The right to a dignified life was the winner in the «contest» between welfare economy and capability approach theories

Abstract

An important condition for achieving sustainable development is attaining harmony between economic resources and human capabilities. This unity creates a state of well-being by combining the life a person desires for himself, the activities to achieve those goals, the material opportunities given to him within this framework, the acquisition of rights, and the ability to effectively realize those rights. The state of well-being directly depends on how one’s lifestyle is formed. Despite the fact that researchers analyze the state of well-being within the context of different theories, the final result they all reach is that all social, economic, cultural, political, environmental, and other activities carried out are directed toward a person living in a state of well-being and a decent standard of living. The author of the article comparatively analyzes the welfare economy and the capability approach, concludes that the main common feature of both is their aim of ensuring human well-being, and defends the idea of ensuring economic balance, the fair distribution of per capita income among states, and the harmonious regulation of social relations in unity, as well as in a way that does not cause economic and political extremes for states. Additionally, the article classifies material and spiritual concepts aimed at human well-being, and the categories of human well-being include such concepts as adequate water, healthy food, proper sanitation, decent work, social protection, adequate clothing, adequate housing, physical and spiritual health, quality education, marriage, recreation, a healthy environment, Internet access, free access to digital trends, spiritual needs, and dignified death. It also argues that all of these are human rights and that each of them, as an independent element, constitutes a complex right to a decent life, proposing that classification be carried out in this direction. However, the author rightly notes that since the right to a decent life is relative and individual to each person, it is they themselves who should determine where the boundaries of a decent life begin and end in accordance with the proposed general list.