Response: Making Yourself Useful

In this essay I reply to Stanley Hauerwas' reading of my book, Life as We Know It, by way of engaging Hauerwas' critique of Enlightenment humanism, and, more specifically, the Kantian categorical imperative. I argue that Hauerwas is mistaken to claim that “humanism cannot help but think th...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Bérubé, Michael 1961- (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado: Routledge 2005
En: Journal of religion, disability & health
Año: 2005, Volumen: 8, Número: 3/4, Páginas: 31-36
Otras palabras clave:B Disability
B Autonomy
B Dependency
B Humanism
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descripción
Sumario:In this essay I reply to Stanley Hauerwas' reading of my book, Life as We Know It, by way of engaging Hauerwas' critique of Enlightenment humanism, and, more specifically, the Kantian categorical imperative. I argue that Hauerwas is mistaken to claim that “humanism cannot help but think that, all things considered, it would be better if [the mentally handicapped] did not exist,” even as I agree in part with his trenchant critique of my own work and of the widely-accepted Kantian proposition that human beings should treat each other as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. Finally, I defend my antifoundationalist formulation of moral “obligation” with regard to persons with mental disabilities against Hauerwas's Christian critique thereof by noting that even Hauerwas, at a critical juncture of his argument, relies on a pragmatist, antifoundationalist understanding of what it means to “help” other humans-and what it means to make oneself useful.
ISSN:1522-9122
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Journal of religion, disability & health
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1300/J095v08n03_04