Ethical development is a space of action and analysis that regard the trajectory of the societies with a special reference to injustice, suffering and the exclusion between societies and within societies at an international scale. It typically focuses on the humans in their respective rights, not taking into consideration their location, other than as the abstract functioning factors in the economy and these offers the possibility for the politics of social change that always accepts the human dignity as the first priority. The ethical development field is seen as an intersection of various streams of traditions and practice of theorizing. The human development approach did not establish the guarantees for individuals though it seriously concerned itself with the issues of equity. Martha Nussbaum's work largely focused on the constitutional fastening of the basic rights and this helped the ethical development of humans to move towards accommodating the work on human rights (UNDP 2000). Her work remains concerned about the formulation of human rights as absolutist and remain also focused on the state. Nussbaum has addressed explicitly to motivation and emotions because the particular capabilities and the individuals should be cared about and the ethical development approach builds the motivational basis (Gasper 222).
John Rawls in the year 1971 had a theory of justice which he incorporated into the ethical development approach but did not educate and interrogate it. He incorporated moral intuition and brought inadequate explicit attention to feelings and motives and this preoccupation with the theories especially in the years of substantive ethic and academic political philosophy brought some challenge in the ethical development though it was quite necessary. John used an experiment so that he could render his theory of justice plausible and in it he had an imaginary position in which he sought to include intuition about the fairness into the original design and then rely on the calculations of self-interest. This appeared not to be a consistent approach and one that would explore sufficiently on the emotional building blocks of the ethical development (O'Neill 24).
Ethical development required a starting point of care, motivation and concern so that it could have great impetus. The work of the philosophers like Sen on official human rights discourse and human development relied heavily on the motive which they fail to consolidate, highlight and discuss. The language of human rights must be complemented and incorporated with by the full acceptance of all the duties involved and the practice and presence of the virtue that are appropriate ethical skills and also attitudes. These should have their base in proclivities for empathy, compassion and reflection and the base should be in the fundamental human capacities (Truong 2005a). The Human Security gives substantial and deserved attention to the education that goes towards the global human identity. The author Nussbaum seeks to fill much general lacunae in the ethical development approach by drawing and borrowing from other cultures and traditions in moral philosophy, social theory and spirituality (Nussbaum 54).
Good theories are practical and are very essential in both public policy and social philosophy. The theory of justice by Rawls achieves great impact because it had an elaborate reasoning and because it tapped and tacitly educated about the widespread ethical intuitions in the audience that he had chosen. Taking from the studies of what types of ideas acquire influence and authority in the policy-oriented science and bridge successfully the worlds of policy and science, Asuncion St. Clair in 2006 argued that the successful intellectual 'objects of boundary' in the surfacing of ethics in the development policy and theory are those theories that have had a strong ethical 'charge' which connect very well to intuitions and feelings. Martha in her work posits that 'human security' is an effective object of boundary. Martha Nussbaum's work span investigation of the emotions, practices of care and ethical motivations, through to an emergent cosmopolitan international ethic for a more united world. The work of Onora O'Neill was different from the work of Martha but was also potentially complementary and it locates the role of ethical virtues that are within the reasoned framework of the duties which we owe others in the system of interdependence (Gasper 270).
The field of ethical development should be enriched in its conception of individuals because capability and vulnerability are two side of every human being. Therefore care connects these two sides and should be taken as the virtue to be developed for social justice, solidarity and democracy to be made possible. Ethical development should enrich the notions of well-being that include the drawing from the gender-sensitive study of the routine life and care maintenance. These may help to reshape and renew moral responsibilities and the reciprocity among citizens of different nations. The reshaping may be guided by the concept of sense of belonging which incorporates the notions of the community and membership and more importantly the emotions that the notions evoke. In order to redirect politics of belonging to be beyond the existing temporal and territorial social confines, it is important to emphasize on the interconnected empathy and nature of belonging as the basic human emotion (Truong 61).
Ethical development responds to reality that people and the human processes have ran away from national containers. This leads to the perceptual end and cause the provision of care regarding moral blindness. The language of human rights is of special priority and therefore everyone who is interested should know where the human rights begin and where they end. Everybody wants to claim their priority for their own interests. The claimed rights are in practice to be liable and should be defendable with the assertion that it I meant to represent human rights. Income taxation according to Right-wing libertarians and Robert Nozick is a violation of the fundamental human rights to hold and gain property by fair means and it is also violation of integrity of a person and their human rights that should be treated with the utmost respect. This was an attack on the theory of justice by John Rawls which presented anti-egalitarianism as smart, cool and pro-people (UNDP 2000).
