As I continue to read the book, I think she is arguing for a third thing.
Maybe a different way to conceive of the state of nature as a starting place.

SO after a bit more reading...

I gave ten plastic cups to each of a group of five year olds, and asked what they could build. After half an hour of trying this and that, they cooperated to build pyramids taller than themselves.

I am okay with hanging with the five year olds.
From that point of view, it is difficult to tell if your comment is directed to Nussbaum or myself.

I gave ten plastic cups to each of a group of five year olds, and asked what they could build. After half an hour of trying this and that, they cooperated to build pyramids taller than themselves. — Banno

So there is a fact 'the state of nature'- cooperation can do more (is better?) than competition. Which is why cats make poor architects.

So there is a fact 'the state of nature'- cooperation can do more (is better?) than competition. Which is why cats make poor architects. — unenlightened

There are ten architect-potentials. They all have the opportunities to allow their productive forces free. eight of them do well, achieve success. Their potential was to some extent actualized in the form of esteem, financial reward, and creative success. Two make mediocre designs, are eventually run out of the industry for poor performance, get jobs that were not their original ideal, start resenting it for not being their ideal, don't find much success, esteem, or financial reward, live a constantly struggling life, middling, sometimes dabbling in self-destruction. So opportunities for capacities doesn't really mean great outcomes. In this sense, purely probablistically speaking, if the only way for winners to reach the outcome is for losers to be born, as we cannot know beforehand who will win or lose, then perhaps we should put no one in this situation in the first place.

Hell, let's take something as simple as sleep. There are ten sleep-potentials. Eight of them are really good sleepers. They can sleep for 8-10 hours with no problems, in just about any condition. They are well-rested. They never have to figure out how they are going to overcome sleep problems, as it comes naturally to them. Two of them are really horrible sleepers. They have sleep apnea, general insomnia, and psychological problems that constantly keep them awake. They have to struggle to overcome all of these deficits. Either a) they have to deal with it and live a generally sleep-deprived life, or they have to "overcome the initial deficit" and spend much money and time going to experts to get each component of their sleep problem dealt with. The solutions took a lot of time and energy, and are a much higher effort to sustain than the eight good-sleepers. Much of two bad-sleepers life is trying to chase the sleep through much effort. The only way to know there are winners is to have losers who will have a less than ideal situation to overcome. Opportunities for capacities does not mean good outcomes will result. This seems then be not as moral... It is nice and dandy to list a bunch of values, but if in actuality they cannot be actualized, then what does it matter? Giving opportunity itself doesn't mean much then, and there is a flaw in the system or theory about the system. If the answer is, "Oh well, at least there will be some winners born, so fuck em", then you have lost footing of any moral theory.

Hell, let's take something as simple as sleep. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure how one might compete over sleep. Trying to Imagine 'America's got Shuteye' or 'The Great British Sleepover'. I suppose we could cooperate a little - I could read you a bedtime story and kiss you goodnight and tuck you in. But in the end, sleep is a solitary affair to the extent that neither competition nor cooperation can be a feature beyond not waking someone up.

Architects, though, never get anything much done without cooperating with builders, town-planners and financiers.

I think I'm missing your point. Or you mine.

It is nice and dandy to list a bunch of values, but if in actuality they cannot be actualized, then what does it matter? — schopenhauer1

Matter? why would it matter? What's the value of a value? You keep asking, and asking again of every answer. It's a silly play of words. Let's bite the bullet - nothing matters at all. Nothing has any value at all in actual actualisation of actuality. Not suffering not joy. Your problem is you give value to the negative. so here is a valueless argument that will not convince you that your arguments are valueless and unconvincing. Enjoy.

I'm not sure how one might compete over sleep. Trying to Imagine 'America's got Shuteye' or 'The Great British Sleepover'. I suppose we could cooperate a little - I could read you a bedtime story and kiss you goodnight and tuck you in. But in the end, sleep is a solitary affair to the extent that neither competition nor cooperation can be a feature beyond not waking someone up.

Architects, though, never get anything much done without cooperating with builders, town-planners and financiers.

I think I'm missing your point. Or you mine. — unenlightened

So Nussbaum's theory seems to say that morality is based on values that are defined by the opportunities for people to use their capacities. I am saying that there is a flaw in the theory- that it does not account for outcomes. You can have opportunities, but if there are people who don't achieve the outcomes, what then? The word "opportunity" does not have some magical power. Potential means not much if it is not actualized. We fetishize the idea of opportunity and overlook actual outcomes- real time. So if a moral theory is based on opportunities for capacity, and people fail to achieve certain capacity, what then for that moral theory? Screw the people that fail, because at least some will win out? That seems amoral.

