Talk:Ethics of care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Moral core?
One thing I feel is missing from this article, is any mention of the concept of the "moral core", which covers one of the two major points of this theory, in this case the idea that those we hold special relations with (those well inside the moral core) should be valued higher than those we don't (those close to the boundary, or past it). If you consider the moral core concept as a scale rather than a yes/no question, then this aspect of the theory is fully covered in the "flaws of implementation" for other ethical theories. It is our shortcoming in failing to apply our ethics without a moral core concept that allows us to make the "us vs. them" distinction that allows such phenomena as racism, certain types of genocide (e.g. holocaust) and so forth.
That said, the (plausibly androcentric) view that women build families while men build societies has not been examined in connection with the claim that traditional ethics do not properly represent the feminine nature in this regard. To my understanding, presumably because I'm a male, this theory is somewhat demeaning to women, in that it posits a claim that women either lack the insight or the capacity to build a society wherein the adherence to the conventional societal ethics exists solely for the purpose of greater collective protection. After all, with a stronger expression of the moral core problem, harming others for short term profit becomes fairly acceptable, unless it severely jeopardizes the long term safety of those within one's own moral core. Kind of like corporate mentality. Of course, when living in a society built on conventional (androcentric?) ethics, there is a mechanism in place which changes the cost/benefit analysis, and this makes it a bit harder to invalidate this theory.
Anyway. Not trying to argue the merits of the theory, just trying to illustrate what I'm requesting more information in the article about: it's place, relative to other theories, implications, etc. Zuiram 16:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion of Clementine integrational application?
I feel that Grace Clement's version, which addresses the Ethic of Care as a comprehensive theory and makes up for a lot of the shortcomings of the theory as presented. It is true that Carol Gilligan did not intend it to be a comprehensive theory, but it is frequently treated and criticized under such an application. Clement handles relationships with strangers, justice theories, autonomy, etc. I feel that her work is worth explicit consideration in this article, if not an entire separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wflan (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What's different?
It seems that supporters of ethics of care think that this is a new and different view from traditional meta-ethical ideas like consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics.
But how is "Ethics of care" different from "consequentialist ethics for close people"?
"An action is good if it "benefits" people who are close to me."
How is "Ethics of care" different from "deontologist ethics for close people"?
"An action is good if that is the "duty" I should do for those who are close to me"
There might already exist academic philosophers who argued that ethics of care is nothing new, or who put 'ethics of care' as a subcategory of the three major meta-ethical views, creating such terms like "consequentialist ethics of care", "deontological ethics of care", "virtue ethics of care".
If there are, it would be valuable to add their comments and works to this article.Cosfly (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
