Nussbaum on Animals

I told Amanda that I would comment on the last section of FRONTIERS OF JUSTICE: DISABILITY, NATIONALITY, SPECIES MEMBERSHIP, by Martha C. Nussbaum. Harvard University Press, 2006. The last section focuses on how the capabilities approach handles the topic of animals and how to value them. (more…)

Published in: on October 29, 2006 at 2:53 pm  Comments (1)  

Response to Martha Nussbaum: Female Human Beings

Response to Martha Nussbaum’s: Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings

In this article, Nussbaum lays out her capabilities approach very similarly to the way she does in her book Women and Human Development. Nussbaum starts her argument from the stance that in order to fight for women’s rights, we should start with what should start from “a conception of the human being and human functioning”. (62) Nussbaum thinks that if we start by composing a conception of what is needed for a human being we can more accurately demand what is needed for women like Chen describes in her account. (more…)

Published in: on September 27, 2006 at 2:52 pm  Comments (1)  

Response to Sen Questions


Published in: on September 26, 2006 at 11:14 pm  Leave a Comment  

Development Ethics and Globalization – David Crocker

 In Development Ethics and Globalization, David Crocker explores Globalization and all the questions that it exposes and uncovers in today’s world. These questions start from things so basic, as is globalization a good/bad thing to detailed plans on how to go about globalization in order to provide the most benefit for all those involved. I thought that Crocker did an amazing job on this article. Not only does it fully get across the idea of how pressing and how complicated this issue is through use of stating endless questions about every complications, but it also did a very good job of defining all these new terms and ideas and really presenting the ideas in a non-biased, matter of fact way. (more…)

Published in: on September 20, 2006 at 12:08 am  Leave a Comment  

Reponse to posts on Sen’s “Human Rights and Capabilities”


Published in: on September 13, 2006 at 9:55 am  Leave a Comment  

Question about Sen’s distinction between capability/ freedom/ opportunity

  1. I am pretty confused about Sen’s capability/freedom/opportunity distinction. I don’t even really see where he has a final point after all this. I realize that he wants to make a distinction between being forced to do something you’d do anyway and being forced to do something, which given the option, you would choose not to do or to do otherwise. This entire section is weird because he starts off with two examples to contrast and then contrasts one of those with a whole different one when he starts on a new point, so I don’t really understand where he is going. Is he trying to say that one or the other is worse?
Published in: on September 12, 2006 at 2:56 am  Leave a Comment  

Questions about Sen’s philosophy– what is public reason for him?

  1. I don’t particularly understand what Sen means by “the role of public reasoning”. He is very concerned about it and I’m not quite sure what he is using as his definition. By the end of the paper I thought he meant the publics ability to interact with the capabilities that are required in their society and their ability to discern them by themselves. However, since I don’t understand his concern with a “set” list of capabilities forever and ever (which I don’t think that Nussbaum supports, although she does support a universal list) because I don’t think that this is really what anyone is trying to say. Is there anyone that supports that view, because he didn’t mention anyone?
  2. (more…)

Published in: on September 12, 2006 at 2:54 am  Leave a Comment  

Sen’s Human Rights and Capabilities: A Frustrated Response

In Amartya Sen’s article, Human Rights and Capabilities, Sen explores the capabilities and the ways that he believes they are both useful and not useful in a political theory. While reading this article I found it extremely hard to understand Sen’s points as I felt like he would randomly throw out something he disagreed with but he didn’t present it as I disagree with x’s theory because of y. He just said things like, I disagree with this.            (more…)

Published in: on September 11, 2006 at 4:42 pm  Leave a Comment