Ethics Essay 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Toronto *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PHLA10
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by EarlPheasant3869
Fawaz Omidiya
The Dilemma of Ethical Objectivity
In the exploration of ethical values, there is a necessary component that people often neglect to acknowledge: self inspection. To look at one’s own internal bias and question, what gives somebody the authority to declare their own ethical alignments as universal. Because the study of ethics is to determine what is right and wrong, we stumble across the paradox of what can be described as the self-imposing of our own values on others, or ethical imperialism. In this essay I will be examining Martha Nussbaum’s internal bias in her ethical views, and if the concept of universal ethical values is a valid argument, or is it just one individual or conglomerate of like-minded people imposing their views on the world. I do believe in the idea of universal values, however the approach which Nussbaum takes can be seen as heavily imposing one’s own values on a global scale. In my views, ethical objectivity can exist without disrespecting world cultures, but must exist with limitations. Her ‘eye-of-the-beholder’ mentality
creates ambiguity when it comes to what it means to meet her ‘threshold’ of a fulfilled human life, and would only cause confusion where cultural norms collide. Nussbaum’s approach encroaches on foreign lifestyles the more specified her criteria becomes, and I will present ways in which I believe she could amend her views to avoid the possible objections mentioned earlier.
Martha Nussbaum defends the ideas of universal values as she believes treating human beings in certain ways is objectively wrong. Nussbaum’s defense of this ideology begins at her core beliefs as a humanist, liberal and feminist. In her pursuit of an answer to the dilemma of ethical objectivity she crafted a list of ‘central human functional capabilities’. She believes it is
wrong for any human to not have full access to these capabilities, and life without them is less-
than-human Nussbaum carefully constructs her phrasing to emphasize that everybody must have a choice to utilize these capabilities, rather than have them forced upon them. In doing this, Nussbaum is attempting to subvert the claims of ethical imperialism that accompany the concept of universal ethics. Nussbaum’s list of capabilities includes the following: Life, Bodily Health, Bodily Integrity, Senses Imagination and Thought, Emotions, Practical Reason, Affiliation, Other Species, Play, and Control Over One’s Environment. This list of capabilities stands as the backbone of Nussbaum’s argument for Universal Values, and she emphasizes the cultural importance in the implementation of these values, and that every culture may exercise these in different ways. She states that this list has been revised and holds contributions from many years of cross-cultural discussions, making it an “overlapping consensus”(76) between people from different walks of life. Nussbaum considers these as necessary and universal values because they offer room for individuality between cultures. She expects that different view-holders will interpret each moral and political conception to different extents, allowing them to remain in line
with their original values.
Nussbaum thinks of her list of capabilities as a threshold, and every human must have access to these capabilities to a certain capacity. If someone is not guaranteed the items on Nussbaum’s list, then they are seen as living a less-than-dignified human life and it is the role of government to uphold access to the proper threshold. Thus, every culture has the liberty to live govern themselves, but if they follow the layout of Nussbaum’s design, their citizens should always have the choice to exercise as much or as little of her capabilities as they want. So long as
it is at their disposal, by Martha Nussbaum’s standards, such a society would be living ethically correctly.
I would argue that the idea of universal values that influence either how countries or cultures expect their people to act, or the rules that govern, are a direct result of the imperialist mindset. To tell a sovereign body how it should operate, no matter how much one might disagree, is imperialism and a form of conquest. This is indeed different from an outside party aiding internal affairs when called upon, so long as the outside party does not attempt to influence the values of those whom it is helping. This is evident as the idea of universal values is our nature. We all believe that our walks of life are correct. However, the practice of enforcing universal values and ethics is strongly associated with western countries, countries descending directly from colonial powers. Nussbaum addresses this concern, clarifying that it is the responsibility of governments to nurture the capabilities of its citizens and that the interference of
the international community should not be the driving factor.
Nussbaum’s idea of thresholds is ambiguous. While she may see this as leaving space for interpretation and allowing for differences between cultures, it leaves room for confusion. How can one determine if the capabilities provided meet the threshold for a flourishing human life, or if it deems one as less than human. It becomes somewhat of a doble-edged sword in this regard. When it comes to the role of women in the family and the house, western views say that the woman should have no designated role and they should have the choice to do as they please, while in the Nigerian view, women take care of the house and family if they choose to get married. Nussbaum’s final capability, control over one’s political and material environment, is a particularly western idea that is incompatible to the Nigerian expectation of women and typically
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
designated to the men in the family unit. This idea of gender roles that has been abandoned by many western cultures is an example if this ambiguity. If the family is a unit and the man takes care of the material possessions, then by Nussbaum’s standards the women are not living a proper life. It is also expected that men take traumatic events and learn from them, rather than showing their emotions, and they are often frowned upon in this regard. This would be in direct violation of Nussbaum’s capability of emotion, however by some cultural standards certain people are designated to certain roles in the family, which may require them to give up some of Nussbaum’s capabilities. This would not be an inhuman way of life, and they would be very capable of being fulfilled despite not meeting Nussbaum’s standards. In order to respect cultural diversity, it is impossible to tell people how they are meant to act with others, as every nation has
their own nuanced social norms and cultures.
To answer the question at hand, I do believe that universal values do exist. All humans, regardless of any circumstances, should live a life free of slavery, and full of personal choice. In an essence, everybody deserves the right to carry their life how they would like to, so long as it affects no other person. As Martha Nussbaum pointed out, freedom of choice is extremely intricate to a sentient being, and I agree completely. My qualms with her list comes from the extensiveness of the capabilities. While I may agree with all of hers on a personal level, I don’t believe that it is reasonable to expect other cultures to uphold any of those to a specific threshold if they choose not to, as this would be cultural imperialism. For example, many East Asian and African cultures value family and tradition over play or other species. However, Nussbaum’s list favors western individuality over aspects of more traditional cultures. Therefore I would like to modify her list as following: All people are entitled to life, a life free from slavery and
discrimination, the right to seek asylum/refuge, to be free of injustice, and the freedom of bodily choice and personal activity. These modifications allow every nation to govern itself, however they may choose. I recognize this can be extreme to have such little limitations, but ethical objectivity should not be a restrictive concept, but one that allows for change, growth and independence. The right to choice, and seek refuge/asylum would give any person the right to choose where they want to be,
and if they decide to stay under a regime that is oppressive in some manner, they have every right to change the way it is governed as a citizen. No country can function if it’s inhabitants are constantly leaving, which will in turn force governments to represent their people properly.
The most important aspect of ethical objectivity is understanding that it does not matter if
any outsider is contempt with how a country is governed, so long as it’s citizens are happy. Nussbaum’s capabilities can be seen as cultural imperialism because it is ambiguous. The thresholds she defines are in principal, a fine way to live life in my eyes, but they cross and lines between cultures in it’s attempt to suit everybody’s needs. The very concept of ethical objectivity
is difficult because it is an extremely imperialist notion. Thus, we can not govern how people should act between their own borders, only that they have the choice of which environment they exist in.