Flourishing Through Capabilities
Versus the Reductionist Struggle for Survival

Introduction

Martha Nussbaum’s philosophical contributions, particularly her capabilities approach, offer a profound framework for understanding a meaning of life that transcends mere survival as the purpose of life. In works such as Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach (2011) and Frontiers of Justice (2006), Nussbaum argues that human life gains true significance through the development of central capabilities that enable individuals to flourish as dignified beings. This stands in stark contrast to reductionist views, which posit that the primary purpose of life is simply to persist and remain alive, often drawing from biological or existential imperatives like Darwinian survival instincts or Schopenhauer’s “will to live.” Nussbaum’s approach shifts the focus from basic existence to a multifaceted realization of human potential, emphasizing freedoms, agency, and well-being in social, political, and personal contexts.

At its core, the capabilities approach, co-developed with economist Amartya Sen but distinctly elaborated by Nussbaum, evaluates human development not by economic metrics like GDP or resource accumulation, but by what people are actually able to do and be. This normative framework asserts that justice requires societies to ensure a threshold level of capabilities for all individuals, allowing them to lead lives worthy of human dignity. By prioritizing flourishing, eudaimonia in Aristotelian terms, over survival, Nussbaum provides a philosophical antidote to reductionism, which she critiques for ignoring human diversity, agency, and the qualitative aspects of existence. This review explores Nussbaum’s philosophy in depth, contrasts it with reductionist perspectives, and examines whether she was influenced by thinkers like Arthur Schopenhauer or Baruch Spinoza in her formulations.

The Capabilities Approach: A Path to Meaningful Flourishing

Nussbaum’s capabilities approach redefines the meaning of life by centering on ten central capabilities that she deems essential for human flourishing. These include:

1. Life (not just survival, but a normal lifespan)
2. Bodily Health
3.  Bodily Integrity (freedom from assault and mobility)
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought (including education and expression)
5. Emotions (ability to form attachments)
6. Practical Reason (forming conceptions of the good)
7. Affiliation (social interactions and dignity)
8. Other Species (living with concern for nature)
9. Play (recreation and laughter)
10. Control over one’s Environment (political participation and property rights).

This capabilities approach explicitly includes the capacity for “practical reason,” which involves developing an understanding of good and evil, critical thinking about one’s place in the world, and living in accordance with one’s conscience. This reflects her broader concern with moral distinctions, such as the interplay between reason and emotion, or how societal structures can enable good lives while mitigating evils like abuse, neglect, or unnecessary threats to life.

Unlike subjective measures of happiness or utility, Nussbaum claims that these capabilities are objective and universal, grounded in a conception of human dignity that applies across cultures while respecting pluralism. Critics question the potential subjectivity in these areas, arguing that capabilities like emotions, affiliation, and play rely on interpretive elements that could undermine strict objectivity, potentially reducing the approach to a liberal, individualistic bias that overlooks non-Western or collective views. Nussbaum counters this by emphasizing the list’s revisability through public reasoning and its focus on minimal dignity rather than comprehensive ideals.

In Women and Human Development (2000), Nussbaum applies this concept to global justice, particularly for women in developing countries, arguing that capabilities provide a better metric for assessing well-being than traditional economic indicators. For instance, she critiques GDP-focused development for overlooking how resources are converted into actual freedoms. A woman with income might still lack bodily integrity due to cultural norms or violence. Here, meaning emerges not from mere persistence but from exercising agency to achieve valued functionings, such as education or political voice. This fosters a sense of purpose tied to personal and communal growth, where life is about becoming fully human through creative, relational, and rational pursuits.

Nussbaum’s emphasis on flourishing draws heavily from ancient philosophy, particularly Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia as an active, virtuous life. In The Fragility of Goodness (1986), she explores how vulnerability and luck shape human goodness, rejecting Platonic self-sufficiency in favor of an Aristotelian view where flourishing involves navigating interdependence and emotions. This extends to her capabilities list, where emotions and affiliations are not optional but core to a meaningful existence. By enabling individuals to develop these capabilities, societies not only prevent deprivation but also cultivate lives rich in purpose, creativity, and connection—far beyond the biological imperative to stay alive.

Furthermore, Nussbaum’s framework addresses non-human animals and global inequalities, expanding the scope of flourishing. In Frontiers of Justice, she argues that capabilities apply to animals, ensuring their dignity through species-specific functionings, such as mobility for birds or social bonds for elephants. This holistic view posits that true meaning arises from harmonious relations with others and the environment, challenging anthropocentric reductionism.

Contrasting with Reductionist Views: Beyond the Fight for Survival

Reductionist perspectives on life’s purpose often reduce existence to a relentless struggle for survival, echoing biological evolution, metaphysical pessimism or even Camus’ absurdism. For example, a Darwinian lens might frame life as a competitive fight to reproduce and persist, where meaning is absent beyond genetic propagation. Similarly, Schopenhauer’s philosophy portrays the “will to live” as a blind, insatiable drive leading to perpetual suffering, with no higher purpose than temporary alleviation through art or asceticism. In such views, human endeavors are illusions masking the core imperative to remain alive amid inevitable pain and desire.

Nussbaum’s capabilities approach directly opposes this by asserting that survival is merely a baseline capability (e.g., “life” and “bodily health”), not the endpoint. She critiques utilitarianism and resourcism, proxies for reductionist thinking, for focusing on pleasure or goods without considering conversion factors like disability or gender, which hinder transforming resources into meaningful functionings. For instance, a person surviving in poverty might adapt preferences downward, appearing “happy” under utilitarian metrics, but Nussbaum argues this masks capability deprivations in education or affiliation, robbing life of deeper meaning.

In contrast, flourishing through capabilities infuses life with purpose by prioritizing freedoms and agency. Where reductionism sees a zero-sum battle against death, Nussbaum envisions cooperative societal structures that enable play, imagination, and practical reason—elements that make life worth living. This is evident in her rejection of Rawlsian primary goods, which she sees as too narrow, advocating instead for capabilities that account for human variability and promote dignity beyond survival. Thus, her philosophy elevates existence from a grim endurance test to an aspirational journey toward human potential.

Influences: Aristotle Over Schopenhauer and Spinoza

Nussbaum’s formulation of the capabilities approach is deeply influenced by Aristotle, whose ideas on human functioning and social justice underpin her list of capabilities. She also engages with Karl Marx (on human potential), Adam Smith (on freedoms), Immanuel Kant (on dignity), and modern thinkers like John Rawls and Amartya Sen, often critically refining their views. Stoic influences appear in her work on emotions and cosmopolitanism, tracing back to Cicero and Diogenes.

Martha Nussbaum’s philosophy, through the capabilities approach, provides a compelling vision of the meaning of life as the pursuit of flourishing via essential freedoms and functionings. By ensuring thresholds for dignity, agency, and relationality, her framework not only critiques global injustices but also inspires policies for human development. While rooted in Aristotle and modern ethicists, it notably bypasses Schopenhauer and Spinoza, emphasizing optimism and potential over pessimism or deterministic striving. In an era where claims of inequality are gaining renewed vigor, Nussbaum’s ideas remind us that meaning  lies in enabling all to live fully human lives, not just endure.