Why care for the severely disabled? A critique of MacIntyre’s account
Abstract
In Dependent Rational Animals, Alasdair MacIntyre attempts to ground the virtues in a biological account of humans. Drawing from this attempt, he also tries to answer the question of why we should care for the severely disabled. MacIntyre's difficulty in answering this question begins with the fact that his communities of practices do not naturally include the severely disabled within their membership and care. In response to this difficulty, he provides four reasons for why we should care for the severely disabled. I argue that three of these reasons are inadequate, and that the fourth is incomplete although it does point in a promising direction. I conclude that a more satisfactory answer requires a further extension of the central development from After Virtue to Dependent Rational Animals, and I draw from Wendell Berry, whose work MacIntyre admires, to provide an illuminating illustration of what such an answer might look like.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Poore conflates traditions with the local communities that MacIntyre is concerned with in Dependent Rational Animals.
“And Poore conflates traditions with the local communities that MacIntyre is concerned with in Dependent Rational Animals (DRA).”
From Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers? (2022) · cites this paper as Poore 2014
Alasdair MacIntyre, in contrast to Poore's evaluation, can include severely disabled people in communities for the reason that such a reason is a sufficient criterion for explaining why severely disabled people are members of human communities.
“My argument has merely been that Alasdair MacIntyre, in contrast to Poore's evaluation, can include severely disabled people in communities for this reason-that such a reason is a sufficient criterion for explaining why severely disabled people are members of human communities.”
From Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers? (2022) · cites this paper as Poore 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers?
McCracken, G. (2022) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1093/jmp/jhac029
- Authors
- Poore, G. S.
- Affiliations
- Shorter University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Poore, G. S.
- ORCID
- Poore, G. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-06-26
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 459-473
- ISSN
- 0360-5310 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5019
- OpenAlex
- W2163157950
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 6.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Philosophical Society
- Baylor University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- Alasdair MacIntyre, severely disabled, disability care, virtue ethics, communities of practice, After Virtue, Wendell Berry
- MeSH terms
- Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Morals, Philosophy, Medical, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Social Justice, Bioethical Issues
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