Nussbaum, Martha. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Ch. 1: In Defence of Universal Values, pp.

34-88. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1. The Need for Universal Values An international feminism that is going to have any bite quickly gets involved in making normative recommendations that cross boundaries of culture, nation, religion, race and class. Feminist philosophy has frequently been sceptical of universal values. It is feared that any list of universal values will come from a particular cultural perspective. If this is a Western perspective, it will only reinforce traditional structures of colonialism. But it displays great cultural ignorance to argue that Western notions like equality and liberty are alien to non-Western cultures like those of India. While we will certainly need local knowledge to understand the particular problems that women face in different parts of the world, it is quite another matter to claim that certain very general values are not appropriate for assessing womens lives in developing countries. 2. Arguments Against Universal Values 1. Argument from culture norms of female modesty, deference and obedience are important to Indian traditions and should be respected. But this badly over-simplifies tradition and forgets to ask women themselves what they think of these norms. 2. Argument from the good of diversity the world is rich in part because of the range in values across cultures. This diversity should be respected because it is good in itself. But some cultural practices do frequently harm people, especially women. 3. Argument from paternalism if we use a set of universal values to tell people what is good for them, we show too little respect for peoples freedom to decide what is good for themselves. This just shows that one of the universal values we endorse needs to be the freedom to think and choose for oneself. Paternalism is bad only insofar as it intrudes on something that we value more. There is nothing wrong with insisting that some very central values be secured. 3. Defects of GDP, Utilitarian and Rawlsian Approaches 1. GDP per capita Gives us no information about the distribution of wealth or income, or about the availability of important goods like health and education. 2. Utilitarian approaches (focus on utility measured in terms of satisfaction) Aggregates the utility of individuals, concealing a bad situation for those at the bottom. Aggregates the utility across separate goods, like liberty, health and education, that we cannot make such easy trade-offs between. Satisfaction is too malleable to serve an index of how well peoples lives are going. Extremely disadvantaged people can come to terms with their situation purely as a way of keeping going.

3. Rawlsian approaches (focus on resources like wealth and income that are prerequisites for carrying out more comprehensive life plans) Neglects the fact that individuals vary greatly in their needs for resources and their ability to convert resources into functionings. Social hierarchies can create obstacles to using resources. 4. Nussbaums Capabilities Approach Asks not How satisfied are people or How much in the way of resources can people command but What are people actually able to do and to be? Nussbaum and Amartya Sen are together the pioneers of the capabilities approach (or human development approach). Important terms are: Functionings = a persons actual doings and beings. Capabilities = the larger set of doings and being available to a person. Nussbaums version draws in particular on ideas from Aristotle and Marx. The core idea is that of the human being as a dignified free being who shapes his or her own life in cooperation and reciprocity with others, rather than being passively shaped or pushed around by the world in the manner of a flock or herd animal. The approach is after a society in which persons are treated as each worth of regard in in which each person in a position to live a fully human life. Nussbaum has constructed a list of central capabilities that are the necessary requirements of a fully human life. The list is meant to transcend cultural boundaries. Central capabilities are valuable in themselves, not as instruments to some further end. List is also open to revisions. Central capabilities are meant to be multiply realisable: they can be secured in different ways and in accordance with local beliefs and customs. All of the capabilities are independently essential. We cannot make up for the lack of one with more of another. The central capabilities exert a moral claim that they should be developed. Securing the central capabilities for each citizen is a minimal requirement of justice. (Or at least the social basis of the capabilities.) Focus is on capabilities, not actual functionings, to respect the freedom of individuals to choose the kind of life they want. The emphasis is on ensuring that the opportunities to function are available to all, even if not all individuals take them up.