Prof. Nussbaum explores three "frontiers" (disability, nationality, and speciec membership) into which she attempts to extend the role of justice. She argues first that contractarianism, best exemplified by Rawls, has structural flaws that prevent incorporating these topics into the realm of justice, then that her approach, the "capabilities approach" does allow such an incorporation by providing a better theory of "the good".

The better theory of "the good" is a reflection-refined intuitive vision which manifests as a set (or the feeling that there could be a set if we worked hard enough to create it) of bare-minimum capabilities which would provide a life worthy of a particular species' dignity. Justice will prevail, her argument goes, when institutions are created to implement that vision, an implementation that will primarily consist of redistributing wealth according to need.

She loses me completely when she argues (p. 377) for treating animals with a "species-specific paternalism" after spending much of the book invoking Aristotle to insist that we humans are just another species, suggesting that a species-specific paternalism is the proper treatment for humans as well. She never says that, of course, but other ideas she presents, such as the need the erase the distinction between public and private spheres to allow coercive institutions to enforce justice within the family, lead me to believe that her overarching vision is of a benevolent despotism, in possession of knowledge of "the good" and coercing compliance despite our preferences to the contrary (our preferences being highly suspect because they can be tainted by our adaptation to unjust societal norms).

I have ready my last Martha Nussbaum book. To be fair, though, advocates for better treatment of disabled people and any kind of animal might find worthwhile talking points in the relevant sections of her book. Anyone looking for insight on nationality and justice, though, should just look elsewhere. ( )