Search
Search
Martha Nussbaum and the Capabilities Approach
Martha Nussbaum and the Capabilities Approach

Date

source

share

In the capabilities approach, philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that a human life, in order to reach its highest potential, must include a number of “capabilities” – that is, of actual possibilities that one can realise in one’s life. These include . . .
In the capabilities approach, philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that a human life, in order to reach its highest potential, must include a number of “capabilities” – that is, of actual possibilities that one can realise in one’s life. These include the ability to live a life that is “worth living,” the ability to use one’s imagination, sufficient education to enable a “truly human” understanding of the world and one’s position in it, having dignity and a sense of equal worth, as well as the ability to participate in the political life of one’s society.

If you like reading about philosophy, here’s a free, weekly newsletter with articles just like this one: Send it to me!

What is the “capabilities approach”? In previous posts on Aristotle, we saw how to exercise our virtues, how to develop our practical wisdom and how to improve the way we relate to our work. We talked about having the right values in life, how to make new experiences and how to stay young.

But one could ask: does Aristotle’s theory apply in the same way to all cultures, or is it specific to some Western notion of the desirable life? Could a Muslim society, or an indigenous tribe in South America, embrace the Aristotelian life? And if so, what exactly would this look like?

There certainly is a problem there, even if we only look at our own society. People just have so different attitudes about life, different backgrounds, beliefs and values. How can one form of “flourishing” be right for everyone?

There are two ways to respond to this problem.

Moral relativism

First, one could say that, indeed, every society, and perhaps every single person, should be entitled to their own form of _eudaimonia, _or ultimate happiness. Both the wisdom that we need to navigate our lives well and the ultimate goals that we have in life depend on the society we live in, the education we were given when we were young, the religious beliefs we have. So there is no common ground there, and every single person, as well as every society, would have their own understanding of what a good life is.

This position is called “moral relativism”. It is tempting to be a relativist because we actually want to acknowledge the diversity of opinions and cultures and give everyone the right to choose their own path to happiness. But there’s also a trap hidden inside that package.

If I am a relativist, I am committed to accepting other people’s and other societies’ beliefs, even if they are incompatible with my own. Whatever crazy thing someone might believe, I would have to accept, because for the relativist every point of view is as good as every other. Should we protect or exploit the environment? Should we assist refugees or close our borders? Should we vaccinate people or not?

The relativist couldn’t say what is wrong with North Korea. Their values and their system is what it is, and it’s nobody’s business trying to change it.  …

Read the full article which is published on Daily Philosophy (external link)

More
articles

More
news

What is Disagreement?

What is Disagreement?

This is Part 1 of a 4-part series on the academic, and specifically philosophical study of disagreement. In this series...

Relativism

Relativism

[Revised entry by Maria Baghramian and J. Adam Carter on January 10, 2025. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] Relativism, roughly...

Medieval Political Philosophy

Medieval Political Philosophy

[New Entry by Cary Nederman and Alessandro Mulieri on January 10, 2025.] [Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Cary...

Herbert Marcuse

Herbert Marcuse

[Revised entry by Arnold Farr on January 10, 2025. Changes to: Bibliography] Herbert Marcuse (1898 – 1979) was one of...