Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach

Measuring quality of life is a very complicated and abstract subject to accurately measure. There are several variables that can distort people’s responses and there are different systems that have been used to try and achieve a precise answer. Some of these include the Utilitarian approach that asks people how well they think they’re doing, and the Rawlsian approach that measures the distribution of a small list of basic goods and resources, like income and wealth. In “Women and Cultural Universals”, Martha Nussbaum argues for the adoption of her Capabilities approach instead of the Utilitarian and Rawlsian approach because she believes it to be a more accurate system to measure quality of life.

Nussbaum’s Capabilities approach consists of a list with all of the things a human should be capable of doing, with general points ranging from “Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length” to more distinct ones like “Being able to form a conception of the good; this entails protection for the liberty of thought” (Nussbaum 41). I agree with Nussbaum’s belief that her Capabilities approach is the most accurate way to measure quality of life because her list consists of all the things a person should be able to do in the society they live in.

People raise objections to Nussbaum’s list because they believe that the individual should be allowed to determine what is essential to their well being. They disagree that Nussbaum should declare the final notion of what defines people’s quality of life and they oppose the idea anyone else, Nussbaum or not, should be telling people what is good for them. However, this can be connected back to the Utilitarian approach because some people have been conditioned by the society they live in to not expect certain things. For example, a woman that has lived all her life in a heavily oppressive country against females such as Saudi Arabia would never expect that she should be allowed to travel without permission from a male “guardian”, while a woman in a less oppressive society, like the United States, always expects to be allowed to travel without a male “guardian’s” permission. Societal conditioning is a confounding variable that can be alleviated using Nussbaum’s standardized list in her Capabilities approach.

I believe the biggest takeaway from Nussbaum’s argument is that the list she provides should be taken as a type of “guideline”, that does not necessarily need to be followed to the letter. It should simply be used as a reference for things people should be capable of doing, as in they do not need to exercise every single notion on her list in order to have a high quality of life.