Book contents
- Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities
- Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: social choice, agency, inclusiveness and capabilities
- Part I Social Choice and Capabilities
- Part II Inclusiveness, Social and Individual Agency
- 7 In defence of inclusiveness
- 8 Exploring Sen on self-interest and commitment
- 9 Incorporating an emotional dimension in the capability approach
- 10 Sufficiency re-examined
- 11 Adaptive preferences versus internalization in deprivation
- 12 Enriching agency in the capability approach through social theory contributions
- 13 Creativity and capabilities
- Part III Social Choice and Capabilities in Action
- Index
- References
10 - Sufficiency re-examined
from Part II - Inclusiveness, Social and Individual Agency
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2024
By
Book contents
- Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities
- Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: social choice, agency, inclusiveness and capabilities
- Part I Social Choice and Capabilities
- Part II Inclusiveness, Social and Individual Agency
- 7 In defence of inclusiveness
- 8 Exploring Sen on self-interest and commitment
- 9 Incorporating an emotional dimension in the capability approach
- 10 Sufficiency re-examined
- 11 Adaptive preferences versus internalization in deprivation
- 12 Enriching agency in the capability approach through social theory contributions
- 13 Creativity and capabilities
- Part III Social Choice and Capabilities in Action
- Index
- References
Summary
The idea that every society ought to ensure each of its citizens an adequate standard of living is widely accepted. Martha Nussbaum has argued that such a standard should be understood as a set of capabilities adequate for a life of human dignity, an ample minimum that can be ascertained through public reasoning in each society.In this chapter the author shows why public reasoning about capabilities can be expected to support a higher standard that is optimal rather than minimal: the highest capability levels that could be sustained for everyone by the productive capacity of their society. The argument rests on a conception of equal dignity among human beings striving to live well, each in his or her own way. The first and most urgent step towards reaching this social optimum consists, at a lower level, in overcoming hardships.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities , pp. 222 - 239Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Arneson, R. (2006) Distributive justice and basic capability equality: ‘good enough’ is not good enough. In Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems, Kaufman, A. (ed.): 17–43. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Axelsen, D. V., and Nielsen, L. (2015) Sufficiency as freedom from duress. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23 (4): 406–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelsen, D. V., (2016) Essentially enough. In What Is Enough? Sufficiency, Justice, and Health, Fourie, C., and Rid, A. (eds.): 101–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doyal, L., and Gough, I. 1991. A Theory of Human Need. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drydyk, J. (2012) A capability approach to justice as a virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drydyk, J. (2016) Justice as a virtue: what can we expect of our allies? In Theorizing Justice: Critical Insights and Future Directions, edited by Watene, K., and Drydyk, J. (eds.): 95–114. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (2015) On Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freiman, C. (2012) Why poverty matters most: towards a humanitarian theory of social justice. Utilitas, 24 (1): 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, I. (2014) Lists and thresholds: comparing the Doyal–Gough theory of human need with Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. In Capabilities, Gender, Equality: Towards Fundamental Entitlements, Comim, F., and Nussbaum, M. C. (eds.): 357–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gough, I. (2015) Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39 (5): 1191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutwald, R. (2018) Well-being: happiness, desires, goods, and needs. In Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, Drydyk, J., and Keleher, J. (eds.): 55–67. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huseby, R. (2010) Sufficiency: restated and defended. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (2): 178–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanschik, P. (2016) Eco-sufficiency and distributive sufficientarianism – friends or foes? Environmental Values, 25 (5): 553–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A. (2006) A sufficientarian approach? A note. In Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems, Kaufman, A. (ed.): 71–6. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khader, S. J. (2011) Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, H. O. 1990. Expectations of Life: A Study in the Demography, Statistics, and History of World Mortality. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. (1975 [1844]) Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. In Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, vol. 3, Marx and Engels 1843–1844: 229–346. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Mulgan, T. (2014) Ethics for a Broken World: Imagining Philosophy after Catastrophe. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, L., and Axelsen, D. V. (2017) Capabilitarian sufficiency: capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18 (1): 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Princen, T. (2003) Principles for sustainability: from cooperation and efficiency to sufficiency. Global Environmental Politics, 3 (1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roser, M. (2013) Life expectancy by age in England and Wales, 1700–2013. Our World in Data, May. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Life-expectancy-by-age-in-the-UK-1700-to-2013.png [accessed 26 April 2019].Google Scholar
Segall, S. (2016) What is the point of sufficiency? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33 (1): 36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1993) Capability and well-being. In The Quality of Life, Nussbaum, M. C., and Sen, A. K. (eds.): 30–53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. (2000) Social exclusion: concept, application, and scrutiny, Social Development Paper 1. Manila: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29778/social-exclusion.pdf.Google Scholar
Shields, L. (2012) The prospects for sufficientarianism. Utilitas, 24 (1): 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spengler, L. (2016) Two types of ‘enough’: sufficiency as minimum and maximum. Environmental Politics, 25 (5): 921–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada (2015) Life expectancy. 30 November. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2010001/life-expectancy-esperance-vie-eng.htm.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNHCR Refworld. www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar