A Feminist Discourse Ethics Approach Chad Kleist Marquette University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Developing Capabilities: A Feminist Discourse Ethics Approach Chad Kleist Marquette University Recommended Citation Kleist, Chad, "Developing Capabilities: A Feminist Discourse Ethics Approach" (2017). Dissertations (2009 -). 743. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/743 DEVELOPING CAPABILITIES: A FEMINIST DISCOURSE ETHICS APPROACH By Chad Kleist, B.A, M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2016 ABSTRACT DEVELOPING CAPABILITES: A FEMINIST DISCOURSE ETHICS APPROACH Chad Kleist, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2016 This dissertation attempts to preserve the central tenets of a global moral theory called “the capabilities approach” as defended by Martha Nussbaum, but to do so in a way that better realizes its own goals of identifying gender injustices and gaining cross- cultural support by providing an alternative defense of it. Capabilities assess an individual’s well-being based on what she is able to do (actions) and who she is able to be (states of existence). Nussbaum grounds her theory in the intuitive idea that each and every person is worthy of equal respect and dignity. The problem with grounding a theory in a version of intuitionism is that it runs the risk of authoritarian moral reasoning. I argue Nussbaum, in fact, is the final arbiter who decides which intuitions are mistaken, which are not, and how to interpret what people say to fit into her own framework. This method of justifying capabilities is most problematic in cases of social inequality whereby dominant group members do not feel they need to check their intuitions against non-dominant group members, and even if they did, they are not forced to take the non- dominant group’s intuitions seriously. I find capabilities as a global moral theory to be very promising, and I agree with Nussbaum that a list of capabilities is beneficial for identifying people who are not able to live a truly dignified human life. However, I am also sympathetic to the criticism of defending capabilities using a version of intuitionism. So, I offer an alternative method of justifying the capabilities rooted in the discourse ethics tradition. This method seeks all persons that are affected by the outcome to freely and equally share their opinion. This avoids the charge of authoritarian moral reasoning, because (1) it seeks perspectives other than simply one’s own, but unlike traditional ethics, it (2) pays special attention to the ways in which power relations shape dialogue. Ultimately, I hope to have preserved the central tenets of the capabilities approach while better realizing Nussbaum’s commitment to defending a theory that is gender sensitive and has gained cross-cultural support. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Chad Kleist, B.A., M.A. I am very grateful to my entire committee for supporting me throughout this journey: to Kevin Gibson, for his commitment to see me succeed; to James South for being the best mentor anyone could ask for; to Michael Monahan, a mentor and friend, who taught me more than he could ever imagine in all the time we spent together (including five classes); and to Theresa Tobin, who introduced me to not only a new world of philosophy, but way of life. I can’t thank you enough for helping me sharpen my analytical skills, improve my writing, and most importantly, being patient and understanding throughout this process. I would also like to thank the Schmitt Fellowship for giving me an opportunity to not only write my dissertation free from teaching, but to work directly with Alison Jaggar. She was incredibly gracious and supportive during my stay at Boulder. Her work has inspired me like no other philosopher. There are a few others who I need to call out specifically because, simply put, they believed in me and my pursuit of knowledge. Mrs. Loofboro, my 3rd grade teacher: if you only knew how instrumental you were in my education. You were the only grade school teacher who believed in me. Jim Brey: I never realized learning could be so fun, especially the rock cycle. Thanks for empowering and encouraging me to get a PhD. Patti Marchant, my therapist: You helped me get through some of the most difficult years of my life. I can’t thank you enough. Christopher Schaaf: You were my best friend and left this world way too soon. I wish you could be here, and in many ways, I know you always are. To my Mom, for encouraging and showing me that there is so much I can do outside academia. You knew that I could have an impact on so many people and continue to grow my career in ways I never imagined. I love you and am eternally grateful