My gut feeling, as a bird/wild life lover, is that Hussbaum is right. A bird should be free to live life in its own way, not in someone else's. All living things are subject to death, but they also procreate and pass on life. Living in an enormous house won't save somebody from dying but it will stop them from so many other worthwhile activities and experiences.
Nussbaum also promotes 'intelligent stewardship' when it comes to wild animals: https://archive.ph/1xcjb
I believe the large aviary or even small enclosed parks would fit well within her framework.
What if the songbirds started to live in cities alongside humans, as pigeons do in many European cities? Some people see them as a nuisance but many others feed them.
I mean, this generally seems to be a problem with the capabilities approach. How maximal or minimal do we define the capabilities? If you see what Nussbaum demands for humans, this includes things like opportunities for sexual satisfaction (I have yet to see a teenager who feels that they have been appropriately supplied with that), education that includes training in science, the ability to express oneself artistically and the ability to own various kinds of property. Very few humans, it seems, are in possession of the full range of these capabilities. And the same would go for birds: how much space does a pigeon need to fully live its life? Is being fed by humans not a deprivation of its ability to hunt for its own food? Or, back to humans: is a supermarket not depriving us from the essentially human drive to survive on our own abilities (which is what all the survivalists and preppers are chasing without, often, realising it)? Is an office worker, like a bird in a cage, not giving away their essential mammal-ness? Or, if supermarkets are fine, then why not bird cages or a supply of bird food, refilled by a human? I feel that the capabilities thing is interesting as an idea, but, much like the idea of human rights, it becomes difficult to sort out its consequences within the constraints of real human lives and societies — and the same may be true of birds and other animals.
My gut feeling, as a bird/wild life lover, is that Hussbaum is right. A bird should be free to live life in its own way, not in someone else's. All living things are subject to death, but they also procreate and pass on life. Living in an enormous house won't save somebody from dying but it will stop them from so many other worthwhile activities and experiences.
Nussbaum also promotes 'intelligent stewardship' when it comes to wild animals: https://archive.ph/1xcjb
I believe the large aviary or even small enclosed parks would fit well within her framework.
What if the songbirds started to live in cities alongside humans, as pigeons do in many European cities? Some people see them as a nuisance but many others feed them.
I mean, this generally seems to be a problem with the capabilities approach. How maximal or minimal do we define the capabilities? If you see what Nussbaum demands for humans, this includes things like opportunities for sexual satisfaction (I have yet to see a teenager who feels that they have been appropriately supplied with that), education that includes training in science, the ability to express oneself artistically and the ability to own various kinds of property. Very few humans, it seems, are in possession of the full range of these capabilities. And the same would go for birds: how much space does a pigeon need to fully live its life? Is being fed by humans not a deprivation of its ability to hunt for its own food? Or, back to humans: is a supermarket not depriving us from the essentially human drive to survive on our own abilities (which is what all the survivalists and preppers are chasing without, often, realising it)? Is an office worker, like a bird in a cage, not giving away their essential mammal-ness? Or, if supermarkets are fine, then why not bird cages or a supply of bird food, refilled by a human? I feel that the capabilities thing is interesting as an idea, but, much like the idea of human rights, it becomes difficult to sort out its consequences within the constraints of real human lives and societies — and the same may be true of birds and other animals.