85 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Just To Be Fair, December 29, 2000
This review is from: Sex and Social Justice (Hardcover)
I decided to write this review just to be fair to anyone who is thinking about reading this book. I say this because the reviews I read of the book that were posted were severely misleading and unnecessarily harsh. So I will first of all respond to some of the misguided criticisms of the book that you will find in the other reviews, and then present my view on the book. First of all, no the author does not discuss discrimination against children or the elderly. Why would this make her book bad? She is dealing with SPECIFIC issues, like issues of justice relating to gender and sexual orientation. These issues are certainly large enough in scope and importance to justify their own treatment in a book, there is no reason why a discussion of every conceivable type of discrimination should also be included. The issues of discrimination against the young, the elderly, and the religious are important, but there are numerous books out there on those issues if someone wants to read them. It is unfair to say that this particular book should have to address them, it already runs 550 or so pages, that should be enough.
Also, someone complained that the author takes a purely male - centered perspective on the issues, and thus could not possibly be a feminist. I must confess I don't think you honestly read the book if you think that. She gives REASONS as to why her perspective is right and is feminist as well. There is no reason why rationality is a peculiarly male preoccupation, and I think that to intonate that is sexist in and of itself, because the conclusion seems to be that women are not reasoned creatures like men are, and that is a view women have been struggling against for centuries. Basically, the important thing is that there can be disagreement about the issue of how important rationality is to ethics, and that is certainly legitimate, but it is unfair and nothing more than ad hominem argumentation to say that someone cannot dispute the supposition that rationality is not important to ethics and still remain an important philosopher or feminist.
Finally, someone complained that this book is not "philosophy," because it pertains to political and social issues and is not well argued. The book is obviously well reasoned, and Nussbaum is an eminently respected philosopher. More importantly though, if philosophers don't deal with political and social issues, who should? Should we leave that up to politicians, because they obviously care and know about the issues? It seems to me that someone should do some serious thinking about political issues, and I see no reason why it should not be philosophers, who generally have a reputation for clarity and calm rationality. This is nothing more than someone's bias about what is most important for philosophers to discuss, and you can have your bias, that is fine, but you shouldn't tell people not to read this book because you don't like the subject matter. If anything, that should cause you to NOT review the book, because you should be uninterested in the subject matter.
In sum, this book was very well and calmly argued, unlike the reviews of it posted here. Nussbaum does not bow down to current fads like cultural and ethical relativism, or a care - centered feminist ethics. I thought when reading it that this might cause some controversy and anger, but I anticipated nothing like what I have seen in these reviews. She sheds light on important issues of global and national policy, and does so without abandoning reasoned argumentation, which if nothing else seems to be what philosophy should be about. Beyond making an excellent contribution to metaethics and international development policy, she has wonderful essays about the role of retribution in the law and what we can glean philosophically from important works of literature, for example there is an essay on the work of Virginia Wolf. I would recommend this book to you if you would like a well - rounded introduction to the thought of one of the most important philosophers of our time, and if you are interested in any of the issues I just mentioned.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
where social justice may be impossible, March 26, 2007
I will start this review by noting two things. I greatly appreciated Nussbaum's 'Upheavals of Thought', and I am uncomfortable with the way sex sits in the society I live in. (But, then, I recognise things in myself that - for good or bad - change my perspective from that of the society I am embedded in.) But Wedekind's play 'Springtime Awakening' should raise alarm bells for most of us.
We are sexual beings (most of us anyway) and we have to deal with that - learn to accept it within ourselves, learn to share it with others (it is, of course, the quintessential sharing experience), learn to grow with it, learn to let it go .... The easy path to take is to grasp a social 'norm' and follow it regardless of the morality of that path. Societies do present many 'norms' to a young person developing sexual awareness but not all of these are equally desirable. If Nussbaum's book does nothing else but diminish the acceptability of some of the undesirable 'norms', and enhance the more socially responsible ones it will have achieved a great service.
There are curious things in this book for me. Nussbaum refers to many sources but many of them are male - Aristotle, Seneca, JS Mill, DH Lawrence .... To be fair, the last chapter is about 'To the Lighthouse' by Virginia Woolf, and other writers such as Andrea Dworkin are prominent. However I was surprised that some powerful women writers are totally ignored - where is Mary Wolstonecraft, where is Emma Goldman, where is Mary Shelley? Why is 'Maurice' (Forster) referred to but not 'The Well of Loneliness' (Hall)?
The chapter on female genital mutilation (FGM) is an appalling indictment on the behaviour of some societies. Nussbaum has a glancing reference to circumcision; not surpringly it is glancing for someone who was converted (so I read) to Judaism. While I would never compare what happens to baby boys with what happens to young women in severity or risk, nevertheless I think the motivations for both practices come from the same source. If, for cultural (religious) reasons it is appropriate for Jewish boys to be circumcised, I think it is a very dangerous position to take to expect other societies to abandon the practices they see as legitimate, if not mandatory.
The chapter on Equity and Mercy impressed me immensely - it is so balanced I expect many feminists will hate it. But for me, her rare use of a Christian quote ('Forgive them, for they know not what they do.') was a revelation. Never before had I seen how compromised that plea is. (Compare with Tolstoy: 'It is a wonderful thing to be loved because of oneself, but it is a far more wonderful thing to be loved in spite of oneself.')
The fact that often I have other feelings than Nussbaum expresses does not concern me, because she often has perspectives that broaden or hone my own thoughts. In the chapter on prostitution and its illegality I had to agree with most of what she writes simply from a libertarian point of view rather than one of morality. The morality issues are complex - perhaps irresolvably complex. Just as there are men with 'dangerous' sexuality, so there are women. Perhaps it's only an issue for men because they demand or expect control. For me, all of Nussbaum's discussions seem to centre on the effects on women that prostitution entails - this is not inappopriate even though it may not be balanced. The problem I see with prostitution is that it panders to the man's 'need' to have sex. They can get it on demand. This reduces their sensitivities to the needs of the women in their lives, including the need (wise or not) for a woman to have a faithful partner. In Australia we had an advisor on women's affairs to the Federal Government write a piece in a newspaper where she expressed the view - based on her own practice - that a woman should always make sure her husband knew where the red light district was in a city they were visiting, so he could satisfy his 'need' when she herself felt incapable. For me this is an appalling suggestion - as if men cannot have self-control and should not be expected to. But, for all of that, like Nussbaum I would not see prostitution as worthy of being made illegal.
For me this was a thought-provoking read. It had some incredibly ugly things to describe, to consider. But it helped me to structure my thoughts in this difficult area - perhaps it will help me guide my boys as they reach maturity.
Other recommendations:
'Springtime Awakening' - Wedekind
'The Well of Loneliness' - Radclyffe Hall (I hated the outcome of this)
'Matilda' - Mary Shelley (her biographical details are worth exploring too)
'Godwin on Wollstonecraft' - William Godwin (Mary Shelley's father; Mary Wollstonecraft was her mother)
'Upheavals to Thought' - Nussbaum
'Living my Life' - Emma Goldman
'Let Me Alone' - Anna Kavan
'Conditions of Love' - John Armstrong
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Hope For Global Justice, February 26, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: Sex and Social Justice (Hardcover)
This is what all philosophy should be--tightly argued, clearly written, and deeply moving. Nussbaum (and Amartya Sen's) capabilities approach offers promise in taking on problems of distributive justice and human rights. Nussbaum deserves praise for unflinchingly shining the moral spotlight upon all institutions--from the family to the nation-state--a project unsatisfactorily handled by some brands of liberalism. I eagerly await Nussbaum's next book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
