On the one hand there is a unifying interpretation of what the ‘capability approach’ brings to social sciences: importance of ethics; wellbeing as end of economic processes; and wellbeing is best assessed in the capability space.
On the other, beyond this, two main interpretations (parallel with Christianity and different interpretations): liberal-evaluative, Aristotelian-political.
Injustice is not as much as about an individual being able to be or do less of something, but about structures being deviated from the good they serve.
The idea of justice must go beyond comparative judgements about individual lives and include a judgement of the nature of structures, whether they are ‘just’ or ‘good’, whether they provide the conditions for human flourishing.
It is an individual good which rests on a common good because it rests:
1) on citizens viewing each other in a certain way;
2) on citizens acting towards each other in a certain way because they view each other that way;
3) on citizens coming together in public dialogue to give concrete definitions of what a ‘free society’ consists of.
That Germany has different freedom of speech laws regarding the Holocaust than the US is a concrete example of the existence of a common good, of a good which pertains to a specific set of relationships built through history but which does not pertain to any individual life as such.
For an Aristotelian interpretation of the CA, justice is a virtue, not only of institutions but also of human beings. Justice as a virtue includes commitment to the common good, at the highest level, and the orientation of one’s actions towards that aim.
Ex of family having two cars: increase common good of family but not common good at the level of planet.
Why interpretation matters… The case of Wildo a Bolivian farmer
Liberal-evaluative interpretation: governments should provide a set of fundamental individual entitlements. But the pursuit of these entitlements by many countries prevents Wildo to live a life he has reason to value (and besides Bolivian gvrt is powerless in tackling glacier melting).
Aristotle-political: concern for the common good, changing the way we relate to each other and the environment: transforming of unjust structures.
Have the HDRs moved HD to the transformation of unjust structures or still at the liberal-evaluative interpretation?
Does it ask the Aristotelian questions of how we are to live well together, of what kind of institutions, relationships and attitudes are needed so we each can live flourishing human lives on a shared planet?
How can HD become more Aristotelian-political?
HDRs are not social movements which change economic and social relations between people