The capabilities approach (Philosophy HL)

The big idea: In Creating Capabilities, Martha Nussbaum starts with a simple-sounding question: how do you tell whether a country is really doing well for its people?

The usual answer is money — add up the wealth, or work out the average income. Nussbaum thinks that answer misses what actually matters: not how much a place has, but what each real person there is able to do and to be.

Her answer is the capabilities approach. To see how a society is really doing, don't look at its total wealth — look at each person and ask: are they able to live a decent human life?

Hold onto this: The question the capabilities approach always asks is not 'how rich is this place?' but 'what is each person here actually able to do and to be?'

Nussbaum's case against measuring by money rests on one clear point: averages hide people.

The country that 'grows' while people don't: Imagine a country whose economy booms — its average income shoots up. On paper it's a success. But look closer: the new wealth pools with a few, while many still can't read, get sick from dirty water, or aren't safe walking home. The average went up; those people's lives didn't. Nussbaum's point is that a single wealth number can look healthy while hiding people who are being left out — so it's the wrong thing to measure a good society by.

Checkpoint — wealth is a means: In one line: wealth matters only as a tool for something else — what people can actually do and be. Hold that — the next question is why she puts each person, not the group, at the centre.

Nussbaum insists the approach counts people one by one, and never averages a person away.

No one is a spare part for the group: The capabilities approach treats each person as an end in themselves — a life that matters in its own right, not a means to boost some group total. So it's never enough to say 'the country is thriving on average.' You have to ask about this person, and that one. A society that lifts most people while trapping a minority hasn't done well by those it left behind. Nussbaum calls this the principle of each person as an end — every individual life counts, one at a time.

Go further — higher-level insight: Notice the debt to an older idea. 'Treat each person as an end, never merely as a means' is Kant's principle, and Nussbaum builds it into how we measure a whole society. Naming that root — she turns a rule about how to treat individuals into a test for justice at the level of a country — is a strong point for the (b) evaluate task.