The perfectionism of Nussbaum's adaptive preferences

Although the problem of adaptiveness plays an important motivating role in her work on human capabilities, Martha Nussbaum never gives a clear account of the controversial concept of adaptive preferences on which she relies. In this paper I aim both to reconstruct the most plausible account of the concept that may be attributed to Nussbaum, and to provide a critical appraisal of that account. Although her broader work on the capabilities approach moves progressively towards political liberalism as time passes, I aim to show that her account of adaptive preferences continues to maintain her earlier commitment to perfectionism about the good. I then distinguish between two obligatory kinds of respect for persons, which I call respectively primary and secondary recognition respect. This distinction allows us to see that that her perfectionist account of adaptive preferences allows her to show persons primary but not secondary recognition respect. Ultimately, I claim that an acceptable account of adaptive preferences must succeed in showing persons both types of respect. I conclude with some preliminary remarks on what such an account might look like

Achieving a realistic utopia: Rawls, realization, and the task of political philosophy

In this thesis I argue that the tradition of political philosophy which follows in John Rawls's footsteps is obligated to concern itself not only with the realizability, but also with the realization, of justice. Although Rawls himself expresses a commitment only to the former of these, I argue that the roles which he assigns to political philosophy require him to take on the further commitment to realization. This is because these roles are meant to influence not only political philosophers, but the citizens of the wider community as well. The realistically utopian role, which I take to be the central one, requires political philosophy to inspire in that population a hope which I argue that realizability alone cannot provide. Given the deep revisions regarding the political nature of justice as fairness which Rawls made on the basis of realizability concerns, I argue that his theory must in this case be committed to a similar revision. The hope which political philosophy is meant to provide is simply not realizable until the discipline concerns itself centrally with the task of realization

Educating for Autonomy: Liberalism and Autonomy in the Capabilities Approach

Martha Nussbaum grounds her version of the capabilities approach in political liberalism. In this paper, we argue that the capabilities approach, insofar as it genuinely values the things that persons can actually do and be, must be grounded in a hybrid account of liberalism: in order to show respect for adults, its justification must be political; in order to show respect for children, however, its implementation must include a commitment to comprehensive autonomy, one that ensures that children develop the skills necessary to make meaningful choices about whether or not to exercise their basic capabilities. Importantly, in order to show respect for parents who do not necessarily recognize autonomy as a value, we argue that the liberal state, via its system of public education, should take on the role of ensuring that all children within the state develop a sufficient degree of autonomy

The Perfectionism of Nussbaum's Adaptive Preferences

Although the problem of adaptiveness plays an important motivating role in her work on human capabilities, Martha Nussbaum never gives a clear account of the controversial concept of adaptive preferences on which she relies. In this paper, I aim both to reconstruct the most plausible account of the concept that may be attributed to Nussbaum and to provide a critical appraisal of that account. Although her broader work on the capabilities approach moves progressively towards political liberalism as time passes, I aim to show that her account of adaptive preferences continues to maintain her earlier commitment to perfectionism about the good. I then distinguish between two obligatory kinds of respect for persons, which I call, respectively, primary and secondary recognition respect. This distinction allows us to see that her perfectionist account of adaptive preferences allows her to show persons primary but not secondary recognition respect. Ultimately, I claim that an acceptable account of adaptive preferences must succeed in showing persons both types of respect. I conclude with some preliminary remarks on what such an account might look like

Adaptive preferences and children's options

What should we think of the woman who believes that it is proper for her husband to make all of the family's decisions? How do we respond to the mother who thinks that her domestic abuse is deserved? One popular explanation of such cases is that people's preferences may "adapt" to harmful or unacceptable circumstances that they see as unavoidable, so that they come to endorse states of affairs that they should rightly resist. Yet the concept of adaptive preferences is highly controversial: while its defenders argue that it is a useful tool for understanding the way in which members of marginalized groups can acquiesce to their own oppression and marginalization, its detractors argue that employing the concept unavoidably and disrespectfully treats adults as if they were children who do not know what is good for them. But at the same time, the concept is incredibly under-theorized: defenders and detractors of adaptive preferences alike rarely offer a clear account of the concept against which their claims can be tested. In this thesis, I propose and defend an autonomy-based account of adaptive preferences with four aims: a) conceptual clarity, b) the ability to show respect for persons, d) conduciveness to the political project of reducing marginalization, and d) recognition of and attention to the differential needs of children and adults. To achieve the first aim, I outline what I call an ""indirect substantive"" account of autonomy. This account uses substantive content indirectly to determine whether a person's preferences count as autonomous. Because my account of autonomy uses substantive content indirectly, it allows the possibility that any preference could count as autonomous, and therefore non-adaptive. In this way, it shows respect for persons by recognizing the role that their own processes of moral reasoning play in determining their good. But by using substantive content, I also ensure that the concept can aid the political project. In order for a preference to count as autonomous, and therefore non-adaptive, I argue that the person developing it must have been exposed to alternatives to the preference developed that were both live and valuable. In this way, while people may legitimately prefer options that seem to third parties to be unattractive or marginalizing, these preferences only deserve full deference when they have been chosen from among valuable alternatives. Finally, I turn to the issue of children. This issue is especially important, since previous discussions of adaptive preferences have failed to recognize that the needs of adults who have already developed adaptive preferences are very different from the needs of children in the process of developing them. I argue for ways of operationalizing my theoretical account of adaptive preferences that can both show respect for the already-formed preferences of adults (including those that are adaptive), and prevent children from forming adaptive preferences in the first place