Introduction
Martha Nussbaum, an American philosopher, suggests that ethical values are or should be universal. However, as the world becomes more multicultural, there is an increasing gap between universal ethics and local customs. Disagreements on moral grounds emerge when opposing viewpoints possess different moral convictions. For example, moral opinions may vary widely regarding contentious topics such as abortion. Some may find it unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons, while others see no problem with doing so. However, the extent and complexity of such debates may be influenced by other characteristics of the ethical views, namely how objective they are regarded.
Martha Nussbaum contends that her capabilities model overcomes the dilemma and presents a practical system of universal ethics that gives a standard measure of human happiness while simultaneously acknowledging differences (Nussbaum, 2000). Therefore, Nussbaum’s concept of ethical objectivity disrespects cultural or individual diversity since it disregards cultural or individual difference, given that the only ethical code that can be used to criticize a society’s customs are its own.
Discussion
Martha Nussbaum wrote extensively on human rights, social justice, economic growth, and feminism, among other topics. Socratic rationalism and Stoic globalism were two of the ancient ideas Nussbaum referenced. She advocated for including the integration of non-Western cultures, as well as the encounters and viewpoints of women and members of ethnic and sexual minority groups, into the curricula of American universities (Nussbaum, 1999).
In response to conservative criticisms of diversity in higher education, Nussbaum illustrated how courses emphasizing the aforementioned themes had improved the traditional goal of liberal education. This is the emancipation of the brain from the constraints of tradition and social norms, which creates individuals who can operate with awareness and compassion as global citizens (Nussbaum, 1999). Nussbaum argues that it is incorrect to refer to humanist, liberal, and feminist ideals as “Western” in her support of these values. In other words, non-Western civilizations have a long history of fighting for these principles, just as the West has a rich history of illiberalism and misogyny.
However, Nussbaum equally opposed the idea of ethical relativism and emphasized that awareness of different cultures does not prevent conscientious scrutiny of them. She thus disregarded the opinions of certain contemporary advocates of diversity. The latter claims that Western philosophical values such as universalism, truth, objectivity, and Socratic logic are untrue. For this reason, they are nothing more than intellectual tools for perpetuating the subjugation of minorities, women, and non-Western individuals. Nussbaum contended that democratic government relies heavily on the application of Socratic logic (Nussbaum, 2000). That is to say; democracies need individuals capable of independent thought rather than blind obedience who can discuss and debate issues rationally instead of resorting to partisan squabbling.
The “capabilities” model of liberal universalism, which Nussbaum emphasized, was a philosophical adaptation of a paradigm used in welfare and development studies to evaluate public policies based on how much it enhances citizens’ capacities. She saw the method as a way to interpret justice as a normative standard based on whether or not people had the resources to pursue what she considered fundamental to an entirely decent lifestyle (Nussbaum, 2000). In simple terms, the opportunity to live a life wherein full human potential may be realized. According to Nussbaum, these abilities include the following:
- The ability to live a healthy and normal lifespan.
- The ability to maintain one’s physical and mental health.
- The ability to express one’s ideas freely within the bounds of the law.
- The ability to form and maintain healthy relationships.
- The ability to actively contribute to the political process.
Objections to Martha Nussbaum
Nussbaum posits that humans should be guided by universal ethics characterized by a common regard for human rights, social justice, economic growth, and feminism. Philosophers have debated morality for eons but have yet to agree on a universally applicable set of ethics for human nature (Ward, 2019). It is uncommon for people to become stuck in the maze of philosophical logical fallacies while trying to provide a metaphysical basis for universal ethics. The implications of geography, culture, periods, personal qualities, or other factors cannot be excluded. In that case, they may have failed since they relied on conceptions or arguments that are subjective and not common. This is true of ethical theories, including utilitarian, deontological, and virtue theories, which omitted definitions, incorporated secondary values, or rejected normativity.
