Homework answers / question archive / PLS NOTE: I CAN PROVIDE LOGIN TO THE BOOK IN CASE YOU DON’T HAVE IT   QUESTION "Ethical Theory Analysis Paper" Please be sure to follow the writing prompt in the "start here" page for this analysis paper

PLS NOTE: I CAN PROVIDE LOGIN TO THE BOOK IN CASE YOU DON’T HAVE IT   QUESTION "Ethical Theory Analysis Paper" Please be sure to follow the writing prompt in the "start here" page for this analysis paper

Philosophy

Share With

---

PLS NOTE: I CAN PROVIDE LOGIN TO THE BOOK IN CASE YOU DON’T HAVE IT

 

QUESTION

"Ethical Theory Analysis Paper"

Please be sure to follow the writing prompt in the "start here" page for this analysis paper.

There is a specific format for this paper and cited examples are required in each main body paragraph.  No citations should be in the introduction and conclusion as these should be in your own voice.  Please note the minimum length requirement.  1000 words is the minimum, and I encourage you to reach for excellence in your work.

No outside sources are allowed on any assignment in this course. Use only the assigned readings, critical thinking and your imagination!

 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOOK TO USE TO DO THE QUESTION

https://brytewave.redshelf.com/app/ecom/shelf  (LINK BOOK)

TITLE OF THE BOOK: The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature  

Author: Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, editors   

Publisher: Oxford University Press  

Edition information: Sixth Edition  

ISBN: 9780190607845 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW TO DO IT LECTURES ON IT

 

Unit 4 - Virtue Ethics AND Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care - Start Here!

UNIT 4 – Virtue Ethics AND Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care

Welcome to Unit 4.  For this unit, we turn to Chapter 6 on Virtue Ethics and Chapter 7 on Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care in our text, The Moral Life.

These two chapters are the second two chapters of our book and we continue our study of Moral Theories and Moral Character.  In this unit, there will be an analysis paper, which is a longer writing assignment, so please plan ahead!

 

Read the Text

Read the assigned pages of Chapter 6 AND Chapter 7 of The Moral Life.

The readings for Chapter 6 include pp. 311-342, 376-389, 402-418 (Aristotle, Macintyre, Frankena, Jesus of Nazareth, Kant, Epictetus).  This is NOT the whole chapter, but you are welcome to read the other passages.   The respective quiz will only have questions on the required pages and the corresponding lecture.  (The Aristotle reading is particularly important in this chapter for understanding Virtue Ethics).

All of Chapter 7 is assigned reading.  Even though there are only four different voices in this chapter, please make a note of each author’s important views and contributions.

For both chapters, ask yourself if you can agree with each author’s perspective(s) or not – and why or why not.

 

Write and Post an Analysis Paper

There are longer instructions for this paper! 

PLEASE FOLLOW THE WRITING PROMPT CAREFULLY.

This paper is different than a think piece, so note the instructions below and please email or post questions.  After you read the text and lectures carefully and write the paper following the requirements listed here, please post in the appropriate forum with the message heading “Ethical Theory Analysis Paper.”

On page 436 of The Moral Life, there is a quote from Annette Baier.  “The best moral theory has to be a cooperative product of women and men, [and] has to harmonize justice and care.  The morality it theorizes about is after all for all persons, for men and for women, and will need their combined insights.”  Therefore, if we harmonize justice and care, this statement implies that we may find the best moral theory possible.

Prior to the chapter on feminist ethics and the ethics of care, we have discussed three moral theories: utilitarianism, deontological ethics and virtue ethics. 

 

The question for this paper:

Which ONE of these three theories do you think would best harmonize with feminist ethics and the ethics of care to create the best possible moral theory?

 

This is an analysis paper, so you will be writing a longer paper, 3-4 pages double spaces, 11/12 point font (900-1,100 words) and you will need to provide analysis.  Analysis, in this case, means that you will need to provide examples from the text (and cite them appropriately) for the two theories that you will harmonize in your paper.  You will then discuss and analyze how a better moral theory results from the theories you have chosen.

 

This is an academic paper, so please include:

1. An introductory paragraph where you clearly state which one of the first three theories you think harmonizes best with feminist ethics and the ethics of care to create the best possible moral theory. Try to show how a better or more complete moral theory is developed when these theories are combined.  This paragraph should be in your own words with no quotes or citations.
2. In 3-5 short paragraphs, list and analyze examples from both theories (the theory you chose and feminist ethics/ethics of care). Note here that feminist ethics and the ethics of care are not identical, so be sure to identify which theories you are discussing. Analysis is important here.  Do not just list names or quotes, but try to provide your own original insights.  Your paper should answer some (not necessarily all) of these kinds of questions:  How can the theories you have chosen be harmonized?  What “good” comes out of combining them?  How can we measure the results?  How does this combination help to create more moral people?  Are there any possible negative results?  (Please know that you have flexibility, but be sure to be clear in your presentation and argumentation).  Note that each main body paragraph must have at least one cited example from the texts.
3. A conclusion that restates your argument and emphasizes the importance of the examples and analysis you have provided. This paragraph should be in your own words with no quotes or citations.

