For Nussbaum, objectification is a necessary condition for an action to be morally wrong.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The claim presented is that for Nussbaum, objectification is a necessary condition for an action to be morally wrong. The two answer choices are:

Option 1: True
- This option asserts that Nussbaum indeed requires objectification as a prerequisite for an action to be morally wrong. To evaluate this, we consider Nussbaum's discussions of objects, agency, and the ethics of how we treat others. Her approach to objectification involves treating a person as a mere tool or object for one's own purposes, rather than as a full moral agent with dignity. However, the claim that objectification is a necessary condition for wrongness would mean that any morally wrong act must involve objectification, and any action lacking objectification could not be morally wrong. This is a strong claim that overextends a specific concept. In moral philosophy, many kinds of wrongdoing—such as lying to someone to cause distress, or causing harm through neglect—can be argued to involve wrongness without necessarily centering on objectification as a required condition. Therefore, this option misstates Nussbaum's position if she does not present objectification as a universal prerequisite for all moral wrongs.

Option 2: False
- This option denies that objectification is a necessary condition for moral wrongness. If we accept this, we acknowledge that actions can be morally wrong for reasons other than objectifying someone (for example, harm, coercion, deception, or violation of rights). Nussbaum emphasizes aspects such as human dignity, flourishing, and the ethical treatment of persons, but restricting wrongness to mere objectification would exclude many forms of moral failure that do not center on objectification; thus, labeling objectification as the sole or necessary condition is too narrow. Consequently, denying necessity aligns better with a broader view of moral wrongs, where multiple factors can render an action wrongful without requiring objectification as a prerequisite.

Further comparison and nuance:
- If one were to accept True, one would need to argue that all morally wrong actions inherently involve treating the other as an object or instrument, which is a sweeping universal claim. Real-world and philosophical counterexamples typically show wrongness arising from harm, coercion, or disrespect that may not fit a strict objectification mold.
- If one accepts False, the claim acknowledges that while objectification is an important and harmful feature in many wrongs, it is not a mandatory ingredient for wrongness in all cases, which is consistent with broader ethical theories that identify multiple necessary or sufficient conditions for moral evaluation.

In summary, the evaluation of each option hinges on whether objectification is being claimed as a universal prerequisite for wrongness. The more cautious and widely applicable stance is to reject the necessity claim, recognizing that wrongness can arise from various ethical violations beyond objectification.

PHI 007Y A01 WQ 2025 Week 3 Quiz

For Nussbaum, objectification is a necessary condition for an action to be morally wrong.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

According to Nussbaum, instrumentality does not entail failing to have considerations or feelings for the objectified.

According to Nussbaum (discussing Marx), the objectification of workers in a capitalist society exhibits instrumentality.

'Complimentarity' is not one of Nussbaum's 7 types of objectification.