E is for Educational  Excellence          omaisa.com 

Search for their works with Google.com!

Article:

The Value of Nussbaum’s Philosophical Thought:

Justice and Capabilities in the Era of Globalization

Recently my wonderful neighbor had something to show me--a Black Cepote. A fruit, looking like a huge bulging tomato with the skin color of a young coconut. What country or continent had it come from? We didn’t know…we only knew it was black inside and tasted like sweet chocolate pudding! Perhaps it took this long for a hidden tribe to share their natural bounty with others. Although we still live in a time of unending international conflict, we at least have good relations and trade with some distant peoples. Hopefully they are well, and flourishing, in a just society.

Martha C. Nussbaum probes such issues of international relationships, justice, and issues of poverty and income inequality. Nussbaum also ponders deeply about the rights and dignity of our animal kingdoms, and more close to home, people with disabilities.

In Martha Nussbaum's innovative approach to justice, her laudable goals are for dignified or flourishing living of not just human but even animal life, and a just world community. With her list of capabilities, there is a great improvement on contractarian, utilitarian, and other notions of justice and their lack of functioning in the these areas of disability, national relations, and animal dignity (as well as various other shortcomings).

Nussbaum improves the discussion surrounding justice with her list that is open-ended and available for modification. Yet there is a seeming misunderstanding in my view: her notion that support of the various human capabilities is not only good, but that far away people or nations create an obligation requiring mandatory action on our part. Actions in life are best voluntary. Placing responsibility for supporting any human life worldwide on others is highly questionable, as any births in overpopulated areas would impose unlimited burdens on all. Living close to nature, or tribally, which some label poverty, calls for “very significant redistribution”…? (p. 317) A dangerous idea.

We might consider that those responsible for bringing a child into the world are best held responsible for ensuring capabilities. If parents fail to support capabilities with food, love, and care, they have violated justice and should rightly be dealt with to prevent future violations. Yet that is even too late: justice might require prospective parents to demonstrate their abilities and resources before bearing children. Nussbaum’s wise idea is to reform the privacy of families.

Mothers and fathers create the lives we worry about treating justly. As we continue to over-tax and pollute the earth, air, oceans, and space, part of central human capabilities should be being able to govern families to maintain peace and the health of a sustainable environment. Rather than global or national one-child policies, we might consider that people living in places with cyclical famine, war, extreme poverty, and other lacks of support for capabilities may be violating notions of justice when they bring children into such perils. We do good when we encourage health care and family planning, peaceful depopulation, education and democracy, and care for the environment in such areas (yet again, our support is rightly voluntary).

A common failure of our global societies is the behavior of gentle-sounding ruling masses or elites, legislating their culture and values on others, in many cases with various populations around the world. These forces take their land through taxation and other legal means, their children for mandatory cultural indoctrination or education, thus erasing tribes, languages, nations, destroying lands and even species. This may begin with lofty ideals: Nussbaum’s ideas such as: "Since the late 20th century it has been obvious that an adequate treatment of international and cosmopolitan justice must address not only the traditional topics of war and peace, but also the topics of economic justice and material redistribution." (p. 406.) That’s a lofty call for expansion--a foot in the door.

This type of growing system would require expropriation of products of labor, savings and thought from others...is that much different than slavery? Economics explains how there is unlimited demand when things are free--like other people‘s money taken from them. Nussbaum supports only a small first nibble, yet writes: “If justice requires the mitigation of global inequality, justice is not satisfied even if poor nations can promote the capabilities internally…” (P. 316). This requires a new global governmental system with insatiable appetites supporting new populations. There is a cancerous mistake in a call for wealth equality, and a serious threat to justice in global forces and the way they could choose to redistribute, of course keeping part of each transaction. Instead we must move toward the separation of force and economy, make up for past injustices on a global scale, and rightly support the dignity of humans as actual people (individualism rather than support for collectivism or nationalism). Justice requires personal responsibility, inviolable freedoms to save and rest, and certainly Nussbaum’s capabilities as well. We must increasingly hold families and parents responsible for capabilities and justice.