for everything you do. And to my Aunt Pam, who, if it weren’t for you, none of this would be possible. I wouldn’t have returned to college after being kicked-out for low grades. You always believed in me, and it couldn’t have been clearer than when you walked into the admissions office to help me return to school. Thank you! I can’t thank enough my ever-supporting partner, and love of my life, Julie. At a moment when I wasn’t sure if I could finish, you were my strength. You made learning fun again – which included long debates over anything and everything. I look forward to raising our little boy, Christopher Michael, in the most loving household in the world. To my Grampa Jerry: I dedicate this dissertation to you. You showed me infinite love and taught me to love myself. I hope one day to be the person you know I can be. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE: NUSSBAUM’S CAPABILITIES THEORY 7 1. The Flourishing Version of Capabilities 10 1.1 Internalist Essentialism 10 1.2 The Early List of Capabilities 16 1.3 Re-considering Internalist Essentialism 21 2. The Dignity Version of Capabilities 23 2.1 Political Liberalism 24 2.2 The Emergence of Dignity as Central to Capabilities 28 2.3 Understanding Capabilities through Dignity 32 2.4 A Revised List 34 3. Expanding on the Dignity Version 40 3.1 Introduction 40 3.2 Thresholds and Tragic Dilemmas 40 4. Justifying the Dignity Version 44 4.1 Weak “Justification” of Capabilities 46 4.2 The Narrative Approach 49 4.3 Rawlsian Methods of Political Justification: Reflective Equilibrium and Overlapping Consensus 51 4.4 Nussbaum’s Use of Reflective Equilibrium 58 4.5 Nussbaum’s Overlapping Consensus 64 5. Conclusion 67 CHAPTER TWO: FEMINIST CRITICISMS OF NUSSBAUM’S CAPABILITIES 71 1. Flaw #1: Importing Values 72 1.1 Importing Values in Internalist Essentialism 73 1.2 Importing Values in Reflective Equilibrium 79 2. Flaw #2: Arbitrary Selection of Others 82 2.1 Arbitrary Selection of Other Perspectives in Internalist Essentialism 82 2.2 Arbitrary Selection of Other Perspectives in the Narrative Approach 87 2.3 Reflective Equilibrium 89 2.4 Overlapping Consensus 94 3. Flaw #3: Negligence of Power Dynamics 97 3.1 Negligence of Power in Nussbaum’s Use of the Narrative Approach 98 3.2 Nussbaum’s Response to Okin 102 3.3 My Defense of Okin’s Criticism: Neglecting Power Dynamics in Reflective Equilibrium 105 ii 4. Methodological Considerations 108 4.1 Monological Moral Reasoning 108 4.2 The Concern of Implicit Bias 109 4.3 One Possible Way Forward 114 5. Conclusion 116 CHAPTER THREE: DISCOURSE ETHICS: DISCERNING METHODOLOGICAL CRITERIA 118 1. The Origins of Discourse Ethics 119 1.1 Discourse Ethics Methodology 120 1.2 Rules of Discourse 121 1.3 Building on Habermas and Apel 124 2. Challenges to Discourse Ethics 128 2.1 The Concern of Proceduralism 129 2.2 Empty Formalism 130 2.3 Hegemonic Challenge 133 2.4 Invidiously Idealized Objection 138 3. Conclusion 141 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR A METHOD OF JUSTIFICATION 143 1. Moral Justification 144 2. Power Dynamics 146 3. Revisability Principle 151 4. Self-Critical 156 5. Modest Goals 163 6. Conclusion 166 CHAPTER FIVE: FEMINIST DISCOURSE ETHICS 168 1. Feminist Practical Dialogue 169 2. Procedural Constraints/Conditions for Inclusive Discourse: Building on Jaggar 173 2.1 Non-Traditional Forms of Speech 173 2.2. Moral Deference 182 2.3 Listening Carefully 188 2.4 Incommensurability 193 3. Defining Who Participates in the Dialogue 199 4. Answering the Critics 202 4.1 Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee: A Brief Case Study 203 4.2 Power Dynamics 205 4.3 Revisability 207 4.4 Self-Critical 209 4.5 Modest Goals 211 5. Conclusion 213 CONCLUSION 215 iii BIBLIOGRAPHY 222 1 INTRODUCTION The capabilities approach is a global ethic that measures well-being based on what one is able to do and who one is able to be. This approach has continued to gain international attention since its implementation by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The capabilities approach was first articulated by philosopher and economist Amartya Sen in the 1980s. Since that time, Martha Nussbaum has offered the most sustained philosophical elaboration and defense of the capabilities approach, and it is her version that is the focus of this dissertation. The aim of this dissertation is to provide an alternative defense of capabilities that will ultimately help better realize Nussbaum’s own goals of identifying a list of capabilities that best represents what it means to live a dignified human life. Specifically, Nussbaum claims that the capabilities approach must be able to identify gender-specific harms and have the ability to garner widespread cross-cultural support.