Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Introduction to Part I
- 1 The Capabilities Approach and the History of Philosophy
- 2 Karl Marx and the Capabilities Approach
- 3 Utility and Capability
- 4 Intellectual History and Defending the Capabilities Approach
- 5 Sen, Smith and the Cambridge Tradition
- 6 The Capability Approach to Well-Being and Freedom from the Viewpoint of Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory
- 7 Resources or Capabilities?
- 8 Taking Multidimensionality Seriously
- 9 The Capabilities Approach and Political Liberalism
- 10 Selecting a List
- 11 Individualism and the Capability Approach
- 12 The Politics of Wonder
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
3 - Utility and Capability
J. S. Mill and Amartya Sen
from Part I - Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Introduction to Part I
- 1 The Capabilities Approach and the History of Philosophy
- 2 Karl Marx and the Capabilities Approach
- 3 Utility and Capability
- 4 Intellectual History and Defending the Capabilities Approach
- 5 Sen, Smith and the Cambridge Tradition
- 6 The Capability Approach to Well-Being and Freedom from the Viewpoint of Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory
- 7 Resources or Capabilities?
- 8 Taking Multidimensionality Seriously
- 9 The Capabilities Approach and Political Liberalism
- 10 Selecting a List
- 11 Individualism and the Capability Approach
- 12 The Politics of Wonder
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
Summary
When Amartya Sen defends his capability approach to well-being, he contrasts it with the utility theory advocated by the classical utilitarians, including John Stuart Mill. Yet a closer examination of the two views reveals that they are much more similar than they appear. Each can be interpreted in either a subjective or an objective way. When both are interpreted subjectively the differences between them are slight, and likewise for the objective interpretations. Finally, whatever differences may remain are less important than they might seem, since the two theories are developed by Sen and Mill for different purposes and, in that sense, are not genuine alternatives.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 59 - 75Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bentham, J. 1970. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart), H. L. A.. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Donner, W. 1991. The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1990. ‘Foundations of Liberal Equality’, in Dworkin, R. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. XI: 1–119.Google Scholar
Feldman, F. 2004. Pleasure and the Good Life: Concerning the Nature, Varieties, and Plausibility of Hedonism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1969. ‘Utilitarianism’, in Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society (ed. Robson, J.M.). University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1977. ‘On Liberty’, in Essays on Politics and Society (ed. Robson, J.M.). University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1988. ‘Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1 (suppl. vol.): 145–184.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2007. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A.1980. ‘Equality of What?’ in McMurrin, S. M. (ed.). The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge University Press: 195–220.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1980–81. ‘Plural Utility’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81: 193–215.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1985b. ‘Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984’. Journal of Philosophy 82/4: 169–221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1987b. ‘The Standard of Living’, in Sen, A. The Standard of Living (ed. Hawthorn, G). Cambridge University Press: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1993. ‘Capability and Well-Being’, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A (eds.). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2000a. ‘Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason’. Journal of Philosophy 97/9: 477–502.Google Scholar