IB Philosophy 10.6.3 Justice, Equality, and Human Dignity Notes

Justice as a Threshold of Capabilities

1. As established in 10.6.1 and 10.6.2, Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach defines justice not as the maximisation of welfare or the fair distribution of primary goods, but as the guarantee that every person reaches a threshold level of each central human capability. A society is unjust whenever any citizen falls below this threshold, regardless of how well others are doing.
2. The threshold concept distinguishes Nussbaum from both utilitarian and Rawlsian approaches. Utilitarianism (Unit 4.1) permits the suffering of some if aggregate welfare increases.
   1. Rawls's difference principle (7.2.1) allows inequality only if it benefits the least advantaged, but still operates in terms of relative distribution rather than absolute minimums.
3. Nussbaum insists on an absolute standard. There is a level of functioning below which a life ceases to be worthy of human dignity.
   1. Justice demands that every person, in every society, be brought above this level. The threshold is not relative to national wealth; it is grounded in a universal conception of what human beings need.
4. This has important implications for distributive justice (7.2.2). Rather than debating how to divide a fixed pie, the capabilities approach asks whether each person has access to the conditions for a dignified life.
   1. It shifts the focus from comparative equality ("does everyone have the same?") to sufficiency ("does everyone have enough?").

Threshold, Dignity, and Political Obligation

1. Nussbaum draws on Kant's principle that every person must be treated as an end in themselves, never merely as a means. The threshold is the practical translation of this Kantian commitment: treating people as ends means ensuring they possess the real freedoms required for a dignified human existence.
2. She also draws on Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia (human flourishing, the idea that a good life is one in which distinctively human capacities are actively exercised).
   1. Nussbaum argues that political institutions have a moral obligation to create the conditions under which this exercise is possible for everyone, not just the privileged few.
3. The threshold is deliberately set at a minimum rather than an ideal. Nussbaum acknowledges that societies may reasonably pursue higher levels of capability above the threshold, but she insists that the threshold itself represents a non-negotiable demand of justice that no legitimate government may ignore.
4. This connects to rights, duties and responsibilities (7.3.1). The capabilities approach generates positive duties for governments: not merely to refrain from violating rights, but to actively create the conditions under which citizens can exercise their capabilities.
   1. This aligns with the distinction between positive and negative liberty (7.3.2), placing Nussbaum firmly in the tradition of positive liberty.
5. For IB students, the threshold concept provides a clear framework for evaluating real-world justice. Any policy, institution, or social arrangement can be assessed by asking: does it bring people above or below the capability threshold? This makes the capabilities approach a practical analytical tool for exam responses.

Equality and Capability

1. Nussbaum's approach to equality is distinctive. She does not argue for strict equality of outcome or equality of resources.
   1. Instead, she argues for equality of capability: every person should have the same set of substantive freedoms available to them, even if they choose to exercise those freedoms differently.
2. This position navigates between two extremes. Formal equality (giving everyone identical rights on paper) is insufficient because people have different needs and face different obstacles.
   1. Strict material equality (giving everyone identical resources) is also insufficient because of the conversion problem: people differ in their ability to convert resources into real opportunities.
3. The conversion problem is central to Nussbaum's critique of Rawls. A person with a disability and an able-bodied person given the same income do not have the same effective freedom.
   1. Justice requires attending to what people can actually do with the resources they receive, not merely to the resources themselves.
4. Gender inequality is a central concern throughout Creating Capabilities. Nussbaum uses examples of women in India and other developing nations who possess formal legal rights but lack the material and social conditions to exercise them.