Brock and Nussbaum

Brock - needs vs rights

Needs vs rights - what we conceptualize in the West as “rights” (to safety, shelter, food) are needs - our rights are based on our needs

Brock - human rights

Human rights vs needs - Human rights focuses on reasonable entitlements and protections we are owed as human beings, basic needs are what we require to function minimally well

We must know what our basic needs are before we can define the entitlements that should be protected by human rights

Brock - needs-based minimum floor principle

Needs-based minimum floor principle - providing a basic standard of living that meets everyone’s needs, as opposed to the difference principle

Nussbaum - capabilities 

The best approach to the idea of a basic social minimum is focused on human capabilities (what people are actually able to do) 

All of these are separate components- more of one will not make up for lack of another

Nussbaum - universal norms

Need for cross-cultural universal normative recommendations in a theory of international feminism

These norms can and should be central for political purposes to provide constitutional underpinnings, and also to make comparisons across nations

Nussbaum - argument from culture

version of the anti-Westernizing argument, says that we cannot say non-Western norms are necessarily bad

but cultures are internally contested, many women are already protesting oppressive norms, and Traditionalist views of culture are often byproducts of imperial history 

Nussbaum - argument from diversity

diversity is good, it would be worse if all cultures took on the same values as America

but oppressive values that are not compatible with basic human dignities are simply not worth preserving

not to say that America’s values are necessarily better

Nussbaum - argument from paternalism

imposing universal values/norms would be paternalistic

But universal values that exist to/include a commitment to respecting individual freedoms can hardly be paternalistic