Ethical Competency Writing Assignment Description Phi 108 Sp

Ethical Competency Writing Assignment Descriptionphi 108 Spring 2019d

For your ethical competency writing assignment, you will analyze a disagreement between two authors or viewpoints discussed this semester. You will start by clearly specifying and focusing on a particular claim or passage from the initial general statement of disagreement, setting up a focused debate. Then, you will articulate a substantial objection from one viewpoint to the other, aiming to deepen understanding and raise a meaningful question or implication, not just restate the disagreement. Following this, you will respond to the objection in a way that demonstrates understanding of its seriousness and explores its implications, leading to a creative and thoughtful reply. The paper should foster a genuine dialogue between the perspectives, avoiding superficial objections or overly easy refutations. The final submission must be approximately 1000 words, citing at least 10 credible sources, and include well-supported in-text citations and a References section. The structure should include an introduction, body, and conclusion, with a clear progression of argumentation. You must also include a preliminary precis summarizing your focus, objection, and response, due before the final paper submission. The assignment emphasizes critical analysis, engagement with philosophical texts, and depth of reflection on ethical disagreements.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will critically analyze a disagreement between two prominent philosophical perspectives discussed during the semester, focusing specifically on the debate between Rawls’ theory of justice and the objections raised by Nel Noddings and Eva Kittay regarding the conception of agency, identity, and responsibility in political liberalism. The task involves first honing the disagreement by clarifying the exact nature of the critique Noddings and Kittay provide against Rawls’ framework.

Rawls’ theory emphasizes justice as fairness and the construction of social institutions that secure basic rights and liberties, often abstracting from questions of the good life and individual moral development. Conversely, Noddings and Kittay challenge this view by emphasizing the importance of care, relational responsibilities, and the moral significance of vulnerability and dependency, which they argue are insufficiently addressed in liberal contractarian theories. They critique Rawls for neglecting the moral and political implications of care and the realities of human interdependence, which are fundamental to ethical life. My focus will be on how these concerns highlight a perceived disconnect between justice as fairness and the obligations arising from care relationships.

Next, I will develop a strong objection from Rawls’ perspective, questioning whether emphasizing care and vulnerability might undermine the universal and impartial character of justice. Specifically, I will argue that elevating care as a fundamental virtue risks partiality and favoritism, which threaten the principles of fairness and equal respect for persons foundational to Rawls’ theory. This objection raises the question of whether care can be sufficiently impartial or just when individual relationships are inherently particularistic and emotionally driven.

In response, I will consider how Rawls might argue that principles of justice can and should be rooted in an impartial standpoint, while recognizing the importance of care in moral life. I will explore how Rawls’ doctrine of the original position and the veil of ignorance could be extended to incorporate considerations of vulnerability and dependence, thus bridging the gap between justice and care without compromising impartiality. This response aims to show that the insights of Noddings and Kittay can complement Rawls’ framework, enriching our understanding of justice as including attentiveness to individuals’ vulnerabilities and relational needs.

Through this dialogue, I will demonstrate that a more integrated perspective—one that respects the fairness of social institutions while acknowledging fundamental moral commitments to care—offers a richer account of social justice. This approach aligns with the broader ethical project of balancing individual rights with relational responsibilities, ultimately illustrating that addressing their objections furthers both theoretical coherence and moral responsiveness.

References

• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. University of California Press.
• Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. Routledge.
• Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. Oxford University Press.
• Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. Cambridge University Press.
• Tronto, J. (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care. Routledge.
• Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.