Abstract
dc:descriptionCritical Realism, the Capabilities Approach, and Marxism, all have underdeveloped theoretical problems. For Critical Realism, the ceteris paribus clause, which is used to asses an ideological critique, does not properly specify what other things warrant the dismissal or acceptance of said critique. For the Capabilities Approach, a proper ontology or metaphysics is missing, and the claim that the Capabilities Approach can be metaphysically neutral is false. Finally, Marxism is good at describing the more onerous aspects of capitalism (e.g., alienation, exploitation, crisis), but it does not provide normative force for seeing these descriptions as bad. I argue that these three schools of thought, when connected through the ontology of Critical Realism, can be rendered mutually inclusive, and each theory can help address the lacuna in its respective counterpart. Critical Realism gives to Marxism and the Capabilities Approach ontological justification, and the Capabilities Approach gives to Critical Realism and Marxism normative force. And finally, Marxism gives to the Capabilities Approach a more radical, but consistent twist that furthers the goal of realizing our shared human powers.
Degree
thesis:*- Grantor dc:publisher
- UNF Digital Commons
- Year dc:date
- 2014
Author and committee
dc:creator, dc:contributor.*- Author dc:creator
-
- Byron, Christopher
Subjects
dc:subject × 4- Thesis; University of North Florida; UNF; Dissertations; Academic -- UNF -- Master of Arts in Practical Philosophy and Applied Ethics; Dissertations; Academic -- UNF -- Philosophy; Marxism; Capabilities Approach; Critical Realism; Metaphysics; Social and Political Philosophy; Critical realism; Capabilities approach (Social sciences); Marxist criticism
- Arts and Humanities
- Metaphysics
- Philosophy
Identifiers
dc:identifier.*- Repository record dc:identifier
- https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/485
- OAI identifier oai:identifier
- oai:digitalcommons.unf.edu:etd-1532