CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Disability Rights and RepresentationClassical Philosophy and ThoughtPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Rehabilitating Aristotle: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Disability and Human Flourishing

Merriam, Garret·2009·Philosophy and Medicine
DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2477-0_8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-90-481-2477-0_8

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adhering to a species-standard model can lead to an inability to properly distinguish between inherently inhibited flourishing and societally disabled minority ways of being.

    “Adhering to such a model can lead to an inability to properly distinguish between inherently inhibited flourishing on the one hand, and societally disabled minority ways of being on the other (ibid., pp.134-5)”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Merriam, 2009

  • Static or temporary snapshot conceptions of species-standard norms can be arbitrary and epistemically violent toward minority disabled modes of flourishing.

    “Most relevantly, Merriam has noted that the notion that static or even temporary snapshot conceptions of species-standard norms can show us how we should live may be both arbitrary and epistemically violent toward minority disabled modes of flourishing (Merriam, 2009, p. 135).”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Merriam, 2009

  • Merriam (2009) has proposed turning away from Aristotle and toward stoic philosophy, to shift focus onto how well individuals do given their specific limitations instead of measuring them against the species-standard norm.

    “Merriam (2009) has proposed turning away from Aristotle and toward stoic philosophy, to shift the focus onto how well individuals do give their specific limitations instead of measuring them against the species-standard norm.”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Merriam, 2009

  • MacIntyre and Nussbaum have developed the logic of virtue theory in the context of disability.

    “Both MacIntyre and Nussbaum have developed the logic of virtue theory in the context of disability (A. MacIntyre 1999; M. C. Nussbaum 2006; See also Merriam 2009; Clifton 2013; Yong 2012).”

    From Quadriplegia, virtue theory, and flourishing: a qualitative study drawing on self-narratives (2018) · cites this paper as Merriam 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Aristotle. (1885). Politics (J. Benjamin, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Aristotle. (1986). De Anima (H. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). New York: Penguin Classics.
  3. Burgdorf, R. L., Jr. (2006). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (US). In G. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Encyclopedia of disability (pp. 93–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  4. Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism (2nd ed., G. Sher (Ed.)). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
  5. Mundy, L. (2003). A world of their own. In O. Sacks (Ed.), Best American science writing 2003 (pp. 68–87). New York: Harper Collins.
  6. Penn, A. (Director) & Coe, F. (Producer). (1962). The miracle worker [Motion Picture]. United States: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
  7. RHR & WHO. (2008). Eliminating female genital mutilation—An interagency statement. Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR) & World Health Organization (WHO).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Merriam, G.
Affiliations
University of Southern Indiana (US)
Corresponding author
Merriam, Garret
Venue
Philosophy and Medicine
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published
2009
Pages
133-151
ISSN
0376-7418 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/978-90-481-2477-0_8
OpenAlex
W1926256636
Semantic Scholar
658d56ba92b383e8dc9ab1ee734a83115c3e02ec
Cited by
18
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Philosophy and medicine (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Classical Philosophy and Thought
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
Aristotle, virtue ethics, disability, eudaimonia, women, disability ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review