Author: Chris Henrichsen

Author’s Note: My readings for the following essay started me thinking for the first time theoretically about mothering and care-giving. It also made me reflect a lot on the sacrifices made and love shown by my wife and my mother. I share this for Mother’s Day.

In Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency, Eva Feder Kittay develops a theory of dependency which addresses the needs of dependents and those involved in dependency work. Central to this book is the contention that dependency is a universal fact of human existence. We are born into a state of dependency; we spend much of our lives providing for dependents; and we may again return to a state of dependency as we age and/or if we become seriously ill or disabled. Of course, for many, particularly the disabled, dependency is a constant state of being.

In her argument about dependency, Kittay “articulates some very persuasive and powerful criticisms of contractarian models of justice.” Specifically, Kittay develops a “dependency critique” of John Rawls’ liberal theory of justice. Kittay argues that a theory of justice which does not address the care needed by dependents and the injustices faced by dependency workers is inadequate as a theory of justice. In her critique, Kittay says that Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness fails to address dependency, and falls short in addressing the injustices faced by dependency workers, because his theory idealizes the full-functioning autonomous citizen.

Martha Nussbaum states that the criticisms raised by Kittay “are questions with which all theorists of justice will need henceforth to grapple.” In this paper I will grapple with Kittay’s dependency critique of Rawls’ theory of social justice. I will start by looking at Kittay’s critique of Rawls. In doing so, we will see that dependency is an important issue for social justice.
However, I will argue in this paper that Kittay’s critique mischaracterizes Rawls’s theory. Kittay misunderstands the reason for why Rawls excludes extreme cases of illness and disability when developing his two principles of justice. Kittay also fails to recognize the extent to which care and benevolence are present in Rawls’ theory. I will draw on Susan Moller Okin to show how we can view Rawls as relying heavily on sentiments of care and benevolence in his theory. We can particularly find these elements in the construct of the original position and in Rawls’ discussion of moral development, in which he places a high premium on a caring and loving relationship between parents and children.

After looking at the elements of benevolence and care found in justice as fairness, I will then look at the modifications to Rawls’ theory which Kittay proposes. These modifications include the addition of care as sixth basic social good and the addition of a third principle of justice. I will argue that if we understand the extent to which Rawls already includes care and benevolence in his theory, these modifications are not necessary.

The Dependency Critique

Central to Eva Feder Kittay’s critique of Rawls’ “justice as fairness” is a concern about dependency. Dependency is the state of existence, which is characterized by a reliance on others for functionality and survival. There are three primary categories of dependency: children, the disabled, and the elderly. These groupings show that issues related to dependency cover individuals in differing stages of life and that all of us were dependent at sometime and we all could potentially be dependent again, either in the case that we become disabled (if we are not already) or when we age to the point that we are no longer able to function at a level that does not require regular assistance from others.

Continue reading “For Mother’s Day: Dependency and Rawls”

Between the recent conference on Methodists and Mormons and the events of my own week, I have been left pondering the question: should Mormons be categorized as Protestants?

This week at Casper College our annual humanities festival focused on sin. On Thursday night, there was a panel on the issue of sin from the perspective of different religions. Their was a Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, and a Mormon Bishop. No, they did not walk into a bar.

The Mormon bishop was a mathematics professor at the college. He did a great job.

I was part of a group of faculty and students that tweeted the event. One of the students, Micah, is a member of the debate team and the son of a Lutheran minister in Cheyenne.

Micah wondered in a tweet why there was not a protestant representative on the panel. A colleague in the English department asked “Aren’t Mormons considered to be Protestant?”

Micah is quite sure that Mormons are not Christian, let alone Protestant. To be honest, I have not asked him to fully explain why. Debaters like to win the argument and arguing religion with students is something I avoid. For the most part, Micah views Christ’s grace as sufficient. He views the Book of Mormon as a sign that Mormons do not view that grace as sufficient.

However, Joseph, the English professor was using Protestant in the way that I had been introduced to it growing up. Protestants are non-Catholic Christians.

(The Protestant song “How Great Thou Art” is being song by a duet as I type this…during Sacrament meeting.)

Protestant is a pretty broad category which includes many churches. This ranges from mainline Protestant sects to Non-denominational churches. It includes churches founded in Europe and churches founded in both the First and Second Great Awakenings.

Mormons do not think of themselves as Protestants. I think they mostly think of the themselves as rejecting both Protestantism and Catholicism and returning (restoring) to the true form of the original Biblical church.

However, we have much in common with Protestants. Mormons use the King James Version. This is the Protestant Bible. Our music is very Protestant in style and many of our hymns are Protestant hymns.

Many of the theological issues addressed in the Book of Mormon are the issues facing Protestantism in the midst of the Second Great awakening. Mormonism does not so much reject these debates, instead it takes a specific position on them.

Now Mormonism surely falls outside the Protestant mainstream. However, I do not think this puts Mormonism outside the category of Protestantism all together. Instead, Mormons are likely best grouped with groups like the Shakers, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists.

Mormons like to see themselves as having much in common with the Catholics (claims to original authority) and Jews (Abrahamic covenants and temples). I contend that such a view fails to account for the actual origins of Mormonism.