In most cases, ancient philosophers did not provide a theoretical basis for their ethics or a (proper) code. For this reason, Nussbaum’s reliance on Socratic rationalism and Stoic globalism as the standard for understanding ethics is unfounded. This is supported by the fact that Nussbaum often reframes Stoic as “moral norms” or “moral law” (Nussbaum, 1999). To restate, she leans more toward Kantian ethics in her thinking. Kant made a clear distinction between morality and nature and between natural and moral principles (Ward, 2019).
The former was imposed due to objective conditions, whereas the latter resulted from individuals’ exercise of their right to rational liberty via the creation of laws that adhered only to the formal requirements of law. In contradiction, Nussbaum recasts to perceive moral law as a replacement for natural laws, which has far-reaching implications.
Nussbaum’s claims imply that reason is elevated to an independent, self-regulating principle, demoting nature as a value system and source of rules. In addition, because nature is downgraded and intellect is elevated, ethics may be presented as phenomenally unrestricted. However, since Nussbaum appeals to “natural law,” she does not need to employ the complete faculty of Kantian philosophy (Nussbaum, 1999). Thus, the consequence is human freedom supposedly sanctioned by nature. Neither the liberty of reason nor the independence of volition is what Nussbaum seeks, as she incinerates towards the authority of nature. Even if none of the individual philosophers she cites is a perfect fit for her argument, she can rally them all to her cause. Indeed, this leads to strained interpretations and reveals her biases.
Some scholars highlight various practices, such as polygamy and infanticide, that are ethically justifiable in specific communities but prohibited in others. The Kamayurá is one of a few indigenous Brazilians who have been documented engaging in infanticide and the targeted murder of older children (Cleuci de Oliveira, 2018). People with disabilities, the offspring of single women, and twins are all at risk since members of some tribes see them as evil omens (Cleuci de Oliveira, 2018).
These cultural diversities call into question the validity of universal moral norms. The idea of “ethical relativism.” becomes a central topic in ethics when considering the impact of cultural differences on moral norms. Ethical relativists argue that morality should be understood in the context of one’s own culture (Mizzoni, 2017). In other words, the moral standards of the community in which an activity is carried out determine whether or not the conduct is good or bad.
Accordingly, the same behavior can be considered ethically acceptable in one culture yet immoral in another. Ethical relativists hold that no absolute moral principles should be applied uniformly across all societies at all times (Mizzoni, 2017). A culture can only be evaluated in terms of its morality. If ethical relativists are right, people from various cultures will never be able to agree on ethical issues or settle moral disagreements. Therefore, Nussbaum’s arguments are flawed from the viewpoint of ethical relativists.
In her defense, Nussbaum would provide the example of the state and the citizen. This means that no matter how flawed, ineffective, or crooked a government may be, its officials are always answerable to the people they serve. In short, it would be contradictory for an advocate of the capabilities paradigm, which places a premium on liberal and democratic values, to pursue an action plan that sidesteps the input of an elected assembly (Nussbaum, 2000). According to this logic, there are expected standards that legislators are expected to adhere to as the representative of the people in a democratic state, and this is consistent worldwide. Although this response makes sense, it does not address the objection since not all countries practice representative democracy and hence cannot be held to the same standards.
Conclusion
Nussbaum believes that the world desperately needs more ecumenical and cross-cultural ethics. This global ethics is conceivable if founded on natural law, which may be interpreted philosophically, religiously, and secularly. Furthermore, she contends that it might be founded on a unified paramount standard drawn from human nature or the premise of natural law morality. While Nussbaum’s arguments make sense theoretically, they are not applicable in the real world given humanity’s multicultural nature, hence values and beliefs.
References
Cleuci de Oliveira. (2018). The Right to Kill. Foreign Policy. Web.
Mizzoni, J. (2017). Ethics: The basics. John Wiley & Sons.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). In defense of universal values. Idaho Law Review, 36, 379.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach (Vol. 3). Cambridge university press.
Ward, K. (2019). The development of Kant’s view of ethics. John Wiley & Sons.