. A. A. 2012. ‘Animal Flourishing and Capabilities in an Era of Global Change’, in Thompson and Bendik-Keymer 2012: 123–144.Google Scholar
Larmore, C. 1996. The Morals of Modernity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, C. 2010. The Practices of the Self. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. A. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Linch, A. 2015. ‘A Dignity of One’s Own: Nussbaum’s Biocentrism and the Politics of Wonder’. Human Development and Capability Association annual meeting. Georgetown University, 12 September.Google Scholar
McKean, E. (ed.). 2005. New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed., online version. Oxford University Press: ‘wonder’.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1978. Aristotle’s De Moto Animalium. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006a. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006b. ‘Human Dignity and Political Entitlements’, in Schulman, A (ed.). Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC: The President’s Council on Bioethics: ch. 14.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2017. ‘Human Capabilities and Animal Lives: Conflict, Wonder, Law’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 18/3: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. and Wichert, R. 2019. ‘The Legal Status of Whales and Dolphins: From Bentham to the Capabilities Approach’, in Keleher, L and Kosko, S. J. (eds.). Agency and Democracy in Development Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press: 259–288.Google Scholar
Palmer, C. 2010. Animal Ethics in Context. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D. 2012. ‘Justice, Ecological Integrity, and Climate Change’, in Thompson and Bendik-Keymer 2012: 165–184.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D. 2014. ‘Ecological Justice for the Anthropocene’, in Wissenberg and Schlosberg 2014: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarkovsky, A. 1975. Mirror. Moscow: Mosfilms.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. and Bendik-Keymer, J. (eds.). 2012. Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. 2004. ‘What Is it to Wrong Somebody? A Puzzle about Justice’, in Wallace, R. J., Pettit, P, Schleffler, S and Smith, M (eds.). Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. New York: Oxford University Press: 333–384.Google Scholar
Wissenberg, M. 2014. ‘An Agenda for Animal Political Theory’, in Wissenberg and Schlosberg 2014: 30–43.Google Scholar
Wissenberg, M. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.). 2014. Animal Politics and Political Animals. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×