IB Philosophy 10.6.6 Global Justice and Cross-cultural Application Notes

Universalism and the Challenge of Cultural Difference

1. The central tension is between moral universalism and cultural relativism. Universalism holds that certain moral standards apply to all human beings simply in virtue of their humanity.
   1. Cultural relativism holds that moral norms are valid only within the cultural framework that produces them, and that no culture has the authority to judge another's practices.
2. At the same time, Nussbaum is sensitive to the charge of cultural imperialism. Western nations have historically justified colonial domination by claiming to bring 'civilisation' to supposedly inferior peoples.
   1. Any universalist framework must therefore demonstrate that it does not simply export Western values under the guise of universal norms.
3. The concept of internal criticism is central to her argument. Nussbaum observes that in every culture, there are voices that challenge traditional practices from within.
   1. Women who demand education, workers who resist exploitation, and minorities who claim equal dignity are not importing foreign ideas; they are drawing on resources already present in their own traditions.

Nussbaum's Defence of Cross-Cultural Validity

1. Nussbaum's capabilities approach, as discussed in earlier topics (10.6.1 to 10.6.5), makes a universalist claim: every human being, regardless of nationality, culture, or social position, is entitled to a minimum threshold of the ten central capabilities. This topic examines whether such a universal framework can be applied across diverse cultural contexts without imposing a single cultural vision on the world.
2. Nussbaum rejects strong cultural relativism on the grounds that it makes it impossible to criticise practices such as forced marriage, denial of education to women, or caste-based discrimination. If all moral standards are culturally relative, then the claim that these practices are unjust has no force outside the culture that already condemns them.
3. Nussbaum argues that the capabilities list is derived not from any single cultural tradition but from a cross-cultural dialogue about what it means to live a fully human life. She draws on philosophical resources from Aristotle, Confucius, Indian political thought, and African communitarian philosophy to show that the core capabilities resonate across traditions.
4. This approach shares ground with Amartya Sen's emphasis on public reasoning across cultural boundaries. Sen argues that every major civilisation has traditions of rational debate and dissent, and that the claim that certain values are exclusively 'Western' distorts the actual history of moral thought.
5. Nussbaum further argues that the capabilities list is deliberately abstract. Each capability is specified at a level of generality that allows for diverse local interpretations.
   1. The capability of 'affiliation,' for example, does not prescribe a specific family structure; it requires only that people have genuine opportunities for meaningful social connection.
6. The philosophical case for universalism does not claim that Western liberal democracy is the only legitimate political order. Instead, it rests on the observation that certain forms of suffering, such as starvation, torture, and the denial of education, are recognisable as injustice across cultures, even when particular cultures tolerate or institutionalise them.

The Capabilities Approach and Global Development

1. Nussbaum's framework has significant implications for international development policy. Traditional development economics measures progress primarily through GDP per capita, a metric that tells us nothing about how resources are distributed or whether citizens can actually lead dignified lives.
2. The Human Development Index (HDI), developed by Sen and adopted by the United Nations, represents a partial move towards capability-based measurement. It combines indicators of income, education, and life expectancy, offering a more nuanced picture of development than GDP alone.
3. Nussbaum goes further than the HDI by insisting on a threshold of adequacy for each of the ten central capabilities. Development is not merely about raising averages; it requires ensuring that no individual falls below the minimum on any capability.
   1. This is a demand of justice, not merely of efficiency.
4. Gender justice is a central concern of Nussbaum's global framework. She argues that women in developing nations are disproportionately denied capabilities in education, political participation, bodily integrity, and economic independence.
   1. Any approach to development that ignores these gendered disparities is fundamentally incomplete.
5. Nussbaum critiques utilitarian development models that sacrifice individual well-being for aggregate growth. A country may achieve impressive economic expansion while leaving millions of citizens without access to healthcare, clean water, or basic education.