The Human security discourse sternly confronts the importance of prioritization. There are several strengths that arise out of the attempts to synthesize and also undertake the boundary work at the interfaces of freedoms, needs, peace, and rights. Several strategies have been put in place in order to bring out the essence of the human security discourse. Firstly, the ethical appeal to human solidarity and sympathy that include both fairness justice concerns and solidarity virtue concerns. This strategy has great motivational power because it focuses on the substantive priority areas. The focus on issues such as trafficking, violence, disease and many others would produce more probing and richer analyses (Rawls 98).
This language of the rights take the rights as the central, overriding and primary variants has been criticized from all level in social and political philosophy except the right of liberal individualism. Every individual agrees that the rights have a great role to play in the political order of every country but only as a more limited and derived tool not as predominant or absolute nor as the foundational principle like 'human rights' or 'natural rights'. Economists on their side argue the talk on human rights affects the way of the aggregate utility or product maximization and hence they dislike it. They often try to evaluate who should pay for the asserted rights. Other leading conservative philosophers have criticized the formulation of the rights and also other feminists. Onora O'Neill (2006) argued that obligations is a broader and basic category than the rights and gives the most adequate moral basis. Many Marxists also consider the talk on the rights to be part of the ideology which educated elite in the reality grabs or takes the resources and excludes all the other individuals. The right formulations in practice entrenches the bourgeois property and power. Lawrence Hamilton attack the framework of the human rights to be the dead end for the justice in South Africa: it is considered to be one part of the spider's web of the bourgeois liberal thoughts through which the weak persons are captured by the strong individuals (Gasper 226).
Martha Nussbaum wants to de-absolutise and loosen up the human rights discourse and this is after her intense and enormous involvement with the American law's world. She affiliates herself with the global human rights tradition, in the de-absolutised form and she adds that the capabilities approach is one of the species of the approach of human rights. The main architects of the theory of capability have moved towards the global human rights approach and the mainstream liberal constitutionalism. There are so many difficulties that are conceptual that the global human rights faces and these include among others the lack of specifications of the correspondent roles, the extensiveness of the rights listed and declared human and universal that must be implemented and protected, and finally the implementation of these right is very expensive which still can be raised because of the capability approach. The disagreements exist on the content of rights, the rights status relative to all other principles, the importance of the different rights, the meaning of the justice and grounding of the rights and the relative role and importance of the various aspects of justice that is procedural, commutative, distributive, retributive or contributive. This theory of ethical development requires a prioritizing, a grounding apparatus, that carefully complements careful gradation and de-absolutisation (Nussbaum 59).
The moral philosophy of Nussbaum' capabilities approach, the O'Neill' approach to justice gave rise to the rights of children, women, handicapped, animals and the aged. Though there was the humanitarian intervention of the Red Cross and the conflict of the Kantian ethics of obligations. There was also the work and the world and corporate responsibility of the Western moral philosophy though not to a large extent. The works of these three philosophers posed challenges to the entire field of ethical development and due to these controversies the development was made much faster. These three philosophers ensured that justice was achieved and maintained in the current society. For example, Nussbaum work probes further and find solution to the over generalized style of the slogan 'Development I the expansion of human capabilities' which brought the danger that thinking would be replaced by counting. Sen's slogan 'development is a freedom' also posed many questions but Nussbaum gave u the solution by first doing research and then reading more and more till she found out that justice is part of ethical development (Gasper 274).
John Rawls theory of justice is widely known to be of great importance in bringing fairness in the community. The principle of justice is also able to govern the modern social order because it provides a framework which explains the importance, in a community to have equal and free persons of personal and political liberties, cooperative arrangements and of equal opportunity. This plan and theory mostly benefits the more and less advantaged individuals and members of the society. This theory is then used by other defenders of the cosmopolitan justice to reevaluate and support their arguments. This theory is widely used in the ethical development by Des because it records that and urges us to conceive and understand the society as a fair system of cooperation within the given time from one generation to the other. The relationship of citizens is of more importance because it is a basic structure that everyone goes through because we enter into the structure by birth and only exit by death. An individual has to relate with other individuals because no one is able to live alone and therefore justice should be carried out so that the weak cannot be oppressed the strong either in the political or in the economic realms. Fairness is so important and should always be encouraged if at all ethical development were to be achieved (O'Neill 29).
