When Nussbaum refers to ‘human capabilities’ she is referring to the people’s “abilities to do and to be certain things deemed valuable”(Nussbaum 275). In other terms, a capability is the ability to choose the way one leads one’s own life without constraints on any of the available choices. For instance, to be capable of choosing which political party to identify with or of practicing a religion of one’s choosing is to be fully human. In Nussbaum’s view being rational and being happy is not sufficient to define humanity. It is being able to make choices which defines a truly human life, and is accompanied with dignity. This presents the question of, “What is A actually able to do and to be?” (Nussbaum 285).
Nussbaum introduces a set of three different types of capabilities in her analysis. Basic capabilities pertain to the inherent capabilities of practical reasoning that human beings as infants are born with, but cannot exercise as functions until further development (Nussbaum 289). Internal capabilities are those that build upon the basic capabilities through the process of education and other related forms of development (Nussbaum 289). She defines combined capabilities as being the combination of internal capabilities and external conditions which make possible the usage of a function (Nussbaum 290). This is where public policy should be directed because carrying out combined capabilities requires the promotion of internal capabilities as well as setting up an environment where functions can be put into practice. Capabilities can also be seen as a person’s real freedoms or opportunities as a means of achieving certain functionings. To address these two requirements, Nussbaum produced a list of ‘human capabilities’ that serves ...
... middle of paper ...
...). Therefore, if liberty rights and rights to goods and services are violated in various states, then how can Nussbaum expect to see the central capabilities guaranteed in such states? Another negative aspect about placing obligations or establishing guarantees from states is that some may lack the power to fulfill those obligations (O’Neill 435) For example, underdeveloped states or the deemed failed states lack the economic resources and political stability to do so. Others don’t necessarily need to be in a similar situation for failing as duty-bearers. States regarded as being strong in the international community may encounter enforcement problems. Even so when they cannot guarantee liberty rights to their constituents as do many authoritarian regimes. As a result, O’Neill suggests reconsidering whether all second-order obligations should be assigned to states.
...itical potential from the things you say, the things you embody and the things you want. You can have holidays, but not your language. You can have a month of the year for your race, but no justice. You can have welfare, but not sovereignty. You can practice your culture up until the point where it makes people uncomfortable, or makes things inefficient.
According to consequentialist theory, a right action is one that maximizes the good. Utility, or the greatest happiness principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The greatest happiness principle also holds that the right action increases total amount of utility in the world: “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent 's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 5). The principle of Utility states that “…happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain…” (Mill 2). An action is right if it maximizes the good, that being happiness, as it is the only thing that is
The United States should find it in their best interest to repair its alliances. The reparation of alliances is vital because it gives the United States foreign support and if need be, aid as well. Within Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Social Contract”, forming a social contract gives an individual the protection of a community, equal rights and protection from the abuse of power. This relationship between an individual and the state is important because it provides the individual with more protection and security than if they were facing the issue alone, all in exchange for their natural freedom. People are naturally free and they give up that freedom when they join a community in exchange for such protections. So, it is the job of the state to ensure that the rights of the people are inalienable, they cannot be taken from them.
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Krasner, Stephen D.. Power, the state, and sovereignty: essays on international relations. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Sen intentionally tries to keep capabilities approach broad and flexible that allows people to define the list of functionings and freedoms with regard to problems in agenda and relevant context (Sen 1987, 2005). Whereas, Nussbaum (1997) powerfully defends the point that a basic list of capabilities should be designed and offers her list of central human capabilities. In her opinion, such list is useful in political planning since it comprises ten core capabilities that are of extreme importance to all people and serve as the basis for their further prosperity. Her list contains:
Warren begins her argument by explicitly defining a human person as someone who is a “full-fledged member of the moral community” (Timmons 385). Warren believes that this community consists of all and only people that possess the ability to express the five qualities that were previously mentioned as opposed to all human beings that possess the genetic code of humanity. Being a member of this community entitles a person to have full moral rights, including the rights of life and happiness, which must be respected. Warren justifies that the five qualities are sufficient criteria of determining the apparent “personhood” of a being by stating that such principles of humanity would be used when attempting to study alien life forms on distant planets. Despite discernable differences in physiological and (potentially) cultural development, these alien beings may demonstrate enoug...
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Sen (1987, 2005) intentionally tries to keep capabilities approach broad and flexible that allows people to define the list of functionings and freedoms with regard to problems in agenda and relevant context. Whereas, Nussbaum (1997) powerfully defends the point that a basic list of capabilities should be designed and offers her list of central human capabilities. In her opinion, such list is useful in political planning since it comprises ten core capabilities that are of extreme importance to all people and serve as the basis for their further prosperity. Her list contains:
For if human' is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two senses is meant, one of these premises is question begging. And if it is used in two different senses, then of course the conclusion doesn't follow”(Warren 434). With this, she concludes that a human being is one that is a fully active participant in society. In the moral community she insists again that morals and genetics must be kept separate, and that the moral community is composed of “all and only people, rather than all and only human beings”(Warren 435).... ...
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
The debate between whether to follow the utilitarian view of rights or the natural view of rights is one of the many puzzles associated with rights, which include; whether we have rights, what these rights are, where they come from, and whether or not they are timeless or context specific. These have an effect on both natural and utilitarian rights in the way they mould the human mind, our values, morals and ethics.
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...
This question is concerned with whether or not it is possible for 'natural rights' to exist. 'Natural' rights are rights which we have 'naturally' as humans, in other words rights which we inherently have, just by being human. A large problem with answering this question is that of defining the term 'rights', a question to which the answer has been very elusive throughout the history of political analysis. The following investigation into the possibility of 'natural rights' will begin with an attempt to create a working definition of a rights, and will then proceed to examine the essence of humanity and the roots of what is a 'right', to see if it is possible to have a 'right' simply by being human. Questions concerning society, freedom and morality will all be seen to arise, and will be dealt with accordingly.