On Tuesday, I attended Shrove Tuesday dinner at St. Marks Episcopal Church in downtown Casper. My kids loved the pancakes. I enjoyed chatting with the minister and an older couple. It felt a lot like a ward activity.

Authors note: In light of this recent story, I am re-posting this. Originally published here at FPR on Feb. 4, 2012.

Yuriy and Van lived in a much nicer neighborhood than we were used to. Most of the investigators we taught in the Little Saigon region of Orange County, California were poor immigrants who lived in either very humble homes or in apartments of varying conditions. Yuriy and Van lived in an upper middle class neighborhood with few recent immigrants.

Yet, Yuriy and Van were recent immigrants, though with a twist. Yuriy was Russian and spoke no English or Vietnamese. Van was Vietnamese but she was from the northern part of Vietnam. Most of the people we worked with were from the Saigon region of Vietnam. The northern accent presented a challenge for me, but not for my Vietnamese companion Truyen Pham.

As we started to teach Yuriy and Van, she was very friendly. Unable to communicate with Yuriy, he seemed annoyed by our presence. However, it turned out that his annoyance was more curiosity as he started to sit in on our lessons. We taught Van in Vietnamese and she translated into Russian for Yuriy.

Yuriy was visibly thrilled when he received a copy of the Book of Mormon in Russian. He could finally dive into the gospel message at his own rather fast pace.

Thus began one of my favorite missionary adventures. It had ups and downs including periods when we could not get a hold of them. However, something in particular set Yuriy and Van apart from the other investigators and members that we worked with…they were illegal immigrants. Continue reading “Beyond Borders: A Moral Approach to Immigration”

A day after Mogget speculated that the Catholic Church would win out in the battle over birth control requirements, the While House is set to announce a compromise.

I wonder if they read FPR and realized that fighting on this issue was futile?

In actuality, the White House has been looking for an out on this for the last week. While the intitial proposal was polling well, it was creating unnecessary tension on an issue that is more symbolic than substantive.

Reversing course on this will no more restrict women’s access to birth control than birth control is a threat to the “sancity of life.” Now, I am not wanting to understate the symbolic patriarchy of such policies. Yet, in a free society, the Catholic Church can hold whatever views they want about birth control. After all, they have no power to actually prevent anyone from purchasing birth control at Walgreens and insurance at these institutions will still cover visits to doctors who proscribe birth control.

So, what should we do about the Catholic Church and birth control? Shrug it off. I am pretty sure most Catholics do.

The amazing Tracy M is in need of your help.

Feminist Mormon Housewives has started up a scholarship fund that will directly go to Tracy to assist her as she finishes her undergrad degree and transitions into graduate school. Thanks to fMh for taking the lead in this effort.

Like many of you, I first got to know Tracy through her blogging at BCC and MMW.

I first met Tracy at Sunstone 2010 and then I was blessed to present with her on a panel about “Radical Homemaking” at Restoration Studies in April 2011. She present on the same topic at Sunstone 2011. Watch it below:

As you listen to Tracy and spend time with her, you quickly realize what a powerful and loving force for good that she is. Help Tracy by donating at PayPal at fmhscholarship@gmail.com.

If you would like to donate by check, leave your email by making a comment and I will get you instructions.

John Locke’s political philosophy has had a lasting impact about American Political ideology (Hartz 1955, Dienstag 1996a, Dienstag 1996b). While the Lockean influence on the principles and argumentation of the Declaration of Independence, the deepest impact on the American political mind seem to be his emphasis on property rights. The irony is that of all the Lockean concepts which Thomas Jefferson includes in the Declaration, the right to private property is left out and replaced by the more vague right to the pursuit of happiness. Yet sadly, American capitalism in practice has been more than willing to place property rights above the other supposedly inalienable rights.

However, I must admit that I have mixed feelings about John Locke’s argument about property as a natural right. On one hand, I am in awe of the careful argument which he develops to defend property as a right. It is an argument which is detailed and humble. On the other hand, I totally disagree with that very argument. Ultimately I think that Locke makes a mistake by trying to place the right to private property on equal standing with the natural rights or life and liberty. In this essay I will look at how he develops the idea of property as a natural right. After outlining Locke’s argument, I will present an argument that says that the natural right to property fails to be convincing and that the arguments of Hobbes and Rousseau concerning property give us a more proper understanding of the role of property in society. It is only with deep respect that I offer this criticism of Locke. Continue reading “Locke on Property: A Critique”

Today, a three member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, by a 2-1 margin, that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

The Court said that Prop. 8 “served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

This seems to be following the logic in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned laws restricting gay sex since such laws where not aimed at specific activities, but gays themselves. The 9th Circuit panel seems to be using the 14th Amendment in a similar way. Prop. 8 violates the equal protection of US citizens who are gay.

This ruling paves the way for a showdown before the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court leans conservative, I think that the active presence of Ted Olson in fighting against Prop. 8 shows that conservative legal elites are not unified on the matter of same-sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does since their ruling may impact measures similar to Prop. 8 (with many being much more restrictive) that exist in many states.