Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » Nussbaum’s Liberty of Conscience

Nussbaum’s Liberty of Conscience

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 106 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 195,738 hits

Martha Nussbaum has a new book out, Liberty of Conscience, which addresses the territory surrounding freedom of religion and the first amendment. An interesting review, by the editor of the Catholic First Things, can be found here. I have yet to see the book, but I admire Nussbaum greatly, and I think she is one of the best philosophers writing today.



  1. Kleiner says:

    Anyone that is interested in the intersection of religion and politics should read Neuhaus’ “The Naked Public Square”.


  2. absurdbeats says:


    I, too, have respected Nussbaum’s work, but I thought Liberty of Conscience was lousy. I wrote waaaaay too much about it on my blog (; the short version is that I thought she went grievously awry in chapter 8. Her cleverness, which she usually manages to keep in check in other work, descends into glibness in that chapter, and her unwillingness to engage the political dimensions of some of these issues distorts her analysis. Finally, I thought she was dismissive of those without religious belief—offensively so.

    Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.


  3. Huenemann says:

    I still haven’t read it! Too busy with Nietzsche. I’ll check out what you’ve written about it, though.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: