What and where are you reading? Might be worth a chat.

Frontiers of Justice, page 18 and thereabouts.

That puts me in the introduction. Where are you by contents?

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

Highest? No wonder I always lose.

YOu seem to want an ethical theory that will give you political power. That's not what ethics does.

After the opening section on the State of Nature and halfway through the section: Three Unsolved Problems.

YOu seem to want an ethical theory that will give you political power. That's not what ethics does. — Banno

I don't think I'd know what to do with an ethical theory. I think I understand what we mean by "morality" though.

Morality is meaningful in the context of personhood (as opposed to aggregate humanity as Nussbaum says).

Nassbaum doesn't want us to look at people as statistics, but as individuals with the capacity to choose.

Maybe I haven't read enough of her writing yet, but I don't see her offering a moral outlook or ethical theory. She's assuming a sort of standard morality that is lacking in a mechanistic view of people.

You said that if a person doesn't conform to our moral standards, it says something about them. Among other things it may tell us that a certain person is from a different culture. True?

I don't see her offering a moral outlook or ethical theory. — frank

Well, if a moral theory must be algorithmic - seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or seeking to do one's duty, then probably not. And to me that is a strength. And in so far as the values she advocates are standard liberal values, that's well and good, too.

You said that if a person doesn't conform to our moral standards, it says something about them. Among other things it may tell us that a certain person is from a different culture. True? — frank

Yep.

It's a rejection of relativism. Other cultures can have it wrong, just as can my culture.

The three unaddressed problems of justice are: impairment and disability; Nationality; and Species Membership.

For Rawls setting up a just society involved setting the rules up before one knows what role one will play in that society. The contention - agreed to, apparently, by Rawls- is that the three problems mentioned are not amenable to this approach. Rhetorical, she is building on Rawls' inability to deal with these three problems; an inability she diagnoses as the result of a social contract approach in which the individuals entering into the contract have roughly equal standing and seek mutual advantage - bullshit.

The capabilities approach seeks to leave this behind and instead to promote the potential of each individual.

For Rawls setting up a just society involved setting the rules up before one knows what role one will play in that society. — Banno

If one seriously considered playing the role of the ball, or the grass, the rules of football would be very different.

The capabilities approach seeks to leave this behind and instead to promote the potential of each individual. — Banno

Does it not fall into the same/equivalent problem of deciding criteria of individuality? On the face of it, it would lead to a hard line against abortion...

Seems to me that a functional moral map depends on two supplementary things (apart from the territory), a moral compass, and a legend.

Capacities for murder and cruelty, my compass tells me are not to be promoted, and so the map can be oriented. Legends of dignity and rights, or of good Samaritans, give scale and meaning to the map.

I don't read Nussbaum's description of Rawls' starting point of "equal" parties to the deal to be a sham. The end of the State of Nature comes about either through something idealized as the rule of one person (as Hobbes conceived it) or a system of reciprocal exchange. The latter is not possible without leveling the participants to be equal in so far as they invest in a system instead of shooting whatever gets too close to their compound.
So, that element of reciprocity is important to keep alive and well fed but is not sufficient as an arbiter in matters where participation is limited by either capability or status under law. When referring to "representation" in my previous comment, I was thinking there is a continual criticism of the "original" deal because that articulation concealed those who were being spoken for without their participation.

When referring to "representation" in my previous comment, I was thinking there is a continual criticism of the "original" deal because that articulation concealed those who were being spoken for without their participation. — Valentinus

Fair point. This is part of many people's criticism of having children. No participation. The conditions of life are something that cannot be negotiated- survival or death (a choice everyone born is forced into). That is the originary political state of affairs all humans are born into. Next is how society deals with this survival or death in its economic-social-political relations. In this part, people are beholden to forces and historical developments far beyond their control or knowledge. It is too stultifying to do anything really, thus we simply get some sort of recapitulation of what is already the ideals of the society, but with some hemming and hawing over minor details. The structure itself cannot be moved. You still need steel, electricity, large industrial plants, housing, and all the other stuff. Once you see the immensity of this, any other thing regarding redistributions, political participations or the like is laughable.

I agree that there is an incredible quantity of inertia in regards to what binds our lives to the means of continuing to live in the way we do.
On the other hand, it is interesting how dependent those forces are upon our simple compliance with particular requirements.
Having children is not only replicating the conditions that will cause them to suffer. It is not all just about receiving or not receiving an inheritance. If you want your kids to be smarter than you are, that can be arranged. If you want them to be stupid, that can be done.
Generations of choice.

On the other hand, it is interesting how dependent those forces are upon our simple compliance with particular requirements. — Valentinus

The inertia is a large part of the compliance. People tend not to do more than they need to. The path of least resistance is literally and figuratively, the easiest course of action.

Having children is not only replicating the conditions that will cause them to suffer. It is not all just about receiving or not receiving an inheritance. If you want your kids to be smarter than you are, that can be arranged. If you want them to be stupid, that can be done.
Generations of choice. — Valentinus

For standards of living to be maintained all must comply. The equipment- the tools and knowledge to maintain and upgrade the systems are in place. We are here to maintain and upgrade the equipment and then spend the remainder time using other equipment to entertain ourselves with. We are equipment maintainers now, each and every one of us.

I don't know.
You seem to be saying that all attempts to limit authority as a means to predetermine conditions for subsequent generations is a loser's game.
If you are correct, you run into the problem of Job. He complains while also dismissing his interlocutors on the basis of not accepting his righteousness.
In that way, Job is wrong or right. he is either getting a raw deal or his "friends" are correct.

You seem to be saying that all attempts to limit authority as a means to predetermine conditions for subsequent generations is a loser's game. — Valentinus

I'm not sure I'm saying this. Rather, the economic/political/social conditions will de facto stay the same with various upgrades for each generation as that is the path of least resistance. Have children, have them maintain and upgrade the equipment and so on. And this is taken as a given and called "good".

I am not sure you are saying that either. Your position is interesting in that your statements are consistent to themselves and the environment you describe matches what each generation must deal with.
But no generation is interested in giving the one before them the last word.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are correct. The next generation could not care less about that judgement.
That is why the problem is like Job's.

But no generation is interested in giving the one before them the last word.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are correct. The next generation could not care less about that judgement.
That is why the problem is like Job's. — Valentinus

Well, you can deny what is the case, but if it is the case, it is the case. I don't see how subsequent generations can dodge characterizing the social/economic/political sphere as pretty much maintaining and upgrading the equipment. That's what we are essentially doing. If this is in some way uncomfortable or disturbing to some, I don't blame them. It does seem that we are either being used in some way, and cannot escape being in this system, and most glaringly, are absurdly keeping it all going. It's absurd in the fact that we agree to keep it all going. We have more people so as to maintain and use the equipment to have more people to maintain and use the equipment. To ask a really simple question to all this: What's the point? It is a circularity that begs the question. When put in terms of procreation, it is a vicious circularity. No one needs to be born to maintain and use the equipment in the first place.

What is it about making more equipment-maintainers that needs to occur? To say that this brings value into the world is then begging the question that value needs to be brought into the world. That is, even if a world with equipment and its maintainers can be argued to be valuable.

Also to note is the aspect of who is pulling whom? Are we for the equipment or is the equipment for us?

But while most people can agree that "radical philosophies" lead often to misery and oppression politically, people don't stop to think that "common sense notions" also lead to misery and oppression.

Also let me add.. the situation is, "Hey buddy, you get a chance to have to maintain the equipment (survive) or die...that is the choice you are given! Along the way contingently harmful circumstances will befall you and frustrate you... but don't worry you get chances to also use the equipment you are maintaining for 6 or so inherent 'pleasures' (physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, flow-states, relationships, etc. etc.). This is a consolation, and not guaranteed, and often contingently less applicable or available to some character-types/people than it is to others. But that is okay, because we are deeming this all 'good' because something is better than nothing. Experience is better than non-experience! Equipment maintained is better than equipment not maintained".

Well, at the very least, do you accept that "people" are not accepting the role you describe because it sickens them?
If there is nothing in the package but what you describe, I would kill myself.

Does it not fall into the same/equivalent problem of deciding criteria of individuality? On the face of it, it would lead to a hard line against abortion... — unenlightened

There's much in the detail.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

This emphasis leads the CA (Capabilities Approach) to take issue with Kantian ideas in two ways. First, whereas Kant conceives of our human dignity as residing entirely in rationality, the CA understands the basis of human dignity far more inclusively: human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite as well as in rationality. Thus it can see human beings with severe cognitive disabilities as full equals in human dignity, and damages to any of these elements as assaults on human dignity. It also recognizes that dignity is not the private possession of the human species alone: each animal species possesses a type of dignity. (As in the human case, this dignity inheres in the entire organized set of its characteristic capacities, whatever they are in each case, and not in any putative set of “higher powers”.) Second, whereas Kant imagines dignity as like a diamond, impervious to the blows and shocks of natural accident, the CA imagines it as vulnerable, capable of suffering assaults from the world of nature. When such assaults occur, dignity is not removed, but it is profoundly harmed (just as we would say that a rape does not remove a woman’s dignity, but does profoundly harm or violate it). From the perspective of the CA, then, deprivations of health opportunities or opportunities for emotional well-being are just as pertinent to the concept of human dignity as deprivations of liberty of choice.

The capabilities for a map; dignity for a compass.

SUre; not denying Kant or Rawls, but expanding their base.

From the perspective of the CA, then, deprivations of health opportunities or opportunities for emotional well-being are just as pertinent to the concept of human dignity as deprivations of liberty of choice. — Banno

If opportunities are not guarantees, then where does that leave the CA? There is no clear path to any endeavor labeled "well-being", if that can even be so defined arbitrarily.

Well, at the very least, do you accept that "people" are not accepting the role you describe because it sickens them?
If there is nothing in the package but what you describe, I would kill myself. — Valentinus

People don't question the role. There is no real way out of the situation. You either accept it (survive in a socialized context of equipment-maintaining and updating), or you do not (essentially take on the view of philosophical pessimism and decide not to put more people into the situation). There is no middle option, unfortunately. There is no stepping back from the equipment unless you want less complex (advanced?) equipment. You can perhaps become an ascetic hermit ala Schopenhauer's suggestion for those characters who are capable of "denying their wills". You can be homeless, but that would still be using the system in a different way. Existence just has so many options. The constraints of survival and the contingencies of the society as it has already been developed dictate that.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

A neat summation.

Does it not fall into the same/equivalent problem of deciding criteria of individuality? On the face of it, it would lead to a hard line against abortion... — unenlightened

Perspectives on when personhood starts vary. If we say we'll only consider capabilities of those identified as persons in a particular country, should we also honor views about who should be thought of as a second-rate people?

If opportunities are not guarantees, then where does that leave the CA? There is no clear path to any endeavor labeled "well-being", if that can even be so defined arbitrarily. — schopenhauer1

Cheers for the correction.

But I'm still unclear as to what you are asking.

Should it read "Opportunities are not guaranteed"? If so, then we ought do what we can.

Not having a clear path... well, at the least we have a direction in which to move!

There's something amiss with ethical theories that set out an algorithm for evaluating actions - as the greatest happiness, or to do one's duty. Pretending that the complexity of human life can be so reduced... It's more complex than that.

And, continuing the line I introduced earlier, given that you think the sum of the value of human life is negative, you are not going to agree with this approach anyway.

All that is left is for we others to maintain that human life is worth living.

Nice paper.

The idea is that a minimally just society is one that secures to all citizens a threshold level of a list of key entitlements, on the grounds that such entitlements are requisite of a life worthy of human dignity. (There is also an account of the entitlements of other animal species, and here reference is made to the dignity appropriate to the species in question.) The notion of dignity is an intuitive notion that is by no means utterly clear. If it is used in isolation, as if it is utterly self-evident, it can be used capriciously and inconsistently.

It's nice that a multivalent approach like this looks like the complex system we actually have as a legal system, where one thing has to be weighed against another, and then their lengths and widths and colours compared too and taken into account. It's not going to satisfy anyone looking for easy absolute black and white systems though. One can see how the shortage of human carers for the aged could become a factor to consider in the abortion calculus, or even, a la Handmaid's Tale, how widespread infertility could make reproduction a vital social good.

There's a similar moral conflict over vaccination, with moves to make it compulsory, and one can see the conflict between the health protection afforded by herd immunity having to be weighed against the loss of autonomy to the individual.

A life with human dignity requires protection of all the Central Capabilities up to a minimum threshold level: but all are conceived as opportunities for choice, and thus none has been secured unless the person has the opportunity to exercise choice in matters of actual functioning.

So wrt the foetus, one of the first choices it can exercise beyond waving a limb or sucking a thumb, is to initiate the birth process. Should we ban induced labour and Cesareans?

Should it read "Opportunities are not guaranteed"? If so, then we ought do what we can. — Banno

Let's say a lot of opportunities are a product of contingency- right person, right place, right time. What works for some people, doesn't work for all. Some people will win out and benefit from opportunities, and others will not. Benefits of finding ideal preferences and circumstances are not equally distributed. Some people will just have better outcomes given the same opportunities. That means people are used in statistical ways so that the losers are paying the price so some people can win.

Also, not only are the outcomes uncertain, but it is implied that everyone wants an opportunity to seek the outcome of an opportunity. Why is the race to get the benefit of the opportunity itself deemed a good thing or necessary for people to deal with and overcome? It isn't that hard to analogize life to a work camp with bad slogans that don't hide it very well.. "You get the 'opportunity' to work to survive." This implies a) people want to be foisted into this scenario of working to survive and b) that they like going through the process of obtaining the least worst preference they can find (which will most likely not be their ideal optimal preference anyways). So somehow struggle for maintaining opportunities is implied as good, but with no other justification.

There's something amiss with ethical theories that set out an algorithm for evaluating actions - as the greatest happiness, or to do one's duty. Pretending that the complexity of human life can be so reduced... It's more complex than that. — Banno

I agree with this too once people are already born. The procreational decision is easier to assess based on the asymmetry of obligations for happy people and suffering people when there is no actual person born to be deprived. But this decision is more important than any other as it actually makes existential and political statements in the very act itself- that life should be lived by a new person and that this person should continue the societal ideals as instantiated in the habits and forms of life of that new person.

And, continuing the line I introduced earlier, given that you think the sum of the value of human life is negative, you are not going to agree with this approach anyway. — Banno

This is true, but I am also trying to give some details on what I see as some inherent inconsistencies and assumptions overlooked that at least should be addressed.