Philosophy | Martha C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach

Martha C. Nussbaum: Creating Capabilities – The Human Development Approach

Welcome to Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach!

Hello Philosophers! This prescribed text introduces you to one of the most important contemporary theories of social justice and global development, developed primarily by Martha C. Nussbaum (building on the work of Amartya Sen).

Don't worry if this seems like heavy political theory at first. Nussbaum's core idea is beautifully simple: Instead of just counting resources, we should measure what people are actually able to do and be.

Studying this text is crucial for Paper 2, as it requires you to understand, explain, and evaluate her criteria for a just society.

Section 1: Moving Beyond Traditional Metrics

1.1 Why We Can’t Just Count Resources or Happiness

Nussbaum argues that traditional measures of societal success—like relying purely on wealth (GDP) or maximum happiness (Utilitarianism)—are fundamentally flawed when assessing justice and development.

The Problem with Resource-Based Metrics (e.g., Wealth/GDP)

If a government simply ensures everyone has the same amount of money or resources, is that fair? Nussbaum says no, because people differ greatly in their needs.

• Individual Differences: A person with a severe disability requires far more resources (e.g., medical care, specialized equipment) to achieve the same level of mobility or independence as an able-bodied person.
• Inefficient Conversion: Resources (like money or food) do not convert equally into real life quality for every individual.

Analogy: Imagine giving two students $500 for textbooks. If one student is visually impaired and needs the books converted to expensive Braille or audio formats, the $500 resource doesn't provide them with the same function (the ability to read the material) as it does for the other student.

The Critique of Utilitarianism (Focus on Happiness/Utility)

Utilitarianism aims for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Nussbaum argues this is dangerous for two main reasons:

1. Ignores Individual Rights: If sacrificing the well-being of a minority leads to a massive gain in happiness for the majority, Utilitarianism might endorse it. Nussbaum insists justice requires respect for every individual's rights and dignity.
2. The Problem of Adaptive Preferences: This is a critical term! When people live in oppressed or severely deprived circumstances for a long time, they often lower their expectations and adjust their desires to fit their limited reality.

Did you know? A woman who has never known freedom or education might genuinely report that she is "happy" or "satisfied" with her limited life. Utilitarianism would see her as a success story, but Nussbaum argues her fundamental human capacities are still being denied. Her preferences have *adapted* to injustice.

Quick Review: The Problem Solved by Capabilities

Instead of asking, "How much stuff do they have?" (Resources) or "Are they happy?" (Utility), Nussbaum asks, "What are they truly able to do and be?"

Section 2: Defining the Core Concepts

2.1 Capabilities vs. Functionings

Understanding the difference between a capability and a functioning is essential for your essays.

Key Term 1: Capabilities (The Opportunities/Freedoms)

A capability is the substantive freedom or opportunity a person has to achieve a certain state or perform a certain action. It represents the set of real opportunities available to them.

• It’s about choice.
• Example: The capability for good health means you have access to medical care and nutrition, and therefore possess the *option* to live a healthy life.

Key Term 2: Functionings (The Achievements/Actualization)

A functioning is the actual realization of a capability; the things a person actually does or the state they actually achieve.

• It’s about achievement.
• Example: Actually going to the doctor when you are sick, or choosing to fast for religious reasons (a functioning related to the capability of practical reason).

Why the Distinction Matters: The goal of justice is to secure capabilities, not force functionings. A just society ensures you *can* vote (capability), but does not force you to vote (functioning). The choice to utilize the capability must remain free for the individual.

2.2 Internal vs. Combined Capabilities

To fully achieve the life they choose, people need more than just internal traits. Nussbaum breaks capabilities down further:

1. Internal Capabilities

These are the skills, talents, and physical/mental states that reside within the person. These are often developed through education and training.
Example: Having the intellectual skills (developed through education) to understand philosophical arguments.

2. Combined Capabilities

This is the combination of the internal capability AND the social, political, and economic conditions needed to exercise it.
Example: Having the intellectual skills (internal) and living in a society where free speech is protected and books are available (external conditions/support).

