Responding to Nussbaum and the Politics of Disgust

Martha Nussbaum, a prominent philosopher, analyzes the acts of urination and defecation as central, "disgusting" reminders of human animal vulnerability and mortality, which she argues people often try to hide from through social, legal, and psychological mechanisms. In her work, particularly Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (2004), she argues that this aversion to our own bodily waste and need for privacy is frequently projected onto others, leading to social discrimination, humiliation, and the denial of dignity to certain groups, thus affecting their standing as full, equal members of a community. [From AI]

Key Aspects of Nussbaum's Analysis

• The "Politics of Disgust": Nussbaum argues that disgust is a powerful, yet irrational, emotion that structures daily life through privacy seeking, cleansing, and avoidance. This emotion, she contends, is "per se morally suspect" when used in law or society to make judgments about which groups are seen as "disgusting" or unworthy.
• Contamination and Mortality: Bodily wastes are seen as "contaminants" because they are reminders of our animal nature and mortality—that we are made of "sticky and oozy substances".
• Affecting Psychological Standing: When social or legal systems (e.g., segregated bathrooms, treatment of the disabled) are designed based on this disgust, it fundamentally violates human dignity and reduces individuals to "lesser" beings, affecting their psychological standing in society.
• Rejection of "Abject" Bodies: Nussbaum explains that the "abject" is pushed away, and this aversion is used to dehumanize others—specifically mentioning historical examples of discrimination against women, gays, and people with disabilities.
• Bodily Needs and Dignity: Her Capabilities Approach, particularly Capability 2 (Bodily Health) and Capability 10 (Control over Environment), argues for environments that accommodate these basic bodily needs without the necessity of shame, providing a "facilitating environment" that supports human flourishing and dignity. 

Nussbaum argues for the recognition of our "shared vulnerability," suggesting that acknowledging our animality should lead to greater empathy rather than a "politics of disgust". 

Here is my response:

Nussbaum made this strange argument in order to get attention ... and get her PhD.

Doctoral students have to make a name for themselves, and so they have to make the most outlandish claims with extensive research in order to promote themselves above other doctoral candidates and professors.

She neglected to mention that royal figures like Louis XIV would literally defecate in front of other people, and nobles would routinely relieve themselves (urine and feces) in corners of the rooms where they stood.

When Louis XIV would take care of business on his chaise d'affaires [literally, his "business chair"] while taking care of business with his advisors!

During his reign, Versailles stunk to high heaven with all the human waste that he and his nobles would leave on stairs and in corners.

https://thisisversaillesmadame.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-lack-of-toilets.html

Other royal figures had this stinking problem, too:

https://www.history.com/articles/royal-palace-life-hygiene-henry-viii

The truth is that indoor plumbing and sewer technology made it possible for all of us to take care of our needs in private.

And privacy is a modern concept, recognizing the value of the individual:

https://usercentrics.com/magazine/articles/geography-of-trust-origins-of-privacy-in-europe/

In fact, defecation as a private matter is a Biblical revelation, too!

Think of Saul when he was "covering his feet" in a local cave:

https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/24-3.htm

David was about to kill him, but he chose not to "touch the LORD's anointed."

Ehud, a judge of Israel, killed Eglon, the king of Moab, and he was left to die. His staff thought that the king was "attending to his needs" in private, so they didn't bother him:

https://biblehub.com/judges/3-24.htm

The point is, defecation was recognized as a private matter for royalty, then it became a public matter for some reason.

But then it went back to being a private matter as a matter of dignity. There's a sense of sanctity about relieving oneself, actually. It's a private matter for that reason, as well.

You even have San Pedro poet Charles Bukowski, who routinely talked about toilets. Check out this summary from AI:

For Charles Bukowski, the toilet is a recurring, potent symbol representing the gritty reality of human existence, mortality, and the necessary, unglamorous aspects of life. It serves as a space for raw, unfiltered honesty, often contrasted with the pretense of "civilized" society. Facebook +1

The symbolism of the toilet in Bukowski's work includes:

• Mortality and Decay: In his poem "beds, toilets, you and me—", Bukowski pairs beds and toilets as the primary locations where humans live and die, piece by piece. It represents the inevitability of bodily decay and the finality of being "flushed away".
• The Reality of Survival: Bukowski highlights the bodily function of excretion as more fundamentally crucial than love or sex, noting that one can die without the former. The toilet is a space where a "good shit" can make one realize they are truly alive, often elevating the mundane to a moment of truth.
• A Sanctuary of Solitude: The toilet, or the small room with a toilet, is portrayed as a place of quiet reflection or even temporary sanctuary, a stark contrast to the chaos or pretension of the outside world.
• A Symbol of Simple Utility: In some instances, it is a simple, practical fixture that requires maintenance—like a leaking toilet handle—offering a quiet, manageable problem in an otherwise chaotic life.
• Rejection of Pretense: Using the toilet is a leveling action, stripping away the "dirty bandages" of civilization, and it represents a space that is unpretentious and brutally honest. Facebook +5

