Nussbaum

What is the difference between capability and functioning?

Martha C. Nussbaum was a woman who wrote “Sex and Social Justice”, from which the excerpt, “The Central Human Functional Capabilities” is pulled from. She wrote about the concept of capability and the concept of functioning. In her book she discusses the difference and importance of both of them.

Nussbaum explains that capability is what everyone possesses. Everyone is capable in choosing how they will live their life. It is up to each individual to use their capabilities to their advantage in life. Everyone is capable of living in a society and functioning in it happily. Functioning is actually doing and coping in a certain circumstance or situation. Just because you are capable of functioning does not necessarily mean you will function in any given setting.

She believes that nobody should be able to impose views or steps on how to act. They are capable in acting properly or even how they choose, but the important aspect is that they are the ones that choose. Opportunities must be available but not forced. It is with these opportunities that will allow people to turn their capabilities into functions if they so choose. “Here we must answer: No, capability, not functioning, is the political goal” (Nussbaum 218). Nussbaum makes it clear that we should aim for capability so people can choose their own functioning. “Nonetheless, for political purposes it is appropriate for us to shoot for capabilities and those alone. Citizens must be left free to determine their course after that” (Nussbaum 219). From here, people can decide individual choices. This choice helps the individual believe it is solely their choice but basic standards are provided to help them.

Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp209-223.

Rawls

What is Rawls’ attitude toward the least advantaged people in society?

John Rawls’ wrote about his theoretical approach to how society should be run and the rules that govern us should work in his book, “A Theory of Justice”. He explained in depth about many things that tie into his idea of justice as fairness. He explained that it is a multidimensional approach and all the layers combine to form a proper, comfortable situation for everyone.

One big point that he established was, in order to have a well-balanced, well-maintained system, it is important to set the standards at low levels. He made it clear that in order to have balance; the less advantaged people must have basic rights, and necessities. Once, that is given to them, the system goes accordingly. But if the less advantaged people get no compensation or help in this system as a basic need, then the flow of the system will be disturbed. If the system is disturbed that affects the more advantaged people. Taking care of the little guys, will ultimately have a positive affect that will spread all the way up the chain.

It is key to realize that a basic equality for everyone will help achieve a better world to live in. When there is a basic understanding of what everyone’s roles are, people can work together for a common good. People will realize that even less advantaged people affect everyone else, so you must work for something that will benefit everyone. Taking care of the bottom of the chain and working your way up will help shape a better world, because everyone has to help their neighbor in order to benefit themselves.

Stanton

What power has man had over women, according to Stanton?

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a very strong woman back in her time. She always strove to be the best and even surpassed the boys that she studied with. This was not common whatsoever as women were normally raised to be content with what they have. She always wanted more and because she could do just as well, if not better than the boys, she thought it was only fair for her and women in general to have equal rights. After a plateau in her life with marriage, she decided it was time to organize a women’s meeting to better women’s rights. She called together a bunch of other ladies and decided to speak up against the oppression of women. She used the outline of the Declaration of Independence to organize her speech.

Stanton began with an introduction stating their so called ‘breakaway’ from oppression. She stated all the reasons how man had power over women. She explained that the biggest power was that man had established absolute tyranny over women. This lead to all the other oppressions and struggles a woman faces in the strive to freedom. She makes the point that it is sad that foreigners have more rights than women born in the United States have. She thinks that it is wrong and that women have all the right to rights in this country.

The power includes not being able to keep their own money, not being able to divorce a horrible husband, not being able to vote, not being able to own her own land and not even being able to attend the same colleges men do. All these points were made by Stanton and were worded in a powerful, determined way that it would be hard to not listen if you were there in the room that day. All these oppressions are very valid, and women would have every right to be upset. Thankfully women continued to speak up, otherwise we would still have to obey the men, and I’d have a difficult time biting my tongue.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Why was Martin Luther King Jr. disappointed in the white churches?

Martin Luther King Jr. was disappointed in the churches for what seemed to be valid reasons. He wrote in his letter that is now known as “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, the injustices he and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference underwent while in Birmingham. With race and segregation being the issues at large he looked to his religion to guide him through and keep his heart pure.
Martin Luther King Jr. was surprised by the extremely high numbers of those that resisted change in Birmingham. He assumed that the ones he could count on to back him and spread their purpose would be the churches. He believed that even if they had differences in race and thoughts on segregation, the church is the one united place that he could seek solitude in. It’s a language that they all speak and have in common. His assumptions were wrong as the white churches did not use their voice to help get the SCLC’s message across. Instead, they remained silent. He knew that the churches power is strong and if they welcomed the issue and spoke on it, this would reach a larger number of people.
Martin Luther King Jr. explains his disappointment in the white church for not helping in the cause. He explains that over the years the church has undergone the same types of criticisms and injustices but fought it and won their voice and independence. He poses the question that what was the point of fighting to gain a voice if they aren’t going to use it to help fight other injustices.
He points out how the church is similar to what he is fighting for in a few lines within this letter. “There was a time when the church was very powerful-in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed.” This is similar to his quest by considering himself and all of humanity to fight for their worthiness and place in society. Also, they are similar in the suffering they endure during this fight, such as being thrown in jail for peacefully assembling. He continues to explain that Christians, when first entering a town were considered to be disturbing the peace but they continued on while keeping their goal in sight.
His disappointment is evident in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He explains exactly what he was hoping the church would do and also explains exactly why he expected it. Martin Luther King Jr. clearly stated this was obviously not what he found when he came to Birmingham which made him sad. He thought that the church would be the one thing he could count on being “faithful” but he was wrong.


King, Martin Luther Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp171-192.

Thoreau

What is the individual’s responsibility regarding supporting the government when it is wrong?

Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience in the eighteen hundreds. This was a long time from present day, but reading his speech about government was surprisingly true to present time. His beliefs were strong so he made this speech to try and persuade his audience to understand and embrace his point of view on what to do with an unjust government.

His speech, although wordy, is very impacting. What I believe makes his speech powerful, as well as any writing attempting to persuade in general, is that he states his argument with sound details and points. Then he states the opposition or other side to his argument which lowers its value by beating the opposing side to the punch. He gets to their points first and by doing this he can maintain control of the debate. He also makes it powerful by talking to the people instead of over them. The argument concerns the citizens and he fully engages them in the discussion and urges them to take a stand for what they believe is right. He also urges them to stand up against what they think is wrong. He quotes “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it (Thoreau 138).” Thoreau makes each individual feel empowered which leads to a better turn out of standing up against the government.

The individual’s responsibility regarding supporting the government when it is wrong is simply that they should not. They are responsible for letting the government know they are wrong and that the individual will not support them if they do not believe in what they are doing. The key is to actively stand up and refuse to support them no matter the consequences. With actively stepping up, the government will have to take the hit or reform its ways. Waiting around for votes and vetoes take far too long, but refusing to obey the authorities when they are wrong could pull for a quicker change.

He argues a great point. Maybe it could work now, for our current war issue. Many Americans want the troops home for insufficient reasons on why they are there in the first place. If we all refuse to obey the government until they are returned home, we could possibly force the government into making quick decisions and corner them into bringing home loved ones.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp133-158.