Diverse Perspectives of Ethical Care Theory - Research Paper Example

Ethics of Care Introduction In philosophical terms, the root of life is metaphysics, the trunk of life is epistemology, or the theory of knowledge and the fruit of life is ethics or moral philosophy. Ethics is one out of the five branches of philosophy namely metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics or art, ethics and political philosophy. Ethical and moral dilemmas, questions about morality, concern regarding what is good and what is right, how to judge between good and right, how to maintain and prevail justice, what is virtue and what are values. In addition, who is responsible for deciding this, to what extent we are abide to follow these and other questions like these come under the umbrella of moral philosophy. Interestingly, these questions are not new; neither are they the product of the global advancement or any revolution, but they have been there in the human minds right from the existence of human species on earth (Clarke, & Simpson, pp. 23-88, 1989). Usually the first step of moving forward with a discussion on any topic, is to define that topic comprehensively with an commonly, if not universally agreed definition. However, this is not the case with moral philosophy. The way we would define morality would change the overall course of definition. This is because, there are so many moral theories that have developed over the past centuries, and their basic difference lies in the way in which they define “morality” (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). Now before moving forward, there is a need to make an important distinction between ethics and morality. Despite the fact that a nonprofessional and even many philosophers do not make any distinction between these two terms but most of the philosophers agree that there lays a clear distinction between both of these terms. Ethics focuses on its attempt to study the concept of good or bad in the society and the theoretical foundations, which makes things right or wrong. One the other hand, morality studies individual examples and instances of good or bad. In other words, “morality is the code of conduct put forward by the society or any group” (Clarke, & Simpson, pp. 23-88, 1989). As stated earlier in the paper that the difference in the definition of ethics is one of major reasons behind emergence of so many ethical theories. One of the basic differences between these ethical theories is that some of these follow the descriptive definition of morality while the majority of accept the normative definition of morality. In descriptive terms, “morality refers to a code of conduct put forward by a society or some other group such as religion and accepted by an individual for his or her own behavior” (Clarke, & Simpson, pp. 23-88, 1989). Now, to take “morality as existing code of conduct, put forward by a society” (Clarke, & Simpson, pp. 23-88, 1989), builds the foundation of denying the notion that there is “universal morality,” that is pertinent to every individual living in this world. Accepting this definition (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003) puts us in a new debate of comparing and contrasting it with other forms of code of conduct, which are put forward by societies. Law, etiquette, and religion are the most common of them. Etiquette is sometimes confused with morality however; philosophers like Hobbes have drawn clear distinctions between both of these. Etiquettes are principles, or even if accepted as code of conduct, then those ones, that are less serious then morality. According to Hobbes “By manners I not mean here decency of behavior, as how one man should salute another, or how a man should wash his mouth or pick his teeth before company and such other points of small morals, but those qualities of mankind that concern their living together in peace and unity” (Katz, Noddings, & Strike, pp. 45-94, 1999). The major distinction between legal system or law and morality is made by labeling the law as the enforced code of conduct by fines, punishment and all the individuals in the society would accept penalties, however, morality in its truest sense voluntarily. Moreover, there are often critics on the legal system and the law on moral grounds. In fact, by keeping moral grounds and principles of morality in mind, lawmakers often provide interpretation to their law (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). The point, which brings distinction between religion and morality, is that, religion includes stories and myths regarding their supernatural heroes for creating their code of conduct. In addition, at many times we find moral standards and religious teachings clashing with each other. Another point that is worth noting is that whatever religion asks to do or prohibits doing is always greater than what the moral standards say (Clarke, & Simpson, pp. 23-88, 1989). Moreover, at many occasions society’s moral standards often criticize religious morals for elements like discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, race, class, gender, etc. In addition, with all these concepts, similarities and distinctions, in descriptive sense morality also refers to some thing, which is the same for an individual as it is for the whole society. For instance, the morality of west would be the same of a particular person from west. As stated earlier in the paper, that by accepting the descriptive definition of morality the concept of a universal morality because morality becomes something put forward by a group or a society that would differ from group to group and society to society (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999). Therefore, the principles on which the society would build its morality would differ and the principles, which they would rank as the most important in the code of conduct, would vary. Most common elements that could be the most important in any society’s morality could be sacredness and clarity, acknowledging the power, being faithful with the cluster, and averting damage to others. In its descriptive sense, morality might allow actions that are technically viewed by public to be immoral for example slavery or discrimination on basis of race, creed, cast or color. Neither universality nor impartiality is there in the descriptive sense of moral philosophy (Frey, &.Morris, pp. 112-149, 1991). The above discussion was happening keeping in mind a homogenous structure of society where not many groups have strong and potentially dominant moralities. However, in large societies, this is not the case. Group may have different morality than what the society’s standards are. In that case, what would one call it? (Rachels, pp. 12-19, 1999) Conflicting moralities or conflicting elements within moralities? In addition, it is not necessary that in all large groups people would accept the code of conduct and behave accordingly (Baier, pp. 23-41, 1995). While using morality in normative sense, it refers to a guide of behavior that asks the individual to avoid and prevent harm to others. In normative sense, morality becomes free two of the basic conditions of descriptive sense; firstly, that it should be a code of conduct put forward by the society and each individual of society accepts it (Geirsson, & Holmgren, pp. 14-19, 2000). Normative philosophers are of the view that “morality is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons consider for governing their behaviors” (Darwall, pp. 23-24, 1998). With this view as base, it implies no perfect society has all the features of the universal and perfect morality and therefore societies have “defective moralities.” However, on the other hand, despite of these defective moralities, individuals throughout the human history had and have the ability to uncover these universal principles of morality through rational questioning (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999). Philosophers, who do not agree to the perfect and worldwide knowledge of all principles of morality, argue that at least people who are legally judged for their more behavior have this knowledge but the true sense of morality. “All philosophers consider all killing, lying, deceiving, breaking promises, and causing pain as immoral” (Katz, Noddings, & Strike, pp. 45-94, 1999). Although some philosophers also regard charitable actions as a part of morality but again there has been no emphasis on providing justifications for not doing charitable actions in the same way in justifications are required for killing, lying and other immoral. The most common question that arises here is that what is more important and what makes the actions moral or immoral? Is it action or its consequences? (Darwall, pp. 23-24, 1998) For instance, what if the consequences are lying are positive at some situation? Does it make lying acceptable? (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999) The answers lie in the deontological and teleological differences between moral philosophers. Philosophers hold the deontological view in moral philosophy regard actions more important and considerable than their actions. No matter whatever the consequences in short or long term are, if the actions are immoral on rational grounds, there is no ground for any justification because the society takes it as an immoral action. “Here ends never justify the means.” The complete opposite is the teleological theories where “ends always justify the means” (Baier, pp. 23-41, 1995) For philosophers who hold the teleological view believe that consequences are more important than actions and only after viewing the results one can decide that the actions are moral or immoral. Jeremy Bentham’s ethical theory of Hedonism is a teleological theory according to which he argues that “good is what produces greatest good for the greatest number” (Hursthouse, pp. 12-14, 18-26, 52-58, 1999). In addition, he also assumes human beings motivated by “pleasure and pain” (Hursthouse, pp. 12-14, 18-26, 52-58, 1999). Surprisingly, he also presents a hedonic calculus to calculate pleasure and pain. This hedonic calculus depends upon four factors namely intensity, duration, extent, and certainty (Schott, pp. 25-74, 1997). In other words, morality revolves around the net pleasure of a person that is pleasure minus the pain. One thing that is important to remember here that Hedonism strongly argues that while producing good or pleasure for your own self the good and pleasure deserves consideration (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). However, the problem with this theory is that the word “pleasure” is ambiguous and not completely clear here. Different people may have different meanings of pleasure and it varies from person to person as well. Is pleasure a constant experience and any cross time relationships are possible? However, the basic focuses here still remains the teleological nature since it talks about achieving the greatest good for greatest number in any possible way. Therefore, the consequences are more important than the actions and based on results the society and experts judge the morality of actions (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999). Very similar to hedonism is another theory of moral philosophy commonly known as utilitarianism. Presented by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is a teleological moral theory, which has its roots in criticism of hedonism (Baron, Pettit, &.Slote, pp. 38-112, 1997). Mill had a couple of important concerns over Bentham’s idea of hedonism. He argued that hedonism fails to distinguish between higher and lower or good and bad pleasures (Clement, pp. 74-85, 1996). It is not important everything that gives pleasure is good and morally right in rational terms. Mill in his book of utilitarianism put forwards his idea in these words, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Baier, pp. 23-41, 1995) (Katz, Noddings, & Strike, pp. 45-94, 1999). Therefore, Mill argues than the lower pleasures that are physical are not as important as the higher pleasures that are intellectual. In addition, utilitarianism divides in to Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism (Baron, Pettit, &.Slote, pp. 38-112, 1997). The former argues that the principle of utility applies on every single situation and thus principles of morality and their applications changes from situation to situation; however, the later is completely the opposite. The problems with utility are also very serious. Many philosophers argue that there is no assurance in terms of consequences of an action (Baron, Pettit, &.Slote, pp. 38-112, 1997). “What if a person ends up getting unexpected and immoral results for his action that he was hoping to prove out as morally justified?” (Hursthouse, pp. 12-14, 18-26, 52-58, 1999) Aristotle’s virtue theory of ethics takes a very different course of action from many of the other teleological and deontological theories (Rachels, pp. 17-19, 1997). It does not get into the debate of actions and consequences and their importance rather it places the virtue or character of the subject. In this wider picture, along with Aristotle, Plato, and other philosophers express their views that virtue ethics does not talk about good actions but about good people (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999). Morality of actions depends upon and stems from all the actions that one performs during his life, or in other words his overall character. Therefore, morality in virtue theory places emphasis on being rather than doing (Gilligan, 112-119, 1993). For instance, a deontological philosopher may argue that stealing is prohibited under all circumstances regardless of the consequences, intentions or any other elements (Baier, pp. 23-41, 1995). On the other hand, a teleological philosopher would show more interest in examining the outcomes of it and if the outcomes appear to be fruitful the philosopher might regard it has morally correct. However, a virtue ethicist would disregard the examination of the action and its consequences but focus its effects and relation with the overall character and “being” of an individual (Clement, pp. 74-85, 1996). Ethics of Care Ethics of care is a normative ethical theory, one that disagrees to the fact that there is fixed and perfect code of conduct put forward by the society; however, they believe that through rational inquiry the universal morality can be uncovered. In fact, ethics of care is more of a revolution or a movement that gained a lot of global attention in the later half of the 20th century (Darwall, pp. 23-24, 1998). Many of leading experts of ethics of care are females who are of view that most of the existing moral theories, their principles, their approaches, and processes focus more on elements like justice, empathy, law and elements that are close to men (Clement, pp. 74-85, 1996). However, they tend to neglect the elements of friendship, sympathy, love, care, concern, kindness (Schott, pp. 25-74, 1997), consideration, closeness, thoughtfulness, and others that are more closely associated with women (Baron, pp. 1-5, 1999). Carol Gilligan focused much of her work in care ethics towards commenting on Freud assumption that men seem to be more morally developed than women are. He related this inferior rating of women due to their late psychosexual development (Denise, White, & Peterfreund, pp. 1-5, 19-23,105-109, 2004). One of the major motives behind this movement was to divert world’s attention towards the rights of woman and the people who are under privileged. This is the reason why this theory focuses so much on relationships, interdependence, care, and concern for others (Geirsson, & Holmgren, pp. 14-19, 2000). There are some underlying principles of this theory. Firstly, it is the fact that all individuals are interdependent on each other for the attainment for their goals and even their survival (Schott, pp. 25-74, 1997). At the second place, this normative ethical theory highlights a principle from the universal ethical code of conduct through rational reason that people who are underprivileged, needy, and vulnerable in comparison with others deserve more attention and consideration (Baier, pp. 23-41, 1995). However, the level of consideration should vary keeping in mind two important variables; firstly, it is their level of vulnerability and secondly, it is the extent to which they are affected our choices and actions (Hursthouse, pp. 12-14, 18-26, 52-58, 1999). Lastly, it is the urgentness or necessity of paying attention to the needs of the subjects. The followers of care theory argue that some ethical and moral duties upon all of us cannot be understood through the traditional and obsolete concepts of justice, virtue, and utility. This is because law primarily inspires all of these theories and duties related to relationships, care and concern have a different dimension than the former (Foot, pp. 2-7, 2002). The example of Malden mills is worth considering for understanding the difference between other theories and care theory of ethics. Aaron Feuerstien owned a factory of fabrics in Lawrence, Massachusetts with the name of Malden Mills (Frey, &.Morris, pp. 112-149, 1991). Unfortunately, the factory caught fire and it destroyed. It was quite predictable that what would be the next step of Aaron. He would take the insurance money and now build his factory in some third would country where he would get much cheaper labor. Neither, teleological approach of philosophy nor deontological approach regards his behavior as immoral (Darwall, pp. 23-24, 1998). In fact, he gets legal protection and full freedom from the constitution to do it so. However, Aaron did something that surprised the world. He continued to pay his workers and gave them all the bonuses and benefits that they would have been getting if the factory were operating (Scarre, pp. 78-79, 1996). Parallel to this, he rebuilt the factory and the same location and employed all his previous workers. Clearly, whatever Aaron did was a reflection of what Care ethics tells us to do. Placing relationships and caring people as the top most moral value (Frey, &.Morris, pp. 112-149, 1991). In addition, it would be injustice Nel Noddings concept of “feminine approach to ethics” remains undisguised. According to her, care is something, which is basic in human life, and every body wants to be cared. On this notion, she defines the notion of ethical caring in these words, “A state of being in relation, characterized by receptivity, relatedness, and engrossment” (Noddings, 5-51, 2003). As she moves forward, she tries to explore the human actions, feelings and processes when he or she engages in the behavior of caring. She argues that the first outcome of caring is that one finds that he or she is acting in receptive way and paying special attention. Nel Noddings calls this state as sympathy stage. Furthermore, she adds that this caring encounter has three prominent stages. At first X recognizes the need for care of Y and pays attention towards it. Secondly, X performs some action that shows its concern and care for Y. finally, it is also important for Y to recognize it (Foot, pp. 2-7, 2002). Another important distinction that needs makes is regarding the concepts of “caring for and caring about” (Noddings, 5-51, 2003). The above presented example shows caring for, a situation in which the cared-for and the carer make direct and face to face contact. However, it does not happen in all care encounters. For example, today many people in the west seem concerned about the situation in Palestine, Kashmir, Somalia and third world countries about they are not in direct contact with them, even though they can perform actions that can express their care (Gilligan, 112-119, 1993). This is what Nel Noddings refers to “caring about.” She says that the aspect of caring-about needs more attention because of the fact that people listen, they discuss, they talk, they give five dollars in charity, and then they forget. As she mentions in her book, “The key, central to care theory, is this: caring-about (or, perhaps a sense of justice) must be seen as instrumental in establishing the conditions under which caring-for can flourish. Although the preferred form of caring is cared-for, caring-about can help in establishing, maintaining, and enhancing it. Those who care about others in the justice sense must keep in mind that the objective is to ensure that caring actually occurs. Caring-about is empty if it does not culminate in caring relations” (Denise, White, & Peterfreund, pp. 1-5, 19-23,105-109, 2004) (Noddings, 5-51, 2003). In addition, this concept of caring-about successfully cultivates the concept of a society where people initially cared-for, end up caring-about all others. A couple of important points that must be noted here are that according to the Noddings, concept of care ethics, there is no possible way in which an individual can care-about universally. In addition, she has also discouraged the notion of translating her theory into a formal political theory (Noddings, 5-51, 2003). Viewing this theory in a wider global context brings us to a situation where it feels that caring-about is important. According to the recent statistics (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003), more than half of the world (more than 3.3 billion people) lives below the poverty line (that is they earn less than 2.50 US dollars per day). Almost a billion people that entered into the 21st century were illiterate. In addition, around 1.1 billion people all around the world do not have proper access to water for their daily usage (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). Moreover, 2.5 billion people on this planet lack the facility of sanitation (Denise, White, & Peterfreund, pp. 1-5, 19-23,105-109, 2004). In the last decade, just because of military operations and wars, more than 2 million children died all over the world. Statistics that are more surprising reveal that the richest twenty percent people of the globe have more than three-fourth percent of the world’s resources, and the poorest world’s twenty percent population consumes less than one percent of the world’s resources (Foot, pp. 2-7, 2002). The amount that Europe and United states spends every year on perfumes is twice the amount that can make sure that every child in the world would have the facility of education (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). Moreover, only two percent of the amount of military spending is spent to make sure that every individual in the world gets the facility of basic health and nutrition. The other side of the picture that shows the reality regarding women is also discouraging. Someone beats a woman after every eight seconds in United States (Darwall, pp. 35-37, 2003). If randomly tested, then one out of every six women in the United States would accept that she has been a victim of rape or either rape attempt. The situation for women is even worse in third world and developing countries were there are low rates of literacy. All these figures point out the fact that many people in the world are in some severe crisis. Most of them are living a life which is certainly is even worse than death. All this is calling the humanity to come into action. It is difficult to call this world or anyone as morally upright when his fellow beings on this same planet are suffering like anything and he or she is not bothering to react or make an effort. Ethics of care theory provides a solution for this injustice and critical situation happening all round the globe. If everyone in this world decides to follow this care ethics theory then the overall scenario would definitely improve. If everyone seriously decides to “care-about” every suffering person on this planet, then this world would definitely become a better place to live (Hursthouse, Lawrence, & Quinn, pp. 13-46, 1998). Not only the philosophers that accept and present this theory would agree to this approach; however, so many other people around the world are indirectly following this approach. Non-governmental organizations, Social service centers, Welfare centers and many other international organizations, in their own ways, have been giving the message of “care-about” to the masses (Gilligan, 112-119, 1993). It is due to their efforts of care about people effected from Tsunami in the South Asia were able to live their lives one more time. A world that would not have any degree to “care-about” concept would not take long to destruct. Because, history and rationality tells us that inequality only leads to destruction. The underprivileged when would find no hope for change, then they would finally decide to attack the privileged ones with all their power (Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, pp. 14-78, 1997). Conclusion Experts and philosophers have diverse perspectives over ethical care theory and still there is huge amount of research happening on this topic. Still, this paper brings us in a good position to conclude that on grounds of social welfare, humanity and in wider global context the ethics of care theory, despite being inclined towards women, is has edge over the other theory that fails to address important, practical human and daily life concepts of relationship and issues related to it. In addition, it also seems that the world can be changed into a better place for living for us and for the coming generations. It is not about giving it a higher status than other theories of ethics that are classical in nature from great philosophers like Aristotle and Plato but it is about accepting it at least in terms of “caring-about” concepts. Ethics of care seems to be an ethical theory that has the capability of becoming a universal theory, a theory that can bring positive change in the world and lead us towards prosperity and development. References Baier, Annette. (1995). Moral prejudices: essays on ethics. Harvard University Press. Baron, Marcia W. (1999). Kantian ethics almost without apology. Cornell University Press. Baron, Marcia, Pettit, Philip, &.Slote, Michael A. (1997). Three methods of ethics: a debate. Wiley-Blackwell. Clarke, Stanley G., & Simpson, Evan. (1989). Anti-theory in ethics and moral conservatism. SUNY Press. Clement, Grace. (1996). Care, autonomy, and justice: feminism and the ethic of care. Westview Press. Darwall, Stephen L. (1998). Philosophical ethics. Westview Press. Darwall, Stephen L. (2003). Virtue ethics. Wiley-Blackwell. Denise, Theodore C., White, N., & Peterfreund, Sheldon P. (2004). Great Traditions in Ethics. Thomson/Wadsworth. Foot, Philippa. (2002). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Oxford University Press. Frey, Raymond Gillespie., &.Morris, Christopher W. (1991). Violence, terrorism, and justice. Cambridge University Press. Geirsson, Heimir, & Holmgren, Margaret Reed. (2000). Ethical theory: a concise anthology. Broadview Press. Gilligan, Carol. (1993). In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press. Hursthouse, Rosalind, Lawrence, Gavin, & Quinn, Warren. (1998). Virtues and reasons: Philippa Foot and moral theory: essays in honor of Philippa Foot. Oxford University Press. Hursthouse, Rosalind. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press. Katz, Michael S., Noddings, Nel, & Strike, Kenneth A. (1999). Justice and caring: the search for common ground in education. Teachers College Press. Noddings, Nel. (2003). Caring: a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. University of California Press. Rachels, James. (1997). Can ethics provide answers. Rowman & Littlefield. Rachels, James. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill College. Scarre, Geoffrey. (1996). Utilitarianism. Routledge. Schott, Robin May. (1997). Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant. Penn State Press. Taylor, Jill McLean, Gilligan, Carol, & Sullivan, Amy M. (1997). Between voice and silence: women and girls, race and relationship. Harvard University Press. Read More