Matter? why would it matter? What's the value of a value? You keep asking, and asking again of every answer. It's a silly play of words. Let's bite the bullet - nothing matters at all. Nothing has any value at all in actual actualisation of actuality. Not suffering not joy. Your problem is you give value to the negative. so here is a valueless argument that will not convince you that your arguments are valueless and unconvincing. Enjoy. — unenlightened

Not sure what you are trying to argue here. I am arguing that if this specific morality of opportunities of capacities is never actually achieved by a certain percentage, then what does that say of that moral system? Further, by just shrugging your shoulder at it and saying, "Well, at least there are at least SOME winners who will achieve their capacities if given an opportunity, oh well about the rest" then this seems out of whack too.

Not sure what you are trying to argue here. I am arguing that if this specific morality of opportunities of capacities is never actually achieved by a certain percentage, then what does that say of that moral system? — schopenhauer1

Right, you weren't addressing my point at all which was about capacities being grounded in physics, the way potential energy is. Instead you seem to be suggesting that if anyone fails to realise some potential it isn't valuable. The world is not kind or fair, therefore kindness and fairness have no value. *shrugs*. The whack with which you whack is such a moralistic whack.

Also, a capacity that is invariably actualised is not a capacity. Whales do not have the capacity to be big, they just are big. A pint glass has a capacity of one pint whether it is full or empty.

Also, a capacity that is invariably actualised is not a capacity. Whales do not have the capacity to be big, they just are big. A pint glass has a capacity of one pint whether it is full or empty. — unenlightened

Not all capacities are actualized, sorry. You gave examples of ones that can be, but certain whales will not actualize the capacity to find proper food and will die, for example. A pint glass has a capacity to be used for various amounts of time, but some will be dropped right away and break.

The world is not kind or fair, therefore kindness and fairness have no value. — unenlightened

No, that is not what I said. Rather, what is a response in a world where there are losers and winners when it comes to actualizing capacities? The losers will be pay the cost for winners, as you cannot know beforehand who will actualize and will not. There is collateral damage. This doesn't seem to be good if a moral system is based on this collateral damage. Just saying that people have an opportunity to live up to their capacities would not be enough here for the damage to those who do not actualize their capacities.

A pint glass has a capacity to be used for various amounts of time, but some will be dropped right away and break. — schopenhauer1

Sure, and a broken glass has no capacity. Glad we agree.

No, that is not what I said. Rather, what is a response in a world where there are losers and winners when it comes to actualizing capacities? — schopenhauer1

What is what? I'm really struggling to make any sense of this at all. There are winners and losers when there is competition and comparison, and otherwise not. Is that much agreed, or do you can something else?

What is what? I'm really struggling to make any sense of this at all. There are winners and losers when there is competition and comparison, and otherwise not. Is that much agreed, or do you can something else? — unenlightened

It is something else. Winners and losers here are not necessarily against other people, but against the fulfilling their own capacities. So some people will actualize their capacities if given opportunities and others will not. It is not enough to just take into account the idea of "potential" to reach capacities as some people will not actualize their capacities (for doing X, Y, Z). To just say, "Fuck em, at least SOME people will actualize their capacities if given the opportunities", would seem a bit strange for a moral theory.

Winners and losers here are not necessarily against other people, but against the fulfilling their own capacities. — schopenhauer1

So I am a loser if I am not as big as a whale, or cannot fly faster than a speeding bullet? Where is the line between capacities that I don't have the opportunity to fulfil, and capacities I just don't have? There seems to be a difference between complaining that I have been born without wings, and complaining that I have been born without arms, but the difference seems to depend on comparing myself with other humans and not other birds. Expound a little, and put me right.

I am on board with cooperation not being outside of the "state of nature."
As Rawls presents it, the "original" contract is not so much about that question but who gets a say in the space of equal agents.
Rawls recognizes that the equality has to be supposed to some extent. There is also this emphasis that deals get made, we live with them for a while, the need to renegotiate appears.
So, in one way, Nussbaum seems to be saying Rawls was too successful. The original deals let a lot of things happen and they have their own inertia.

So I am a loser if I am not as big as a whale, or cannot fly faster than a speeding bullet? Where is the line between capacities that I don't have the opportunity to fulfil, and capacities I just don't have? There seems to be a difference between complaining that I have been born without wings, and complaining that I have been born without arms, but the difference seems to depend on comparing myself with other humans and not other birds. Expound a little, and put me right. — unenlightened

Yes, it's in comparison to other humans. So human achieves their capacity for X, Y, Z (e.g. jobs, love life, achievements and capacities in general as outlined by Nussbaum). Human A fulfills his capacities and Human B does not. In this case, human A is the "winner" in this. He has lived up to the capacities that he had the opportunity to achieve, but human B did not. A moral system should account for actualities not potentialities. If we just say, only potential to achieve capacities for a "good" human life (as outlined by Nussbaums list of values), then we are essentially ignoring the rest in this system. There will be winners and losers in fulfilling capacities then. If we say, "Screw em, at least SOME people will fulfill their capacities (like human A)", then there is something missing.