Martha Nussbaum, a prominent philosopher and scholar, has critiqued Richard Rorty’s views,

 Martha Nussbaum, a prominent philosopher and scholar, has critiqued Richard Rorty’s views, especially his rejection of objective values and his political pragmatism. While Nussbaum shares some common ground with Rorty, particularly in their focus on the practical implications of philosophy, she raises significant concerns about the limitations of his approach in terms of ethics, political theory, and the role of philosophy in social change. Below are some of the key aspects of Nussbaum's critique of Rorty:

1. Rejection of Objective Values and Universal Standards

One of the central points of critique Nussbaum has against Rorty is his rejection of objective, universal values. Rorty famously denied the existence of objective truth and argued that all knowledge is contingent upon social and historical contexts. While Rorty proposed that truth is a product of what works within a particular community, Nussbaum rejects this view, particularly in relation to ethics. She argues that without universal values, it becomes impossible to defend a robust conception of justice or human dignity across different cultures or contexts.

Nussbaum, in contrast, champions the idea of capabilities, a theory of human development that includes a set of universal human needs and goals, such as the ability to live a life of dignity, to be educated, and to participate in democratic governance. She believes that Rorty’s pragmatic focus on local consensus leaves little room for defending these universal human needs and rights.

2. Pragmatism and the Lack of a Strong Moral Foundation

Nussbaum critiques Rorty’s pragmatic approach for being too focused on achieving consensus and social cooperation without a deeper moral or ethical foundation. Rorty emphasized the importance of solidarity and pragmatic cooperation in democratic societies but avoided engaging with larger ethical questions about what makes certain forms of social organization more just than others. For Nussbaum, this absence of a firm moral grounding makes it difficult to make strong, principled arguments against things like poverty, injustice, or oppression.

In contrast, Nussbaum’s capabilities approach is rooted in a robust ethical framework that emphasizes the importance of certain basic human functions and the need to build societies where all individuals can thrive. Nussbaum believes that philosophy should not only dissolve abstract problems but should also offer clear moral guidance to help us address real-world challenges related to justice and human development.

3. The Insufficient Role of Philosophy in Political Life

Nussbaum also takes issue with Rorty’s view of philosophy’s role in society. Rorty viewed philosophy primarily as a tool to dissolve problems and help individuals navigate the world pragmatically, but Nussbaum believes that philosophy has a more important role in providing normative guidance for social and political life. She argues that philosophy should be actively involved in addressing the ethical and moral challenges of society, particularly those concerning human well-being, rights, and justice.

Rorty, on the other hand, believed that philosophy’s primary purpose was therapeutic: it should help us live better lives by promoting tolerance and pragmatic cooperation, rather than offering definitive moral truths. Nussbaum counters this view by emphasizing that philosophical reflection is necessary to help us critically assess our political and social institutions and guide them toward a more just and humane direction.

4. Human Dignity and Social Justice

For Nussbaum, human dignity is a central concern, and she argues that this is an area where Rorty’s views fall short. She critiques his tendency to downplay the importance of a shared, objective understanding of human dignity, which she believes is crucial for advocating for the rights of marginalized groups. Rorty’s view, in which human rights and dignity are contingent upon social agreements, is too fluid and cannot provide the stable moral foundation needed to defend human dignity in the face of oppression or injustice.

In contrast, Nussbaum’s approach to human dignity is grounded in her capabilities approach, which asserts that all individuals should have the freedom to achieve essential human functions, such as bodily health, education, and participation in social and political life. This framework allows for a more solid defense of human dignity that transcends particular social agreements and is rooted in a shared understanding of human flourishing.

5. The Emphasis on Local Cultures and the Risk of Relativism

Nussbaum is critical of Rorty’s cultural relativism, particularly his emphasis on the contingency of beliefs and the importance of local cultural context. While Rorty argued that each society creates its own truths and norms, Nussbaum fears that this leads to an endorsement of moral relativism that could undermine efforts to address global injustices. She believes that, without some universal standards, it becomes difficult to challenge harmful practices such as sexism, racism, or the denial of human rights in different parts of the world.

For Nussbaum, universal standards—like those embedded in the concept of human capabilities—are essential for combating the injustices that occur in local contexts. She asserts that global ethical norms, especially those related to human well-being and justice, are necessary to hold societies accountable and to defend the rights of vulnerable populations.

6. Pragmatism and the Pursuit of Progress

Rorty’s pragmatism, which emphasizes the idea that progress is determined by what works in a given context, is another point of contention for Nussbaum. She argues that while Rorty’s approach may lead to pragmatic solutions to certain problems, it does not sufficiently address the ethical dimension of progress. Nussbaum is concerned that Rorty’s focus on the "pragmatic" might undercut the pursuit of a deeper, more meaningful form of progress—one that is grounded in moral principles like justice and human dignity.

In Summary:

Martha Nussbaum’s critique of Richard Rorty centers on the philosophical implications of his rejection of objective values, his focus on pragmatic consensus over ethical principles, and his relativism. Nussbaum argues that philosophy must play a more active role in providing moral guidance, especially regarding justice, human dignity, and the defense of universal human rights. While Rorty’s pragmatism and focus on solidarity are valuable, Nussbaum contends that a stronger, ethically grounded framework is needed to address the real-world challenges of social justice and human flourishing.