All individuals are equal and free and should be treated as so and the decency standard of Rawls is set using the reference to the idea of the basic human rights. The non-liberals argue that it offers little or no protection to their societies but this is not actually the case.
Martha Nussbaum employs the idea of the human capabilities but her listed capabilities as we had stated earlier is that depends on the appeal to the autonomy and this is not acceptable to the non-liberals. O'Neill does not agree with the rights-based approach in favor of the neo-Kantian position which seeks to know the principles of action that people in all places could consent to. This however may be too weak in the times and when faced with cultural diversity that is becoming so prevalent in the current world. All these liberals were caught between cultural diversity and their believe that there are certain norm of conduct that are universal and which they strongly believe that all individuals should abide to (Nussbaum 121).
The book written by Martha Nussbaum titled Women and Human development employs largely the capabilities approach that she totally expounds and helps ethical development. The law of Justice by John Rawls is also very important because it lays down the sets of principle that should govern the conduct of the global relations that could be implemented by the decent hierarchical societies. The Bounds of justice by Onora O'Neill has collective essays that reflect on the global morality and present the Kantian account of the principles that the more vulnerable individuals must adopt to govern their relationships with each other (O'Neill 38).
Nussbaum's description of the human capabilities is clearly not supposed to rely on the fundamental metaphysical assumptions about all the human beings, specifically so as to have worldwide appeal. It is not clear that it is able to avoid relying on similar assumptions, any longer than the political liberalism of Rawls (which she invokes in support of her loom) can. Nussbaum informs us that everyone should have the opportunities for sexual fulfillment and for choice in the matters pertaining to reproduction. In her book, this applies to the women. Regardless of whether that claim is true or not, it is very clear that it should involve denying, which is very contrary to what almost all people think, that God allocated women to the task of reproduction. Having reproductive choices means, for her that it is having the access to the reliable contraception (or even, to abortion), this particular potential presupposes a firm relationship between body and the mind (and, in case of abortion, it confers a status on the fetus or embryo) with which very many people would take up issue. Her account still rests on the main and central assumption that all individuals are very autonomous human beings that are capable of shaping their own future and destiny. This then rests on a set of many metaphysical presuppositions regarding what a person is, a person has free will or not, either there is a God or not who determines the route of her life and so many other factors. Nussbaum might be right that all the human beings could have the all the capabilities. She then lists the reasons why those capabilities are significant enough to warrant the constitutional protection (that is the benchmark which she uses), and can also appeal to the different cultures whose metaphysical suppositions are radically different. All these factors and ideas that are discussed above and are in the book have been used extensively in the ethical development that we are considering in this paper. The justice is also put in place through the constitution (Nussbaum 63).
Rawls's aim in his book is to categorize a set of principles by which both non-liberal and liberal societies could govern their relations, and in the time of doing so he differentiates between non-liberal societies that must count as 'decent' and those others that will not. This could be either because they do not protect their basic interests of their members, or because they chase aggressive policies externally, or even both.
In this book he goes ahead and discusses only the decent hierarchical societies while still allowing that there could be other decent societies of different kinds. According to Rawls, a decent hierarchical society protects the human rights of its members, it is governed by a common good design of justice, and it incorporates an important consultation hierarchy where the representatives of the various groups of the society make their views well known to the state officials on matters that are of common concern. The three criteria helped to define a threshold in which, Rawls claims, a society deserves the high opinion of the liberals. These three criteria have really helped in the ethical development because they are very important in the day to day life and interactions that come our way. The three could foster justice and fairness in the societies. Every society was meant to be a decent society so that they could fit.
Thus Rawls's account of the human rights in the decent hierarchical societies is extremely conservative. Although some societies de facto protect the human rights, Rawls then leaves it unclear whether these rights are really recognized in the public ethnicity of the societies as rights belonging to individual persons or human beings.
Rawls's ambivalence on the point is exposed when he suggests that 'a decent hierarchical people's system of law ... secures for all members of the people what have come to be called human rights' (p 65). This leaves it open on whether they are so called by the people that are being regarded. Where the human rights are well recognized within the society's public culture, it is recognized, first, that all the human beings have very equal claims to freedoms and resources irrespective of the specific distinctiveness or the group to which they belong. As a conclusion, we find that the three liberals were very correct on their conditions of justice and have helped the ethical development by Des Gasper (Gasper 281).