Basic needs

From a legal point of view today, although food as a human right is recognized by the international law and domestic law of many societies, like other welfare rights in practice and opinion are still in dispute. Especially with the change in the face of government in recent years and the abandonment of the views of welfare states and the tendency of governments to regulate and avoid direct intervention and undisputed influence of transnational corporations in all social spheres, as well as the pessimism of developing governments It is challenging, and thousands of similar cases have created parallel discourses alongside the right to food discourse. One of these discourses that has a historical flaw is the food paradigm as a leading commodity that sees food not as a right but as a valuable commodity. This market-oriented approach believes that the duty of governments is not a legal obligation to provide healthy and sufficient food, but governments are obliged to create the necessary conditions for the economic development of society, which will improve the food security of society.

I have previously argued that human flourishing partly consists in the ability to exercise essential human capacities, many of which are non-distinctive and shared with other animals. The concept of flourishing is itself species-specific. Thus, the development of essential capacities (human and nonhuman) comprises a large part of the goods that we ought to promote. Problems about the definition of ‘essential’ are discussed, as are related issues about whether there are necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct use of sortal universal terms. The relation of the exercise of essential capacities to basic needs is investigated, and the essential nature of the human capacity for meaningful work, which has been disputed by John White, is defended. Finally, some suggestions are offered about what the proponents of the capabilities approach might derive from that of essential capacities.