Bukowski uses the imagery of toilets and excretion to force the reader to confront the physical, often degrading reality of being human, while finding a certain "style" in the unfiltered, unvarnished truth of that existence. Reddit

TAC: It was Gun Control

 

April 19, 1775: It was Gun Control. The redcoats didn't come to collect taxes  (article | podcast)

It was gun control. That’s what kicked off the fighting at Lexington and Concord - and started the War for Independence. But they never teach that in government-run schools. It’s almost as if they want you to believe the Founders fought a long, bloody war just to get representatives to tax them. That’s a lie. The truth? Months before the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British launched a systematic campaign to disarm the people - confiscating powder, banning imports, carrying out warrantless searches and seizures, and more. On April 19, 1775, the revolutionaries finally fought back. A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES To understand what led to the first shots of the war, we have to back up just a little. After the Seven Years’ War ended in 1763, the British Empire was buried in debt. So they did two things that changed everything: they stationed a permanent standing army in the colonies - and they expected the Americans to pay for it. They tried to raise that revenue with a series of internal taxes - including some of the most notorious still remembered today: The Stamp Act of 1765 The Townshend Acts of 1767 The Tea Act of 1773 Each time, the people resisted - with petitions, protests, and non-compliance. And sometimes, it escalated. In 1770, five colonists were shot and killed by British troops in what came to be known as the Boston Massacre. Then, in December 1773, it all boiled over with the Boston Tea Party. DISARMAMENT BY DESIGN The British response was swift and brutal, aiming to suppress any colonial defiance. In the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed what became known as the Coercive Acts. Among other things, they closed the port of Boston and revoked the Massachusetts charter - bringing the colony under the total control of the British government. The move only escalated tensions. To many colonists, it was yet another attempt to strip them of their right to self-rule and force them into submission. At the center of this strategy was military control - and that meant taking the people's arms. General Thomas Gage was appointed to replace Thomas Hutchinson as military governor of Massachusetts earlier in 1774. He arrived in Boston and formally took office on May 13. As Dave Kopel writes, Gage believed the best way to keep the peace was to disarm the colonists. He set in motion a secret plan to remove military supplies - especially guns and gunpowder - from public storehouses across New England. That plan was already in motion by late summer 1774. Most of the weapons and powder in those magazines belonged to provincial governments. But some were owned by individual towns, merchants, or private citizens. The goal wasn’t just to neutralize government forces - it was to disarm the people. IT WAS GUN CONTROL: Not Taxes. Article Here: 👉  https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/04/18/how-british-gun-control-was-the-spark-that-started-the-war-for-independence/ Video podcast with reference links to read and share: 👉  https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/04/it-was-gun-control-not-taxes/ THE POWDER ALARM On August 31, 1774, General Gage quietly dispatched Sheriff David Phips to Charleston with orders to prepare the removal of gunpowder stored in the local magazine. The following morning, a detachment of 250 British troops, led by Lieutenant Colonel George Maddison, traveled up the Mystic River and landed a short distance from the powder house. With keys handed over by Phips, the soldiers emptied the magazine without incident. After securing the powder, most of the force returned to Boston - but a smaller unit continued on to Cambridge, where they seized two artillery pieces. News of the British operation spread fast - and panic spread with it. Rumors flew that soldiers had opened fire on colonists and that Boston was under attack from the sea. The response was overwhelming. Militia units mobilized across New England. Within a matter of hours, nearly 20,000 armed colonists were on the march toward Boston. The reports turned out to be false, and the standoff ended without bloodshed. The episode became known as the Powder Alarm - and it sent a message louder than any gunshot. The people were ready to fight. And the British knew it. A WARRANTLESS ESCALATION The British didn’t back down - they escalated. With tensions already high, General Gage ordered warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. The policy sparked outrage across the colonies. The Boston Gazette called it Gage’s most offensive act yet. Meanwhile, the Sons of Liberty weren’t just marching in the streets - they were laying groundwork for open defiance. On September 9, 1774, the Suffolk Resolves - drafted by Dr. Joseph Warren - were unanimously adopted. They called for a full boycott of British goods, outright defiance of the Coercive Acts, disobedience to courts, tax resistance, and more. It was a public declaration that British authority would no longer be obeyed. This wasn’t protest. It was revolution - in writing. THE PEOPLE TAKE CHARGE As part of the Coercive Acts, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which nullified the colony’s 1691 charter and stripped the people of their right to elect local officials. Power was centralized in the hands of the royal governor - and that meant Thomas Gage. Under this new authority, Gage dissolved the Massachusetts Assembly in late September 1774. But the people didn’t comply. Ninety elected representatives met anyway in Salem on October 5. Two days later, they reassembled in Concord and officially organized themselves as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. With John Hancock as president, this new body became the de facto government of the province outside of British-occupied Boston. It collected taxes, purchased supplies, raised a militia, and began securing ammunition stores. Massachusetts was now governing itself - not in theory, but in practice. This wasn’t just resistance. It was a revolution. Meanwhile, Paul Revere was on his way back from Philadelphia