To live in human community is, in part, to owe debts to others and to be owed in return. How should we evaluate, normatively, the varied forms, practices, institutions, and relationships of debt? Which should be constrained and which accepted or encouraged? These questions have farreaching implications given the pervasiveness of debt within human experience. This paper brings the resources of the capabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum to bear on normative assessments of debt. Our thesis is that the theoretical resources provided by this approach can help philosophers to examine the wide range of costs and benefits afforded by actual debts. We examine six contemporary examples of debt, arguing that the capabilities approach offers a nuanced and holistic framework for evaluating each. The framework is nuanced in that it provides resources for conducting fine-grained analyses of different cases and related policy proposals. It is holistic in that it takes into account more than a narrow range of either positive or negative considerations, instead encompassing the wide array of debt's bodily, cognitive, and social impacts upon individuals.Anthropologists have documented the diverse forms, practices, institutions, and relationships of debt in which human beings throughout the world are enmeshed. 1 To live in human community is, in part, to owe debts to others and to be owed in return. How should we evaluate, normatively, the varied forms, practices, institutions, and relationships of debt? Which should be constrained and which accepted or encouraged? These questions have far-reaching implications given the pervasiveness of debt within human experience.The ethics of debt has, however, been neglected by many philosophers. Those who do address it focus primarily on the ethics of lending. Aristotle and Aquinas, for instance, argue that lending money at interest is fundamentally exploitative. Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, in contrast, argue that it should be encouraged so as to create economic opportunity and growth. Such thinkers identify some of the important normative questions raised by debt. Yet, they also fail to capture much of the ethical complexity of the myriad forms, practices, institutions, and relationships of debt. It is true, for example, that lending can be exploitative, but it is also true that access to credit can create opportunity 1 See especially Graeber 2011 and Mauss 1990.