Part Of The Information You Will Need For The Discussion

Part Ithe Information That You Will Need For the Discussion Can Be Fou

Part I The information that you will need for the discussion can be found in Case 11, p. 19; of Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. For this cases, identify the parties and the moral issue(s) at stake, keeping an eye out for similarities that it shares with the other cases. Concentrate on identifying the relationships among the individuals. What relationships of care need to be maintained or developed?

Part II In this week's module we saw that the ethics of care views human life in terms of cycles of attachment. Overlapping relations and cycles of relations make up who we are as individuals. We do not get a sense of who we are by detaching ourselves from our relations with others. This contrasts with the conception of defining the self in separation from and even opposition to others. Do you agree with the idea that we are who we are in terms of our relations, and that we are neither independent nor separate?

In the AVP for this week we also saw that Gilligan rejects Kohlberg's assumption of a hierarchical ordering that places abstract thinking above thinking in terms of narratives involving human relations when trying to gauge the moral development of individuals. Do you see her critique as a strong one? And if so, what might the success of her critique suggest about employing similar feminist approaches to other areas of the Western philosophical tradition beyond just ethics—such as metaphysics or epistemology? These disciplines too, have tacitly assumed—at least since the Enlightenment—that genuine insight into the nature of reality and the structure of truth is to be arrived at via a penchant for abstract thinking, universalizable principles, and a strict adherence to rationality. For instance, how might a feminist, or what other philosopher's have called a “Communitarian”, approach to the metaphysical question concerning the nature of the individual, or self—and what it means to be one—contrast with what Hobbes or Kant took the self to be?

Paper For Above instruction

The critical examination of ethical issues often begins with identifying key parties and understanding the moral dilemmas at play. In the context of Case 11 from "Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues," the parties involved are typically the individuals directly impacted by the ethical situation, along with any institutions or societal entities that hold stakes in the matter. Analyzing these parties involves discerning their relationships, roles, and responsibilities to evaluate the moral issues effectively.

The moral issues at stake often revolve around principles of care, justice, autonomy, and duty. For instance, if the case involves healthcare ethics, it might question the balance between patient autonomy and professional responsibility. Identifying the relationships among the involved individuals—such as patient-doctor, parent-child, or employer-employee—helps clarify what relationships of care need nurturing or protection. These relationships form the foundation upon which ethical decisions should be made, emphasizing the importance of maintaining trust, compassion, and mutual respect.

The ethics of care, articulated by theorists like Carol Gilligan, fundamentally challenges traditional models—such as Kohlberg's moral development theory—that prioritize abstract reasoning and universal principles. Instead, the ethics of care emphasizes that human life and morality are constituted through cycles of attachment and relational interdependence. Our identities are shaped through the web of overlapping relationships; we are never entirely independent or isolated entities. This perspective underscores that moral development cannot be fully understood without appreciating the nuanced and contextual nature of human relations.

Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg is robust in highlighting that moral reasoning is often rooted in relational contexts rather than abstract justice alone. Her perspective suggests that moral maturity involves the capacity to care for others within specific relational contexts, recognizing the complexities and particularities of human attachment. This critique has significant implications beyond ethics; it invites reevaluation of other philosophical domains such as metaphysics and epistemology, areas traditionally dominated by abstract, rationalist paradigms.

In metaphysics, a feminist or communitarian approach would challenge the Enlightenment assumption of the autonomous, self-sufficient individual. Instead, it would argue that our understanding of the self must incorporate the relational and social dimensions that constitute our identity. For example, a relational view of the self, influenced by thinkers like Martin Buber or Emmanuel Levinas, emphasizes the self as fundamentally intertwined with others, contrasting sharply with Hobbes' view of the self as a solitary, self-interested actor or Kant's conception of the rational, autonomous moral agent.

This relational perspective emphasizes that the self is constituted through interactions, communication, and shared existence. It recognizes that our identity is not merely a byproduct of individual rational capacities but also a tapestry woven from our social and relational engagements. Such a view aligns with feminist epistemology, which criticizes the myth of the detached, purely rational subject and advocates for understanding knowledge as situated, relational, and context-dependent.

Applying these insights across philosophical disciplines could lead to a more integrated and humane understanding of reality. For example, in epistemology, recognizing the social and relational nature of knowledge can foster more inclusive epistemic practices that value diverse perspectives and lived experiences. In metaphysics, it encourages an understanding of being as inherently relational, emphasizing interconnectedness rather than isolated existence.

In conclusion, the ethics of care and feminist critiques initiate a profound rethinking of traditional philosophical assumptions. They challenge the primacy of abstract rationality, advocating for a view of human existence as fundamentally relational. This shift has the potential to transform not only ethics but also metaphysics and epistemology, fostering a more holistic, interconnected understanding of reality and the self.

References

• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. II: The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Duquesne University Press.
• Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Newcastle: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. University of California Press.
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
• MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.