A theory of justice?

The big idea: Nussbaum doesn't just describe capabilities — she offers them as a better theory of justice than the main rivals.

Two rivals matter most. One measures a good society by its wealth (GDP). The other, utilitarianism, measures it by total or average happiness. Nussbaum argues capabilities beats both.

A theory of justice tells you what a society owes each of its members. Nussbaum's answer: it owes everyone a decent minimum of the ten central capabilities — and that, she argues, gets closer to real justice than either wealth or happiness does.

Nussbaum's sharpest blow against measuring justice by happiness is one memorable idea.

When people stop wanting what they've been denied: People often shrink their wants to fit what they're allowed. Someone raised to believe girls shouldn't be educated may say she's perfectly content without school — she has adaptive preferences: her wishes adapted to her cage. Measure justice by happiness or satisfaction, and she counts as 'doing fine' — the injustice vanishes from the numbers. The capabilities approach exposes it: whatever she's been trained to want, she still lacks the capability to be educated. That's why Nussbaum measures what people can do, not just how satisfied they feel.

Checkpoint — adaptive preferences: In one line: people can be 'happy' simply because they were taught to expect nothing — so justice must measure what they CAN do, not just how satisfied they feel. Hold that — now the strongest objection to Nussbaum herself.

The most serious challenge turns Nussbaum's own list against her — and she has answers ready.

The objection, and three replies: The objection: who is Nussbaum, a Western philosopher, to write one list of 'the good human life' for everyone? Isn't that paternalistic — imposing Western values on cultures that see things differently?

Her replies. First, the list is deliberately general ('being able to be healthy'), so each culture fills in the details its own way. Second, it targets capabilities not functionings, so it expands freedom rather than dictating one way to live — no one is forced to use any capability. Third, the items were built up by listening across many cultures to what people everywhere say a decent life needs, so it isn't simply one culture's taste. Real justice, she argues, sometimes means criticising a local practice (like denying girls school) — and you can't do that if you refuse on principle to ever judge another culture.

Go further — higher-level insight: The deepest tension is between two goods Nussbaum wants at once: respecting every culture, AND holding a universal standard that lets her call some practices unjust. A pure relativist can't criticise anything; a rigid universalist tramples difference. Her 'general list + capability not functioning' is an attempt to have both. Whether it fully succeeds is exactly the open question a top-band (b) answer weighs — don't just report her replies, judge whether they work.

How Paper 2 works: Prescribed texts are examined on Paper 2 — open-book (you bring a clean copy of Creating Capabilities), 1 hour. A question on the text comes in two parts: (a) Explain a concept [10] and (b) Evaluate a claim [15]. Part (a) tests clear understanding; part (b) tests whether you can weigh the claim and reach a reasoned judgement. Use your open text to find and quote a short supporting passage.

Common mistakes: 1. Only explaining the claim in a (b) 'evaluate' — you must weigh it. 2. One side only — top marks need both for and against. 3. No judgement — decide, with a reason. 4. Forgetting the open book — quote a short supporting passage. 5. Straying off the text — keep the answer anchored in Creating Capabilities.