Nussbaum's Capabilities

Isabella Corredor

Professor Richardson

PHI/WGS 297

Blog Post #4

Martha Nussbaum’s main claim is we, as human beings, have a universal obligation to protect human functioning and its dignity for men and women. And “If that involves assault on many local traditions, both western and non-western, so much better, because any tradition that denies these things is unjust” (Women and Cultural Universals). Nussbaum makes it a priority to distinguish a good human life as opposed to merely surviving. She provides us with a list of ten central human capabilities, and states that a person has a good quality of life if they can exercise all of these capabilities; You don’t have to do everything on the list, you simply have to be able to do all of these things if you wanted to. I agree with Nussbaum in that the central goal of public planning should be the capabilities of citizens to perform various important functions. However, after reviewing her list of capabilities I do find fault with it, specifically Life and Bodily Integrity. “Not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to not be worth living”. My issue with this claim would be who defines when one’s life is reduced so much it’s not worth living? If you die before age 50 was it not a good life? Before 40? What about people who get cancer or huntington’s or some other disease and die young? Was their life not a good one simply because they got sick? I like to think that who they were as a person before their sickness took over and what they did defines their life; not the last couple months they were sick before they died. Something seems wrong to me to say that people who don’t live to be 80 or 90 didn’t have a good life. There are plenty of artists who died young who I think most people wouldn’t dare say they didn’t live a good life. Amazing icons such as Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, and Jimi Hendrix all died prematurely, yet I would say they all lived amazing, fulfilling lives. Another issue I have is with Bodily Integrity. “Having choice in matters of reproduction”. The problem with this statement is that not everyone does have a choice. Plenty of women are incapable of getting pregnant, so they didn’t have the choice to carry their own child. And some women can get pregnant, but the father of the child leaves her or doesn’t help in anyway, so she has to raise the child alone; She didn’t get to choose whether he would help or not. Nussbaum’s main point is that everyone must be able to do all of these things, yet a lot of women are not able to chose what circumstances they are handed when it comes to reproduction.

Criticisms to Nussbaum’s capabilities approach would be that individuals should be allowed to determine what is essential to their well being and that public policy should not specify a theory for well being because it interferes with the autonomy of individuals. I disagree with this objection because Nussbaum clearly states that this is not a rulebook by any means or a checklist that you must fulfill for your life to be good and if one item is left unchecked your life is bad. Her list is meant to be a model; Public policy should aim to develop these capabilities, rather than to ensure that citizens exercise these capabilities. The exercise of capabilities is up to the individual.