Nussbaum addresses three objections to theories of universal norms: the cultural argument, the diversity argument, and the argument of paternalism. I will address the diversity argument, what it entails, how Nussbaum responds to it, and if her response is sufficient.
The argument of diversity, referring to cultural diversity, includes several components. The total argument is that a universal normative theory would replace the valuable diversity of ideologies and opinions that exist within and among cultures in favor of another ideological system. By breaking down this argument, we find two main components. First, the argument includes the idea that “each cultural system has distinct beauty;”culturally-specific beliefs and practices are intrinsically valuable (50). Second, the diversity argument suggests that the other system of morality is flawed (Nussbaum defines the other system as an American system).
Nussbaum responds to this argument by breaking down the two parts and critiquing their relevancy to universal normative theory. She states that the second piece of the argument, referring to a flawed American system of morality, “doesn’t yet say anything against universal values, it just suggests that their content should be critical of some American values” (50). She then responds to the first piece of the argument (this piece actually deals with the necessity of diversity). She points out that some cultural practices actually harm people and says that because cultural practices can result in harm, we, in fact, need a universal system to determine which practices should be kept and which should be discarded. She then points out that cultural practices should not be maintained simply “because they are there or because they are old” (51). In her final response to the argument of diversity, Nussbaum describes the cross-cultural similarities in areas of injustice with the example of sex hierarchy. She points out that many cultures show similar patterns in the areas of male dominance, and how this may be yet another reason lad;alsfkdaskl
Nussbaum’s response to this objection is fairly sufficient, but she could support herself better in a few key areas. Much of her argument rides on the idea that some cultural practices are definitely harmful, but she only states this idea once, which means it is easy to miss, leaving the reader unsure of her main point. She may have lacked support in this area because of the preceding multi-page response to culture, which included similar ideas. However, as a whole, her deconstruction of why people value diversity reveals the validity in their sentiments while pointing out how this valuation can work in tandem with universal normative theory.