with letters from the First Continental Congress. Just weeks earlier, he had delivered the Suffolk Resolves - helping secure unanimous support for Massachusetts in its stand against British aggression. Now, the communication was going both ways. The colonies weren’t just pushing back. They were building real self-government. Just days later - on October 14, 1774 - the First Continental Congress passed the Declaration and Resolves. It condemned the Declaratory and Coercive Acts (and more), laid out a clear list of colonial rights, and set the tone for what was to come. “To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit.” DISARM THE PEOPLE Three days later, Lord Dartmouth – Secretary of State for the Colonies – sent a letter to General Gage. His “suggestion” was simple – disarm the people. “Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested.” He left it to Gage to decide when and how to act - but the goal was clear. “Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.” Days later, the Crown went even further – turning disarmament from a suggestion into policy. On October 19, 1774, the King issued an Order in Council that banned all exports of arms and ammunition to the American colonies. “his Majesty judging it necessary to prohibit the exportation of Gunpowder, or any sort of Arms or Ammunition out of this Kingdom, or carrying the same coastwise for some time, doth therefore, with the advice of his Privy Council, hereby order, require, prohibit, and command, that no person or persons whatsoever” As Kopel explains, the order was a complete and total ban in practice “Read literally, the order only required a government permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.” The Crown sent orders to the colonial governors (via Gage, for distribution) - and to the British navy - to immediately block all arms and ammunition shipments into the 13 colonies. But the colonists weren’t just sitting back. HEATING UP In December 1774, word spread that British ships were heading to seize arms and powder stored at Fort William and Mary in New Hampshire. The Boston Committee of Correspondence sent Paul Revere north with a warning. On December 14, a group of about 400 New Hampshire patriots took action. They stormed the fort and preemptively captured all the military supplies on hand - including roughly 100 barrels of gunpowder. The next day, they returned. This time, they seized 16 cannons, 60 muskets, and other military stores - removing everything before British reinforcements could arrive. That same day - December 15 - General Gage responded to Lord Dartmouth’s proposal to disarm the colonies. “Your Lordship's idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with prudence and safety; but it neither is nor has been practicable, without having recourse to force, and being master of the country.” Translation: I agree we have to take their guns - but we'll have to use massive force to do it. JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY! Let’s keep building the foundation! For as little as $2/month, help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don’t!) details and join here A TIMELESS WARNING In early January 1775, a patriot writer warned of what was coming - with a lesson from ancient history. In a letter published in the New Hampshire Gazette and Historical Chronicle, he compared the British arms embargo and threats of confiscation to the Roman subjugation of Carthage. “Shall we like the Carthaginians, peaceably surrender our Arms to our Enemies, in Hopes of obtaining in Return the Liberties we have so long been contending for?” And he answered with a call to action: “We have not by the Law of Self Preservation, a Right to seize upon all those within our Power, in order to defend the LIBERTIES which GOD and Nature have given us...?” The people saw what was coming - and so did the British. On February 9, 1775, Parliament made it official - declaring that a rebellion officially existed in Massachusetts. FINAL ORDERS: ARREST AND DISARM In late January 1775, Lord Dartmouth sent another message to General Gage but it didn’t arrive until April 14 - just five days before Lexington and Concord. This time, there was no ambiguity. “The King’s Dignity, & the Honor and Safety of the Empire, require, that, in such a Situation, Force should be repelled by Force...” More troops were on the way - but Dartmouth wanted Gage to act. “The first & essential step... would be to arrest and imprison the principal actors & abettors in the Provincial Congress...” And finally, the blow that confirmed what was coming. “Upon no account suffer the Inhabitants of at least the Town of Boston, to assemble themselves in arms on any pretence whatever, either of Town guard or Militia duty.” THE PEOPLE FOUGHT BACK Just days later, British troops began their fateful mission - ordered to seize arms and powder. The people didn’t wait to be disarmed. They stood their ground. Shots were fired. And the War for Independence began - with a fight against gun control. On July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress made that view official in the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, which was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson. “In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms.” The fighting didn’t start over taxes or representation. It started out of self defense against a gun control program being enforced through violence. “We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.” 📖 Read now → HERE 🎙️ Watch or listen to the podcast → HERE It’s no wonder government-run schools never teach this. That’s part of why we work so hard every single day to reach and teach more people about this essential history - and these essential foundational principles behind the American Revolution. But we can’t do it alone. Your membership support is crucial to keep these timeless lessons alive. JOIN US TODAY! Prefer to make a one-time donation? Pitch in here: https://donate.stripe.com/fZecNzggUaDG3LydR0 You can also mail a check to: Tenth Amendment Center 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 PMB 705 Irvine, CA 92604 Brick-by-brick. Person-by-person. Building a strong foundation for liberty – whether the government happens to like it, or not. (they definitely do not) Thank you so much for reading - and your support! Concordia res parvae crescunt (small things grow great by concord) Michael Boldin, TAC