Human Rights and Capabilities: What Must A Society Guarantee?

Western governments are founded on the principles of 'freedom ideology,' emphasizing that freedom from restriction is the best way to support the lives of individuals in a society. This legal framework can be traced back to the idea of 'social contract,' or humans sacrificing a small amount of freedom in order to coexist in a society. Given that this type of governance can breed a culture of individualism, one must question whether there is another principle through which one could create a society that supports the ends of others. This research started with the works of decolonial philosophers Serene Khader and Frantz Fanon, starting with an attempt to explore the idea of a nonideal universalism, or a universal moral system that doesn't idealize western governments. Through this discovery, the readings focused on Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, and the capabilities approach. The capabilities approach advocates for allocating resources in which every human is allowed to live a fulfilling life. From here, the goal was to find a political mechanism through which the capabilities approach could be implemented, and to find the potential reasons for which certain people reject the capabilities approach. The key findings of this research process were that western legal systems presuppose the maleficence of human behavior, which is rooted in the minimal nature of "freedom" ideology. Additionally, these societies justify the hoarding of wealth as an expression of free human activity, rather than fostering environments that can create systems of equality. My findings contribute to the field of political theory, and questions the ideas of what a government or society owes to its citizens. One could interpret a rejection of the capabilities approach as more than just a political stance, and being a comment on the nature of human beings. This project encourages people to challenge resource allocation and what we owe to others.