The Central Human Functional Capabilities

Nassbaum defines the central human capabilities as:

• Life
• Bodily health and integrity
• Bodily health
• Senses , imagination, thought
• Emotions
• Practical reason
• Affiliation
• Other Species
• Play
• Control over one's environment, political and material

Nassbaum argues that "the capability, not actual functioning, should be the goal of public policy" (Nassbaum 214), she presents this list of capabilities rather than introducing them as actual functions. What does this mean? I've come to somewhat assume that she is stating what she believes every human being is entitled to in terms of basic human necessities in order to pursue a successful life. While overall I think I understood where she was coming from I somewhat got caught up in the wording of it all. It wasn't a difficult read, but it wasn't an easy one either. The terms "functioning" and "capability" were greatly used, dare I say overused. So perhaps it was my lack of generally understanding her main points or perhaps I really didn't get this one. Overall I had a difficult time with this reading and while her ideas that were presented were not difficult to understand in terms of reading, they were difficult to perceive and grasp in terms of the way in which they were written. One thing that really stood out to me about this reading was Nassbaum's use and reference to ideologies discussed and presented through the works of earlier authors we've read throughout the section on justice, one such as Rawls. She presents her similar beliefs by first laying the foundation using the previously mentioned author.


Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 213-221.

A Theory of Justice

In a nutshell Rawls viewed the"primary goods" that people in a society need as wealth, opportunity and power. "Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like" (Rawls 200). To a certain extent, I was able to grasp the general concepts that Rawls was referring to in terms of justice and fairness. However, I did get caught up in the wording of the essay. I don't know if it was just me, but while I was somewhat understanding what he was saying, I found myself focusing more on the words than the ideas behind the words. This basically tells me that I have a hard time identifying with Rawls particular style of writing. While it's very straight to the point, it's still not entirely clear for me. One of the things that stood out to me the most about this reading was actually found in the introduction before the reading. Jacobus summarizes Rawls beliefs in terms justice/fairness for individuals versus society as a whole. "Above all, Rawls believed that justice must be fair and that the rights of the individual should never be sacrificed for the greater good of society. Personal freedom insofar as it did not impinge on the freedom of others was one of his most sacred values. Underlying all these ideas is the insistence that people are equal and should be treated equally" (Jacobus 196). When I read this all I could say was "WOW!" This was so astonishing to me, because all one ever hears about justice and fairness is in terms of the greater good. In other words whats best for society as a whole and not the individuals themselves. Yes, this was definitely a shock to read.

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 195-198.

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 199-204.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions

In reading the "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions" I was shocked. It's difficult to imagine a world where women are viewed and treated as the women mentioned in this passage. Stanton outlines the injustices that existed for women during her time period. In a sense, such injustices that existed back then, are today taken for granted by women. For instance, the ability to own vote. Everyone in this day and age is entitled to the right to vote. However during the mid-1800's it was unthinkable to permit a woman to vote. "He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice" (Stanton 165). I found it even more degrading that a woman was permitted to work, but she had to give her earning to her husband, "he has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns" (Stanton 165). The quote "he has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead" (Stanton 165), made me question whether or not it was better to be married or single during this time period. Either way, one can easily see that women were not valued or respected. As a woman, you had no rights. You were the property of your father until you began the property of your husband. Even then, your father had to pay your husband for you possession. A woman was regarded as an appendage for the everyday man. A woman was inferior, plain and simple. This truly signifies the ignorance that existed for the women of the 19th century. This declaration was the first step in advocating for the equal rights of women everywhere. I wonder where would we be as women today if this declaration was never written?

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp 164-168.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

This was a very long letter. But as Dr. King stated, the letter was written by him while he was imprisoned in a Birmingham jail after being arrested during a peaceful protest. I would like to address King's disappointment in the white churches of the South. While countless injustices continued to exist within the south after the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court in regards to segregation, Negroes of the south felt that change was incumbent on the actions of themselves. No longer could or would they wait to seek justice within the legal system. It was through Dr. King's peaceful protests that African Americans were able to express their beliefs to the injustices that they were being exposed to. These protests, while ultimately non-violent in regards to the actions of the protesters, were see as a threat to the southern way of life in which whites had become accustomed to. It was during these protests that innocent, non-violent protesters were subjected to the brutality of the opposing public and political forces of the south. It was in the churches lack of advocacy in promoting what was deemed as morally just, that Dr. King was greatly disappointed in. Dr. King felt as though the representatives of the church community, white, black, green or blue, would be the Negro community's strongest allies. Instead, he felt as if the church was their opponent in the struggle towards equality. "I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows" (King 185-186). Dr. King felt as if his solidarity laid within the fundamental belief system of the church and by not receiving their full support, he was disappointed.

King, Martin Luther. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp 173-189.

Civil Disobedience

While I somewhat understood the general idea that Thoreau was trying to get across, I kind of got lost in the wording. I had to re-read each paragraph just about and for some of them I'm still a bit hazy on what it's exact meaning was. I extracted what I thought he meant or was trying to get across, however I seriously question whether or not I was correct in doing so. In examining how Thoreau dealt with unjust laws, paragraph 16 stuck out the most to me. "Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist the remedy would be worse than the evil. It makes it worse" (Thoreau 144). This paragraph identified the act of knowing the extent of the unfairness that existed within the law, and examined mans ability and willingness to do something about it. Paragraph 18 then goes on to say "if the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring or a pulley or a rope or a crank exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law. let you life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn" (Thoreau 145). From this quote, I inferred Thoreau believed that the best way to enforce or incorporate change in the legal system was in directly doing so himself. In actively disobeying the law, or in Thoreau's case, doing what he felt was just, he believed he made a difference. By not going along with the flow, he became the counter friction to stop the machine.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 137-157.