The Ethic of Care

I. Introduction
Feminism is a belief in the right of woman to have political, social and economic equality with man. It is a discourse that encompasses various movements, theories, and philosophies. The subject matters ranges from gender difference, advocate equality for woman to campaign for woman’s rights and interests. The chronology of feminist movement divides into three stages. The seed was first planted in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the movement deepened during the period 1960 to 1980 and the third stage extended from the 1990 to the present. Contemporary feminist political theory diversifies in both scopes and convictions. There are liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and libertarian feminism etc. However, the conviction to eliminate the subordination of woman unites the different strands of feminist theory
II. The Ethics of Care
The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. It was initially inspired by the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan.
Gilligan maintained that the history of ethics in the Western culture emphasized the justice view of morality because tradition had it cultivated and steered by man. And woman was traditionally taught a different kind of moral that focused on caring about one’s relationship and community.
The feminists labeled the ethical views such as utilitarianism and deontology or Kantian ethics a “justice view” of morality. The feminists care-focused theory proposes a paradigm shift in ethics encourages that an ethic of caring be the social responsibility of both man and woman. Gilligan maintained that these two “moral projects” are “fundamentally incompatible”.
III. A Psychological Experiment - Carol Gilligan
The traditional patriarchal system naturally evolved man to exercise influence and control over woman. The division of public and domestic spheres surely affected the different modes of thought and feeling between man and woman. For this, Carol Gilligan conducted a psychological research and she published her findings in her book titled “In a different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development” in 1982.
Gilligan’s research was, in essence, a psychological experiment. She assimilated a scene to put a boy and a girl caught in between a moral dilemma. The scene was that a man went to a drugstore to purchase medicine for his ailing wife. Upon arrival at the drugstore, the man found that the price of the medicine was beyond his means. Now the question is: Should he steal the medicine? When confronted this question, the 11 years old boy gave an affirmative answer and said the man should steal the medicine for his wife. The boy maintained that life is important and the man got to steal the medicine because it was a matter of life or death. And the loss of the pharmacist could be compensated by making profits on other customers. When confronted the same scene, an 11 year old girl was hesitant. She considered that the man should not steal the medicine. She maintained that the wife might be cured or saved by the medicine. The man might be caught and ended up behind bars and, thus, could not look after his wife.
It was evident that the boy deployed certain principles to ascertain its feasibility and hence derived his line of thought. He displayed the ability to think in the basis of principle. The girl considered the situation in terms of maintaining (not to dissociate in entirety) relationship with the pharmacist. Gilligan, thus, raised the issue that the moral emotion of man and woman differ. Man tends to be rational and fair and Gilligan termed this as “ethic of justice”. And, on the other hand, woman inclines to act according to instinct and emotion. Gilligan termed this as “ethic of care”.
IV. Different Moral Voices
Gilligan’s “fundamentally incompatible” findings (different moral voices) can be classified as:
(a.) Moral capacities: developing disposition (care) Vs learning principles (justice)
Contemporary theorists tends to focus more on “the best principles” rather than “how will individual act morally?”. Therefore, it is imperative that one can accurately interpret other people’s need is the key capacity.
The justice theorists concerns on ascertaining principles on the basis that moral capacities are to be derived as a natural sequence upon the formation of principles. They do not prioritize moral capacities because the sense of justice is derived from care which in turn begins at home. However, feminists consider that a gendered family is not just, hence, the foundation of just is in doubt. Yet, the justice theorists rarely face the issue at all.
(b.) Moral reasoning: response (care) Vs react (justice)
The care theorists maintain that people must deploy moral imagination, traits and behavior to address particular situation. We may not deploy general principle to explain moral. Particular situation deserves appropriate attention.
Naturally, not all the situations are related to morality. So, we have to exercise judgment. At this juncture, the question of moral principle emerge instead the question of moral emotion. Care theorists agree to turn to principle to adjudicate conflicts than to work out solutions to overcome them.
