Yeah. The paradox is in valuing a world without values, of preferring a world without preferences.

The strongest counter approach is religious.
— frank

How so? — Banno

Imagine that in the midst of an economic downturn, an anti-globalist, super-rightist, hawkish entity arises in your country and this forum is in charge of meeting them head to head in the public arena.

Your countrymen are particularly stunned and ailing psychologically because multiple Australian generations have lived out their lives without ever experiencing a real recession. Their pain makes them particularly vulnerable to the message of this rightist group which promises to return Australia to its former state of glory. The rightists explain that the real threat to Australia is its large non-white population.

I think this is pretty much this forum's response:

1. The rightist are employing the naturalistic fallacy.
2. The rightists have nothing more than a few potent myths.
3. The rightists are just stupid.
4. Ethics is in large part a matter of language use.

None of that means anything to people who are emotionally vulnerable. A religious group has the arsenal the situation calls for.

A religious group would have emotional force necessary to do something with Nussbaum's agenda.

this forum is in charge of meeting them head to head — frank

Then we're sunk.

Yep. A religious forum would be better equipped.

Yeah. The paradox is in valuing a world without values, of preferring a world without preferences. — Banno

I don't see it as a paradox. There is a state of affairs whereby no bad will befall a new person and no good will be deprived of any actual person as well. That is the best state of affairs because no bad will occur for any actual person, but there will be no person who will be actually deprived of good. This is for future people. I have preferences because obviously I already exist. If there was a state of affairs where no one existed, this asymmetry argument need not matter. Once something exists with preferences and self-awareness, this asymmetry argument takes effect.

I don't see it as a paradox. — schopenhauer1

Yep. That's apparent.

Why not address my argument rather than the first sentence out of context? It did refute your claim or at least show your claim doesn't apply.

Because an argument is of no use here.

I'll take that as you dont want to address the issue. Taking another argument..if a tortured man prefers non existence are they just committing a paradox?

I'll take that as you dont want to address the issue. — schopenhauer1

That would be incorrect. Rather I've said all that need be said. You've set up a neat little word game, and you like to play it. Have fun.

Notice that one of the things that distinguishes capabilities from other approaches to ethics is that it does not look to feelings - happiness, suffering and so on - but to what folk can be and do.

But why would capabilities be their own end without something like happiness adjoined with it? Robots also have capabilities.

But why would capabilities be their own end... — schopenhauer1

But you do not see their worth, so you cannot see their worth. I can't fix that for you.

But you do not see their worth, so you cannot see their worth. I can't fix that for you. — Banno

People on all sides of a moral issue could end all discussion by saying something like this: you don't understand, so you won't understand.

And I think it's true for the most part. We just have a limited ability to persuade one another when it comes to morality.

Here's an odd thing: the introduction of the words objective and subjective freezes ethics.

So, don't. — Banno

Your replies are an odd thing. So don't.

Yeah. The paradox is in valuing a world without values, of preferring a world without preferences. — Banno

Here's an odd thing: The introduction of the word, "paradox" freezes ethics.

Here's an interesting thing: It's not a paradox when you understand that the world doesn't have goals and you do - that there is no such thing as an objective morality.

Two points with regard to capacities:

First, they are descriptive of the realization of a full human life, of eudemonia or flourishing.

Second, to impede them without justification is thus unethical.

Here's an interesting thing: It's not a paradox when you understand that the world doesn't have goals and you do - that there is no such thing as an objective morality. — Harry Hindu

Yep.

We want Indian girls to gave access to education and we measure the development of India by this standard.

If some Indians see that as foreign manipulation, this means they don't share our values.

Discussion stops. What proceeds has to do with banks and corporations, not morality.

What happens when life is full and flourishing? Do people get a thumbs up on their gravestone? Why does someone need to live a full life in the first place? Interesting what hidden just so theories lurk behind most ethical claims.

What happens when life is full and flourishing? Do people get a thumbs up on their gravestone? — schopenhauer1

When life is full and flourishing one is not dead.

Why does someone need to live a full life in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Would you prefer the opposite? Would you prefer that everyone else live such a life?

Interesting what hidden just so theories lurk behind most ethical claims. — schopenhauer1

What hidden just so theories lurk behind Nussbaum's enumeration of capacities?

Would you prefer the opposite? Would you prefer that everyone else live such a life? — Fooloso4

But this is relative to another type of life. Perhaps there is an argument for a better life in relation to another, but the question was why does someone need to live a full life in the first place?

What hidden just so theories lurk behind Nussbaum's enumeration of capacities? — Fooloso4

That people need to live X, Y, Z type of life in the first place.

I don't understand the question. There are a few basic needs that are required for life. One need not live well, and in many cases one does not to a greater or lesser extent, but we each want what is good, although we may have different ideas about what that entails. Nussbaum examines what contributes to a good life not in order to come up with a one size fits all recipe, but to allow for the development of our capacities.

Right, but why does someone need to exist in the first place to develop capacities? In other words, should people be born to develop capacities over not being born at all? I don't think you can automatically justify that "yes, being born to develop capacities" is something worth starting for someone else.

We do not have a choice as to whether we are born or not. If someone thinks it is better to not bring children into the world then that is their choice. But it is not everyone's choice. As long as there are people being born and living then how they live is an issue.

Since this thread is about Nussbaum I am going to leave off on this line of inquiry.

We do not have a choice as to whether we are born or not. If someone thinks it is better to not bring children into the world then that is their choice. But it is not everyone's choice. As long as there are people being born and living then how they live is an issue.

Since this thread is about Nussbaum I am going to leave off on this line of inquiry. — Fooloso4

Well, really any ethical system or how to live the good life, I would put under this scrutiny. Do people need to be born to live out X system. Of course the answer is no. Once a person is already born, I agree that that person then has to figure out how to live in the world. Clearly having the capabilities for opportunities to experience certain inherent goods of life would be better than not if our preference is to maximize opportunities for good experiences. But there is no justification for needing good experiences in the universe in the first place.

In other words, all other ethics beyond the procreational decision are after-the-fact and relative to something else. The procreational decision is the only one that is getting closer to a metaphysical and existential truth of some kind. Why? Starting a life is making a statement about life itself- that it should be started. Everything else comes from that.

I have started the book and it is interesting to me how much emphasis is put upon distinguishing the "original contractors" from the inheritors of the "social contract" deal.
In terms of having a seat at the table, the "capabilities" factor reminds me of Kierkegaard saying that freedom is the ability to do things.
So participation is, in that sense, shaped by ability, even if not specifically recognized by a particular deal.

As I recall, the problem with social contracts was the presumption of equality during the development phase; behind the veil of ignorance, in Rawls' terms.

Yes. It's like playing poker with someone who wants an explanation of why the Ace is the highest card.

Discussion stops. What proceeds has to do with banks and corporations, not morality. — frank

Discussion stops, but what do you do?

As Nussbaum presents it, the difference between the designers of the deal versus who the deal is made for is critical.
So there is an element of representation in the scene where agents are supposed to be acting directly for themselves.