Capabilities approach pioneered by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum is the theoretical framework that provides a foundation for assessing human well-being in terms of functionings and freedoms that individuals possess under certain political and social conditions. In contrast to alternative theories like utilitarianism that solely focuses on subjective phenomenon as pleasure in evaluating living standards, or commodity-focused approach that sees opulence as an objective indicator of welfare, capabilities approach is mainly concerned with choices that people can make and opportunities they are guaranteed in order to pursue their life goals. This approach addresses a number of issues within the political philosophy that are mainly practical in their essence. (1) How to combine broadness of the approach with its practical application …show more content…
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:
1. Life. The ability to live a life without a threat of premature death, or a death from other artificial reasons that could be
Life, such a broad yet concise topic. A multitude of different people and cultures offer different opinions on what gives life value and how to obtain satisfaction in our lives. For example, the typical “American Dream” is defined as attaining wealth and success through hard work, while many Spanish cultures consider closeness within a family a valuable trait in life. Whether it is family, success, love, or faith, every citizen in each different culture finds what brings him or her joy and does whatever it takes to reach this satisfaction. There are three specific aspects of my life which make life worth living; these include my faith, my family, and the talents I have been blessed with.
things is the will to live that they all possess. Without this will living organisms would
In Utilitarianism For and Against by Bernard Williams, Williams has an argument that is based on the value of integrity. Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles or moral uprightness. In Williams argument he believes in certain circumstances utilitarianism requires agents to abandon their personal projects and commitments. This lead Williams to claim that utilitarianism is an attack on an agent’s integrity. In my essay I will explain Williams’s argument on utilitarianism and how he is lead to believe it is an attack on an agent’s integrity. I will also explain why he thinks it can force us to abandon our personal projects. Within my essay I will also explain the theory of right conduct explained by Timmons in the book Moral Theory. I will also explain the notions of personal responsibility explained by Williams, as well as the notion of personal projects and commitments and the notion of integrity.
the source of life, in this instance it has killed a man in his quest
It is seen to be relevant for the moral evaluation of social arrangements beyond the development context, for example, for considering gender justice. It is also seen as providing foundations for normative theorising, such as a capability theory of justice that would include an explicit ‘metric’ (that specifies which capabilities are valuable) and ‘rule’ (that specifies how the capabilities are to be distributed). The philosopher Martha Nussbaum has provided the most influential version of such a capability theory of justice, deriving from the requirements of human dignity a list of central capabilities to be incorporated into national constitutions and guaranteed to all up to a certain threshold.
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
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
intrinsic value that must be respected and revered. It is immoral to intentionally end a life. For those who are believers in God know that he has given us the most powerful gift on earth, the gift of life. Only He has the power to take it away from us. Besides God, the only truth on earth is that there are only two things stronger than all the armies of the world and they are kindness and hope.
... values of empowerment and self-determination as an effective tools to assist the oppressed population to eradicate violence, social injustice and marginalization of their lives. These approaches are not viable unless programs are designed to address the various barriers including social integration, economic security, custody of children, and access to appropriate community resources.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
--life which is permitted to put on the display of death and to go out in glory-
In his article, Democracy as a Universal Value, Amartya Sen asserts that democracy is a universal value. In order to develop his argument Sen needs to state his definition of democracy and define what he means by universal value. In the course of Sen's argument he gives his view of the relationship between democracy and the economy. He then defends his view of democracy as a universal value against a main argument that deals with cultural differences between regions.
In order to understand the issues at play and to propose various solutions, three main concepts would be examined. The focus would be on context of development, self and identity development and social development.