Kymlicka disagrees with the care theorists and maintains that even if we can accommodate “demand”, it is appropriate to provoke a conflict in order to make clear our stance.
(c.) Moral concepts: responsibilities & relationship (care) Vs rights & fairness (justice)
When it comes to principles, our focus is not we need principles or not but rather what kind of principles that can best serve the purpose. For this, let’s closely examine the following three different moral concepts:
(i.) Universality Vs particularity
Justice and care tends to different targets. The former emphasizes on impartiality and the latter aims at preserving the “web of on-going relationships”. As Gilligan puts it “morality is founded in a sense of concrete connection between persons….”. If interpreted this way, the care ethic runs the risk of excluding the most needy if the web is “small”. If the web is “big”, it generalizes. And also, care theorists may have difficulties in explaining how one is motivated to help strangers. When care ethic claims that “each person is connected to us by virtue of being another person”, then it is apparent that the care theorists are too adhered to the principle of universality.
(ii.) Respect for common humanity Vs respect for distinct individuality
The justice theorists concern with the generalized other while the care theorists focus on the distinct individual.
John Rawls’s “original position” in which people are blinded by “the veil of ignorance” clearly justifies the “generalized other” and neglects the “concrete other”. It is under such conditions, we can think and act as “free and equal” persons and “justice as fairness” can be achieved.
However, Susan Okin argues that “…we need as well a great commitment to benevolence, to caring about each other and every other as much as as about ourselves.”
(iii.) Rights Vs responsibilities
Gilligan’s research reveals that “subjectively-felt hurt appears immoral to woman whether or not it is fair” whereas man “tends to evaluate as immoral only objective unfairness – regardless of whether an act creates subjective hurt”.
The justice theorists stress on claiming rights while the care theorists emphasizes on accepting responsibilities. But the care theorists think that when a person is subjectively-felt hurt, he is entitled to expect others to take good care of him and his benefits. Just theorists disagree with this standpoint. Justice theorists maintain that one is to be held for complete responsibility for own benefits. Just theorists hold that for the reason of fairness, it is just to expect man to be able to take care of some (if not all) of his benefits.
The example of John, a man of no self-control and borrows money from his friend, Tom. According to the ethic of justice, Tom expects that his act of lending John money is non-responsible. But according to the ethic of care, if Tom does not lend John money, Tom is inflicting subjective harm on John. Thus, Tom is obliged to take care of John. But there are two draw backs with the care theory. Firstly, it is not only unfair to bring up subjective hurt as a reason for moral demand, but also covers up suppression. It is because the suppressed will always tries to adjust ones likes and dislikes and feeling no harm at all. Secondly, this theory does not demand oneself to shoulder much responsibility, but demands others to carry the maximum loads.
V. Issues at hand
To put things in a nut shell, the justice and care models develop under different circumstances. These two models cannot cover all our moral obligations. We can say that the ethic of care applies to our relations with dependants, while the ethics of justice applies to relations amongst “free and equal” adults. The distribution of care itself is an issue of justice. Justice theorists tend to believe that some people (women) will desire to care for others.
If we do just pop out of the earth like mushroom, then there is no problem to assume that we are responsible for our ends. But when we include the care and responsibility to dependants within the scope of justice, things become more complicated. John Rawls rejects the view that subjective hurt is the standard of moral claims.
On the other hand, the assumption that subjective hurts give rise to moral claims is plausible to the extent that we generalize from the caring relationships involved in child-rearing. A baby is not at all responsible for its needs, and cannot be expected to attend to its parent’s welfare.
As we all know, the world is not composed of only able-bodied adults, therefore, the justice approach is wanting for the real world that we are in.
VI. Conclusion
In summing up, the entire elimination of sexual inequality not only requires the redistribution of domestic labour, but also a breakdown in the sharp distinction between public and domestic. This inevitably lead to certain activities or practices of care should be seen as an obligation a citizen.
Lastly, any adequate and sufficient theory of sexual equality must address the issue: to meet our responsibilities for dependent others without forsaking our autonomy and the notions of responsibility and justice that make it possible!