Response to Nussbaum's: "What are the central human capabilities?"

All throughout Nussbaum’s piece, the focus is on how individuals should have to right to many human capabilities that are central to their individualism and all of society as a complete whole. She begins this section of her book, “Sex and Social Justice,” by stating these central human capabilities. A few paragraphs later she continues explaining how the capabilities are goals, and how justice would be fair if it allowed for all of these capabilities to be attainable to everyone; but not just attainable, the people should have the right to decide whether they want to make these capabilities goals, and then achieve them. Continuing on through the reading, Nussbaum speaks of how the justice system should make these capabilities free and reachable, if the individual so chooses, to everyone.

These capabilities come in three different varieties, those being: the “basic capabilities,” the “internal capabilities,” and the “combined capabilities.” The basic capabilities, as Nussbaum states, are “the innate equipment of individuals that is the necessary basis for developing the more advanced capability” (Nussbaum 219). Internal capabilities are those that fulfill the adult individuals’ needs to actually function in accordance to his capabilities. A great example Nussbaum uses is where women in different cultures at one time were being discriminated against in the form of taking away their capabilities of enjoying sexual intercourse, which then leads to never wanting sex, which ends in no reproduction. The last types of capabilities are those of, the combined sort. These are defined as “internal capabilities combined with suitable external conditions for the exercise of the function” (Nussbaum 219).

The specific examples in which she wrote of were the central human capabilities of: life, bodily health and integrity, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s environment: being both politically and materially. All of these are categorized into the three groups of capabilities listed in the above paragraph.

While I was reading this piece from Martha C. Nussbaum, I was intrigued to find out her beliefs were similar in many instances to those of Rawls’. The main belief they share is that of the individual in a society should be protected and preserved, and not the collective, if true justice were to reign. Also, I found it interesting that her many of her examples of hindrances of opportunities were those of women; this left me wondering if she was at all influenced by the feminist writer Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I do not think Nussbaum is a radical feminist by any means, but I think Nussbaum believes women, over the centuries, no matter the culture, have had it harder than men when discussing the hindrance of opportunities.

This reading was very interesting to me, in that it discussed justice in a whole new way; a way that I have never thought to look at justice before. I agree in that for justice to be fair, individuals need the opportunity to function. People of a society should never be hindered to act against or speak out about an issue, and should most defiantly not be hindered against having the chance-the “opportunity” to decided what they would like to do about an issue or idea, and they should also never be influenced or pressured into believing, thinking, speaking, or acting in a way that is not completely their own. In other words, I believe, just as Nussbaum, that no one else should have the right to force their ideas and beliefs on to another individual; because this would, once again steer them away from their own opportunity to make a decision to function.

Works Cited

Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." From "Sex and Social Justice." "A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 209-223.

Response to Rawls's, "A Theory of Justice:"

Rawls's attitude toward the least advantaged people in society is one of determination for equality among thoes who are better off than them. He wishes to create a type of justice in which the lesser fortunate are equal to the fortunate persons in society. His argument is that it is not fair for the rich to get richer while the poor get more poor. This arugment is best defined by this statment from Rawls, "It may be expedient but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper." Rawls believes that justice must be fair to all individuals, in that the rights of the individual should never be sacrificed for the greater good of society. In order to achieve his beliefs, he proposes what he calls the "origional position" concept (Rawls 200), which means that society chooses an origional starting point in which the designers of the society make certain assumptions about the primary goods (which are things such as freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, income, and power) that each person in the society must have. To obtain this origional position, the "veil of ignorance" (Rawls 200), which is simply means that the members of the society make their decisions about the "primary goods" without knowing where they, themselves would fall in the classes of society, was created. Only blinded by this "veil of ignorance," can the members of society fairly agree upon an even distributation of the primary goods among the citizens and their decisions would not be baised by personal circumstances.

Therefore it is obvious that Rawls supports the "little people" over the more fortunate people. Rawls's attitude toward the less advantaged people is one that reminds me of how the Democratic party runs its campiange. The Demopcrats also believe that justice cannot be fair if only a certain group has more of the wealth, opportunities, power, and income than another. Such an unfair situation gives way to a loss of equilibrium, and eventually the plunder of a society. If a party were to support the ideals of one group being more successful than another, it would be a lot like the Republican party in today's government.

