Martha Nussbaum, "Woman and Cultural Universals," and:

• Karen Armstrong, "Does God Have A Future?"
• Susan Faludi, "The Naked Citadel"
• Malcolm Gladwell, "The Power of Context," and Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control"
• Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control"
• Beth Loffreda, Selections from Losing Matt Shepherd: Life and Politics in the Aftermath of Anti-Gay Murder.
• Eric Schlosser, "Global Realization"
• Mitchell Stephens, "Thinking 'Above the Stream'"
• Deborah Tannen, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope for Dialogue"
• Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master" and Lani Guinier, "Second Prom and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule"
  

For more assignment ideas involving this essay, please visit the Nussbaum link-o-mat.

Nussbaum and Armstrong: Religion and the Central Human Functional Capabilities

In "Women and Cultural Universals," Nussbaum claims that "a life that lacks any one" of the ten attributes that she has labled "Central Human Functional Capabilities," "no matter what else it has, will fall short of being a good human life." Does Nussbaum's argument require that one create the kind of relationship to a personal God that Armstrong describes? Is it necessary or merely optional that one have a relationship with God or some other spiritual being to live what Nussbaum calls "the good life"? Does God have a future in the world that Nussbaum is arguing for?

Back to top

Nussbaum and Faludi: Universalism and Local Tradition

In your last essay, I asked you to take a position on the question of cultural relativism versus cultural universalism.  Martha Nussbaum offered us the opportunity to compare the rights of a general group, in this case women, to the right of a particular culture to exist.  Your next article, Susan Faludi's "The Naked Citadel," also draws attention to the question of a culture's right to exist, but it brings the problem a little closer to home.  Faludi shows us the Citadel, a public (state-funded) military institution in South Carolina which was, until recently, exclusively male.  Those who were against the admission of women to the Citadel believed deeply in the traditions and internal culture of the college, and believed they had a right to exist without outside interference.

For your next essay, I would like you to consider the following question in terms of the two assigned essays:  What right does a tradition have to exist?  You may also consider any or all of the following support questions:  If you believe traditions have some sort of inherent right to exist, why?  If not, how would you defend yourself against critics?  What, if anything, gives one tradition more weight than another?  Does changing particular elements about a tradition destroy it, or is it necessary?  Consider Nussbaum's Central Human Functional Capabilities; do they apply to the Citadel?  What difference does personal choice make?  What about the Citadel's public financial support?  Remember to use at least three quotations per author.

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Megan Heller

Back to top

Nussbaum, Gladwell, Kaldor: The Power of Context and Global Change

Malcolm Gladwell argues that change can be accomplished simply by altering the smallest values of an environment. While the Power of Context seemed to be effective in New York City, how effective might it be on a global scale? For this essay, consider the function of the power of context in effecting global change.

Drafts must be 4 pages long. Final papers must be 5-6 pages long.

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Barclay Barrios

Back to top

Kaldor and Nussbaum: War and Human Capability

Although Martha Nussbaum's immediate concern is the plight of women around the world, her articulation of the central human functional capabilities has implications for all human beings. Form a project in which you consider the impact of the military and war--in its new and traditional forms--on human functional capabilities.

Drafts must be 4 pages long. Final papers must be 5 pages long.

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Barclay Barrios

Back to top

Nussbaum and Loffreda: Applying the Argument for Universal Human Rights to an Individual Case

Drawing on your reading of Beth Loffreda's "Losing Matt Shepard" and Martha Nussbaum's "Women and Cultural Universals," make an argument for Matt Shepard's rights. What rights does he have or should he have? You may decide to make an argument for Matt's special status as a gay male. In other words, you may decide that some people suffer from such extreme discrimination that a special class of rights–gay rights, women's rights, etc.--needs to be recognized and honored. On the other hand, you may decide that the best way to prevent incidents like the murder of Matt Shepard is to argue for certain universal human rights of the sort that Nussbaum discusses. Will Nussbaum's idea of "Central Human Functional Capabilities" really solve the social problems that Loffreda describes? Or do such problems require a different, more specific and pragmatic approach? When considering the Matt Shepard case, be sure to pay close attention to the many different attitudes and values that Loffreda encounters in Laramie.

Please give your paper a title that helps to convey your position.

For the rest of this assignment sequence, see the Universal Human Rights, Globalization, and Social Change sequence.