Important Point: Nussbaum’s theory of social justice focuses primarily on ensuring combined capabilities, as these are what society and government must provide or protect. If the state doesn't provide the external conditions, the internal skill is useless.

Section 3: The Ten Central Capabilities (The List)

3.1 Establishing a Minimum Threshold of Justice

Nussbaum provides a specific, non-negotiable list of Ten Central Capabilities that must be secured for all citizens, at a basic "threshold" level, if a society is to be considered minimally just. This list is intended to be universal (applicable everywhere) and essential for a life worthy of human dignity.

(Remember: You must know this list well for Paper 2!)

The Ten Central Capabilities

1. Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely. This includes basic safety and nourishment.
2. Bodily Health: Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; being adequately nourished and having adequate shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity: Being able to move freely from place to place; being secure against violent assault, including sexual assault; having choices in matters of reproduction.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought: Being able to use one’s mind in ways informed by an adequate education, including literacy, artistic expression, and religious liberty.
5. Emotions: Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; being able to love, grieve, and feel anger without fear of retribution. Having emotional development unimpaired by fear or trauma.
6. Practical Reason: Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This is essential, as it underpins moral and political autonomy.)
7. Affiliation:
   • a) Being able to live with and toward others, recognized with dignity and respect. (Protecting against discrimination.)
   • b) Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation.
8. Other Species: Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the natural world.
9. Play: Being able to laugh, play, and enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control over One's Environment:
    • a) Political: Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having rights of free speech and assembly.
    • b) Material: Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods); having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others.

Key Takeaway on The List

This list is not a suggestion; it is a fundamental requirement for justice. If a society fails to meet the basic threshold for *any* of these ten items for *any* of its citizens, Nussbaum argues, it has failed in its duty of justice.

Section 4: Philosophical Justification and Implications

4.1 Dignity, Aristotle, and the Political Conception

Nussbaum’s approach is rooted in the concept of human dignity, often drawing inspiration from Aristotle’s focus on the human essence.

The Link to Aristotle (and Kant)

• Aristotelian Influence: Nussbaum seeks to define what makes a life truly "human." She argues that the Central Capabilities are those activities and freedoms necessary for a genuinely flourishing human life (eudaimonia). Denying these capabilities prevents a person from achieving full human function.
• Kantian/Liberal Influence: The focus on choice and autonomy reflects Kantian liberalism. The capabilities are protected because they respect the individual as an end in themselves, not merely a means to the greatest overall happiness.

The Role of Government: Governments and institutions are obligated to structure society (laws, education, healthcare systems) in a way that secures the combined capability threshold for all. This is not charity; it is a demand of justice.

4.2 Universality and Pluralism

A common critique of any universal list is that it might impose Western values on diverse cultures. Nussbaum responds to this challenge by maintaining a careful balance:

• Universality of the List: The Central Capabilities themselves are universal moral requirements. Every human being, regardless of culture, has a right to bodily health and political control.
• Pluralism in Functioning: How those capabilities are actually realized (the functionings) will be different across cultures and personal choices.

Example: The capability for Affiliation (Item 7) is universal. But how Affiliation is practiced—the social customs, family structures, or religious observances—is left entirely open to cultural and personal choice. The state secures the freedom; the citizen makes the choice.

4.3 Common Mistakes to Avoid in Paper 2

When discussing Nussbaum in your exam, be careful not to confuse her approach with these concepts:

• Mistake 1: Treating Capabilities as Resources. Do not say the government must provide "a healthy body." Say the government must provide the "capability for bodily health" (e.g., clean water, access to medicine).
• Mistake 2: Confusing the Approach with Utilitarianism. Nussbaum is explicitly against Utilitarianism because it fails to guarantee justice for every individual (the threshold). Her list ensures that basic rights cannot be traded away for the overall happiness of the majority.
• Mistake 3: Assuming the List is Final. Nussbaum notes the list is open-ended and subject to revision through "cross-cultural political dialogue," although she considers the current ten items to be crucial necessities.