Poverty is only one albeit very serious problem that many human beings face. If we label all human deprivation poverty, then we run the danger of minimizing the terrible reality of gross deficiency of food, clothing, and housing. Only if we must define development as merely overcoming poverty rather than overcoming all human deprivation is there any reason to broaden the definition of poverty as Sen does. Second, and far more serious, is Sen s argument that a highly individualistic notion of freedom is the goal of development. He is very clear.
Freedom means the capability of individuals to lead the kinds of lives they value.
This is an astonishing embrace of Western individualism, especially for a scholar from Asia. Third, Sen offers no defense of the inviolability of every human life, a central premise on which depends his admirable insistence that freedom has its own inherent value. After a century in which our science and politics have rejected any belief in the unique value of each person, surely such a sweeping claim demands substantial supporting argument. As a nontheist, Sen cannot take that route. But surely he owes us some argument supporting the central premise of his whole project.