Back to top

Loffreda, Nussbaum, and Schlosser: Moving from Individual Cases to a Theory about Globalization

From one perspective, globalization seems benign, even positive. After all, no one forces people to eat at McDonalds, or to watch American movies, or to wear American running shoes. We might argue that when it exports hamburgers and Coke to other countries, the U.S. also exports democracy, the rule of law, free markets, technological progress and so on. From another perspective, however, globalization might be viewed as a form of cultural imperialism, and possibly also a precursor to economic and political imperialism. It is quite likely right now that 17-year-olds in Tokyo know more about the U.S. than they do about their own culture and history. By contrast, while many people in the U.S. know all about the latest "reality" shows, the majority are probably incapable of finding Japan on an unlabeled map.

Of course, these are not the only ways to view globalization. Some observers might argue that globalization will produce a richly diverse world society. These people might point out that just as American culture flows into places like India and China, so the values and outlooks of other societies flow into the U.S. as well. One good example of this cultural reciprocity is the "world music" scene.

For your final paper, I would like you to make an argument about globalization, using as your primary evidence the texts by Loffreda, Nussbaum, and Schlosser. You may also draw on other information at your disposal, including personal experience, but you should make detailed use of all three texts. You do not have to argue "for" or "against" globalization: you may also choose, instead, to explore the complexities.

For the rest of this assignment sequence, see the Universal Human Rights, Globalization, and Social Change sequence.

Back to top

Nussbaum and Stephens: Thinking and Watching with "Multiple Levels of Understanding"

In a marginal note, Stephens praises Continental European philosophers for their willingness to accept that "multiple levels of understanding can exist at the same time." By contrast, he contends that "analytic philosophers tend not to be as light on their feet." Although most people would not think of Martha Nussbaum as an analytic philosopher, she stands outside the tradition of Continental philosophy. Would you say that her treatment of "multiple levels of understanding" is more, or less, sophisticated than Stephens's? Does she see, in other words, problems and solutions that Stephens overlooks, or is it actually the other way around? Once we have recognized the co-existence of "multiple levels of understanding," what are we supposed to do then?

Back to top

Nussbaum and Tannen: The Ethics of Argumentation

How might Martha Nussbaum respond to Deborah Tannen's argument? Would Nussbaum agree with Tannen that agonistic responses to the beliefs of others truncate discussion and arrest the pursuit of knowledge? Might we say that Nussbaum puts into practice an ethic of principled or righteous intellectual violence, or would that be going too far? Do you believe that she does justice to the perspectives of her opponents? Are they likely to be persuaded by her practice of critique? If her opponents are not likely to find her persuasive, then who might?

Back to top

Frans de Waal, Lani Guinier, Martha Nussbaum: Finding a Ground for Moral Action

We have now read three authors--de Waal, Guinier, and Nussbaum--all of whom explore in different ways the subject of ethics or morality, whether their concern is altruism among primates, an ethically responsible political system, or the need for universal human rights. None of them argues for divine revelation as the basis of ethics.

For your third assignment, please write an essay that answers the following question:

Do human beings need moral absolutes? If so, where will these absolutes come from? If not, what sort of morality might be an adequate alternative?

As you consider the possible sources of moral absolutes, use the three authors to explore the complexities that are produced by any answer to this question. If you are intrigued by the possibility that moral absolutes might come from science, then please explain how we should respond to disagreements within the scientific community. Consider in particular the debates between de Waal's camp and its opponents. Similar complexities must be faced by those who turn to religion as the bedrock of morality. After all, the various religions do not always agree, and even within a single faith, sharp disagreements are quite common. After considering science and religion as sources of authority, you might turn to our nation's civil institutions: the people, you might argue, should be free to decide on the morality they will abide by. But in that case, who qualifies as "the people"? If we base our ethics on majority rule, does that mean that the majority is always right?

Needless to say, the questions I have posed here are huge ones. Your paper does not necessarily need to reach a firm conclusion: a strong essay might simply explore the complications of the issue or demonstrate the strengths and limitations of various possible answers. If you manage to come up with a truly compelling answer, one developed in a well-organized, persuasive, and articulate way, you will qualify not only for an "A," but also for a Nobel Peace Prize. Good luck!

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Kurt Spellmeyer

back to top