I must say that I truely enjoyed reading this piece from Rawls's book, "A Theory of Justice." My political beliefs are a lot like Rawls's, in that I believe the lesser fortunate group of people in a society should be equal in obtaining and keeping the primary goods just as the more rich and successful people of a society. In my opinion, if a society continues to have an unfair advantage to only one particular group it will not last long, for both groups will be greedy, and unforgiving; only one will prosper and that is incomplete inconsistancy to the constitution of the United States of America. Although the constitution was written by wealthy, well-to-do men, I believe they were writing it for everyone to live by, and for future politions to make rules in accordance to. Although the society we live in today is baised and one-sided, I believe times are changing and we will soon begin to see more equality among the different persons in our society.

Works Cited

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2006. pp 195-206.

Response to "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King explains how he views this horrible injustice which has come down upon his people. Through the entire piece King goes into great, beautiful detail that unjust laws against a minority are absurd; one example being the fact that his minority must abide by any unfair law, yet they did not have a say or get to part-take in its creation what so ever. He also states that, “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King 179). Here he explains the injustice against a person’s inner-self, a person’s conscience, a law that takes away a person’s right to be his or herself; I totally agree with King’s opinion about an unjust law; no one should be cut down to nothing from unfair government decisions. King supports just laws, and will abide those that are fair to all people, but if it is not fair, just and moral, why should he or anyone it hurts abbey it? They shouldn’t have to, and that is the stand King takes in his argument. From these statements above, it is obvious to see that King has been significantly inspired by Henry David Thoreau, for Thoreau believed unjust laws should not be obeyed as well.

In King’s essay he discusses the white churches in great detail. He explains how he was sure that they all would support him in his fight for equality, for they are places of God, and under God all people are seen as equal. Although, to King’s dismay, the white churches did not support him, or they went the route of keeping silent on the issues. King only gained the support from a couple, if that, churches; and even though it was appreciated he needed more. King’s most powerful argument of why the white Christian churches should support him in this fight is the most compelling argument, in my opinion, in this letter. He states, “Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators” (King 186). Here he is relating the early Christian church’s struggle to be accepted to his own. King goes on to say, “But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment,” (King 186) just like King and his followers. I strongly agree with the approach King is taking with the churches to earn their trust, respect, and support. When I first read these few statements, I was moved by them; so I can only imagine how the Christian churches responded.

Even though King did not earn all the churches support and respect, he did earn the support from many single members; members who did not care if they would be kicked out of their church for supporting him, members who did not care if they went to prison along with King and his followers, they were true members to the spirit of God within their corrupt church. King’s disappointment with the white Christian churches did not derive him from his goal though; it only made him more determined. This determination is what I love and respect of Martin Luther King Jr. He is an amazingly man, and every day I thank him for what he accomplished; because without him and his followers American would still be racially segregated and in much depression. I only wish I had the opportunity to thank him in person!

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 177-190.

Response to "What kind of government does Thoreau feel would be most just?"

While reading “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau I noticed many similarities to “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” by Lao-tzu. The kind of government Thoreau feels would be most just is the kind of government Lao-tzu describes. This kind of government is one that gives its citizens their space and lets them mainly decide what laws they want to abide by; basically it is a non controlling government, very un-totalitarian, and defiantly not a good representation of the government in which rules today. The quote that is famous to this piece, and also happens to be my favorite is, “That government is best which governs least, (Thoreau 137)” and the other quote which is supported fully by Thoreau is, “That government is best which governs not at all. (Thoreau 137)”

These two quotes easily sum up Thoreau’s entire essay. He goes into great detail about how the government should pull back and respect its people much more, how laws are meant to be broken if they are unreasonable, and how lawmakers should give the right to decide to the people of the government, not the higher-up authority. All these aspects create a more just government in the eyes of Thoreau; a government in which Thoreau would actually respect and agree with. When Thoreau states, “But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it, (Thoreau 138)” he is explaining how if not every single human being’s opinion is taken into consideration when it comes to governmental decisions, the government is not one of justice at all. He explains how every person has a conscience and if it is always ignored by the individual and set aside to abide by an unfair legislator’s decisions, then why have one at all (Thoreau 138)?

Is a conscience sole purpose not to direct us in the “right way,” the ways of our morals, and our views on what is right and what is wrong? Isn’t it our flashlight when we are in the dark; it helps us remember our values in time of confusion and disarray? I believe so; I agree with Thoreau in that the government, at times, is too over-bearing and controlling. I do not agree to his extreme that there should not be a government at all, but I do believe if the government lightened up and let its people speak out and decided what laws are just the world would be a better place. I have realized from this reading that again there needs to be a happy medium in government; for there is a time for force and strict guidelines, and a time for letting go and having faith in the citizens.
Works Cited

1. Thoreau, Henry D. “Civil Disobedience.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College
Writers. Ed.Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. pp 133-158.