Assess The Moral Solutions Through "Care"

Assess the moral solutions arrived at through "care" (care-based ethics) and "rights" ethics to social issues of ethical import such as poverty, drug use, and/or lack of health care

In week three, we examined rights ethics with regard to John Locke’s theory. Locke asserted that humans possess inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and that violating these rights is immoral. Many contemporary debates extend this view, proposing that individuals have additional rights, such as access to healthcare, which imply that the state has a duty to provide medical needs to its citizens. Rights theory emphasizes respecting entitlements that are morally justified, suggesting that some rights, especially those deemed inalienable, cannot be ethically violated even with consent. This contrasts with needs, which refer to physical requirements necessary for survival, such as food or shelter, but do not necessarily confer moral entitlement.

Rights are about what individuals are morally entitled to, while needs relate to basic physical necessities—things individuals require for existence. For example, we need food to survive, yet many go hungry, demonstrating that needs are not always fulfilled or protected. Asking whether we have a right to food involves moral considerations related to justice and entitlement, whereas needs are determined by biological and material necessity. Rights pertain to moral entitlement to ownership or access, such as property rights; we have a right to own property, but we do not need property to live, only for certain social or personal reasons. This distinction informs how ethical frameworks address social issues like poverty, drug use, and healthcare access.

Applying care-based ethics, which focuses on relationships, compassion, and the responsibilities arising from human interconnectedness, suggests that society has a moral obligation to care for vulnerable individuals. Care ethics prioritizes nurturing, empathy, and support, emphasizing that addressing issues like poverty and lack of healthcare involves fostering community and concern for others’ well-being. Under this approach, solutions might include community-based programs, social safety nets, and policies that prioritize care and support rather than mere rights or legal entitlements.

Rights ethics, with its emphasis on respecting individual entitlements, would propose that social issues be addressed through the recognition and protection of fundamental rights. For example, acknowledging a right to healthcare would mean ensuring that access to medical services is protected as a moral entitlement, potentially through legal frameworks or policy mandates. Rights-based solutions focus on safeguarding individual autonomy and preventing rights violations, such as denying someone healthcare based on socioeconomic status. This perspective advocates for the protection and expansion of entitlements to reduce social inequalities.

Considering these approaches, the solutions derived from care ethics and rights ethics each have strengths and limitations. Care ethics emphasizes compassion and relational responsibilities, which can foster community solidarity but may lack clarity in policy enforcement or universal application. Rights ethics provides a clear legal and moral framework for protecting individual entitlements but can risk ignoring relational responsibilities and social contexts. Evaluating their correctness depends on the context; for instance, rights-based approaches effectively safeguard individual freedoms, but may overlook the importance of empathetic care that addresses social disparities.

My own approach integrates both frameworks, recognizing that social issues require respect for individual rights while also emphasizing compassion and relational responsibilities. A combined approach ensures that rights are protected, but also that society actively cares for its vulnerable members through supportive measures and community engagement. Policies should uphold rights to health and basic needs while fostering a culture of care, empathy, and social responsibility.

References

• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. UCLA Press.
• Engel, S. (1990). Morality and the good life: An introduction to ethics theory. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 7(3), 285-304.
• Friedman, M. (2008). Justice, Care, and the Role of the State. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(2), 119-147.
• Kymlicka, W. (2002). Social justice and communities of care. Political Theory, 30(2), 248-273.
• Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.
• Baier, A. (1985). Moral prejudice and moral perception: An essay in the philosophy of care. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(1), 54-72.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition). Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.