On Fertile Functionings: A Response to Martha Nussbaum

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Being homeless implies, for example, that one finds it difficult to compete for jobs because of the demand by interviewers to supply an address when applying for the job.

In fairness we should note that Nussbaum considers this objection in very abstract form (citing Richard Arneson, 2000). She dismisses it on grounds of ‘the high value we assign to choice’ (2011, p. 26). We believe it is possible to respect choice—choice in the way that people achieve good health—without giving high value to the choice whether or not to become healthy. To be clear, we accept that it is legitimate for people to make choices that may damage their health, but this is as a side-effect of other activity that they find valuable, rather than a freedom that is good in itself.

Homeless people are often encouraged to take responsibility not only for themselves but also or other creatures, namely dogs. The idea behind this policy is that because they have become homeless they do not practice any responsibility—they need not clean and maintain their home, cook for themselves or others, pay bills, and so on—so taking responsibility for the dog is a first step towards becoming accustomed again to practicing responsibilities.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jonathan Wolff

Jonathan Wolff is Professor of Philosophy at University College London, UK

Avner de-Shalit

Avner de-Shalit is Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel