Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Defining Disability: Creating a Monster?Marissa D. Espinoza & Addison S. Tenorio - 2022 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (5):573-582.
    Disability is often defined as deviation from putative norms of physical, cognitive, or affective function. This definition is normatively laden, causing people with disabilities to be thought of as “different” and treated with pity. We address the predominant theme of this issue on “Disability Identity”: defining and imposing the category of “disability” and attempting to overcome it through medical intervention. The issue culminates in a call for courageous humility as the proper response to encounters with disability, providing medical professionals with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Disability and the Theodicy of Defeat.Aaron D. Cobb & Kevin Timpe - 2017 - Journal of Analytic Theology 5:100-120.
    Marilyn McCord Adams argues that God’s goodness to individuals requires God to defeat horrendous evils; it is not enough for God to outweigh these evils through compensatory goods. On her view, God defeats the evils experienced by an individual if and only if God’s goodness to the individual enables her to integrate the evil organically into a unified life story she perceives as good and meaningful. In this essay, we seek to apply Adams’s theodicy of defeat to a particular form (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Disabled bodies on earth and in heaven.Margaret D. Kamitsuka - 2021 - Journal of Religious Ethics 49 (2):358-380.
    Journal of Religious Ethics, Volume 49, Issue 2, Page 358-380, June 2021.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Disability, Enhancement, and Flourishing.Jason T. Eberl - 2022 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (5):597-611.
    Recent debate among bioethicists concerns the potential to enhance human beings’ physical or cognitive capacities by means of genetic, pharmacological, cybernetic, or surgical interventions. Between “transhumanists,” who argue for unreserved enhancement of human capabilities, and “bioconservatives,” who warn against any non-therapeutic manipulation of humanity’s natural condition, lie those who support limited forms of enhancement for the sake of individual and collective human flourishing. Many scholars representing these views also share a concern over the status and interests of human beings with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations