Ethics! Module 23: The Ethics of Care

Photo: Justin Lubin / NBC.

The theories of Normative Ethics in this course have so far been driven by articulating universal and impartial moral principles. They are universal insofar at they apply to all people everywhere; they are impartial insofar as they do not allow special treatment to any particular individuals. Such principles may have their appeal, though they also seem in stark contrast to our lived experiences. That is, our lives involve a myriad of different relationships, each of which seems to generate its own special responsibilities on you. One approach to ethics that attempts to accomodate such particularity and partiality is the Ethics of Care, which is the subject of this module.

This module has 4 learning outcomes. When you finish it, you will be able to…

Describe the basic elements of an Ethics of Care,
Compare and contrast the stages of moral development proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg with those from Carol Gilligan,
Summarize the feminist argument against there being a particularly “female” or “feminine” form of ethics, and
Reflect on whether your own special responsibilities to the people in your life can be integrated with more universal concerns for justice and impartiality.

Read & Annotate This:

Feminism and the Ethics of Care

Context

In the 1970s and 80s, feminist writers began to question the basic assumptions behind many traditional ethical theories. In particular, they challenged the idea that ethics consists solely in adherence to general rules and principles. In contrast to that, these writers pointed to an Ethics of Care that centers on the moral importance of relationships, emotion, and responsiveness to the needs of others. The chapter from James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2018) provides some analysis on this type of moral theory.

The Ethics of Care is sometimes presented as a “female” or “feminine” form of ethics. However, not all feminists agree that Ethics of Care should be identified in that way. That is why I have included (in the optional “Curious for More?” section below) an article by British philosopher Jean Grimshaw (1991). She provides a critical analysis of the implications of believing that there is a distinctive “female ethic”.

Earn Bonus Philosopher’s Stones!

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find much information about Grimshaw online, except for this obituary. She really deserves a Wikipedia page . Tell you what, if you make a classy wikipedia page about her, I’ll award you some bonus philosopher’s stones. (The precise bonus will be determined by the quality of the page, whether you did it alone or with some classmates, etc.) The wikipedia page for James Rachels provides a good example to emulate.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

James Rachels and Stuart Rachels discuss Lawrence Kohlberg’s experiments on moral development along with the response from Carol Gilligan. What were these experiments? What results does Kohlberg conclude from them? How is Gilligan’s analysis different? How do Gilligan’s insights seem to support the idea of an “Ethics of Care”?
What problems do Rachels and Rachels see in a female ethic or an ethics of care? What benefits do they see?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.