 

When you cite the text, include the author.  For example:  Aristotle says, “Ethics is cool,” (pg. 300, TML). – note: not an actual quote!  Try not to include very long or repetitive quotations.  Use your own original thinking!

Do not consult outside sources for your analysis paper.  Papers that use outside sources or are plagiarized will receive a 0/100 score.   

PLEASE NOTE THAT NO OUTSIDE SOURCES ARE TO BE USED ON ANY WRITING ASSIGNMENT IN THIS COURSE.  My reason for this is that all students should have the same material to read and ponder as you write your assignments and take the quizzes.  Each student brings in different experiences into the course, but during the course itself, we will focus on the texts that everyone will read together!

You will be graded according to five factors in the grading rubric on analysis papers, which is available on the course resources page: rhetorical sensitivity, content, high order thinking, clarity and mechanics.

You may type the post in word processing program (like Word).  It is much easier to edit it and then copy and paste into Blackboard.  The length requirement matters, and please try to keep the paper between 900-1,200 words.  I have tried to design the question so that you’ll need about 1,000 words to answer it fully.

If you have not yet looked at the student online resource for this course, I recommend it.  You may find it beneficial to look at the kinds of questions that are on the practice quizzes.  The link is also in the course resources folder: http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780190607845/student/ (Links to an external site.)

Reflect and Review

We have now read about four (or actually five) moral theories: utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics, feminist ethics and the ethics of care. 

In the next unit, we begin Part III on Moral Issues with Chapter 8, “Ethics and Egoism.” The chapter asks the question, “Why should we be moral?” and we are reading all of this relatively short chapter.  We’ll begin with one of my personal favorite examples from the study of ethics, a passage from Plato’s Republic on “The Ring of Gyges.”  We will also read chapter 9 on “Does Life Have Meaning?”  The readings for chapter 9 are fairly short and we will read the whole chapter.

If you have completed the activities for this unit prior to the deadline, then you may move on to the activities of the next unit.  However, if you are behind on some work and have not completed this unit’s tasks in the allotted time, look again at the syllabus where it describes “Late Work” (there is no such thing!) and the rationale for not getting credit for work that is posted late – unless you use a “Life Ring” – also described in the syllabus.

 

 

 

Contents of this Lecture

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics – Aristotle

The Virtues – Macintyre

A Critique of Virtue-Based Ethical Systems – Frankena

The Sermon on the Mount; The Good Samaritan – Jesus of Nazareth

Jealousy, Malice and Ingratitude – Kant

The Stoic Catechism – Epictetus and others

Looking Ahead

Virtue Ethics

After a few chapters of “action-based” ethics, we now turn to what can be called “person-building” or character-ethics by way of virtue.  The focus of virtue ethics is the development of a moral person.  As our text notes in the introduction to this chapter, “action-based ethics emphasizes doing, virtue ethics emphasizes being – being a certain kind of person who will no doubt manifest his or her being in actions or non-actions” (311).  Also noted is the relevant question, “what sort of person should I become?” 

Virtue ethics focus on the heart and personality of the agent.  The primary source of inspiration for contemporary versions of virtue ethics is – and this should be obvious when you read the text – Aristotle.  We begin with Aristotle’s voice, and it will remain strong throughout many of the other readings.

There is a list of people who “light up our moral landscape” on page 312, and while it is not necessary to agree with any specific list, it is important to understand that virtue ethics has a different focus than the previous theories we have discussed.  It is the character of the person (as a moral agent), rather than the actions of the person.  As we shall see, however, there are dissenting views and there is a question as to how we separate “character” from “actions” because virtue ethics still has a lot to say about doing.

Many courses on ethics begin with virtue ethics and especially Aristotle.  Instead, we have worked up to this point, so you will probably (hopefully) have some understanding on the terms and issues that we have discussed in the past few units.  You may want to quickly review the terminology from the unit on utilitarianism when we began the section on ethical theories.

I will briefly discuss some of the main points of the assigned passages below.

 

Virtue Ethics – Aristotle

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is one of the premier works on ethics generally and many courses on ethics focus on just this work.  We are provided with a fairly long passage from his book, and it should allow us to see the main points within his system of ethics. 

Aristotle systematizes and categorizes the virtues.  You will notice, however, that the passage does not begin with a discussion of ethics, but rather of happiness as the “good” to which all things aim.  If you have taken a philosophy course previously, you might remember that happiness, for Aristotle, is not a fleeting moment of instant gratification but is something much greater and more difficult to attain.  He first hints at happiness as something related to desire, and that which you do not have.  Eventually, we should see that for Aristotle, human beings always desire happiness for its own sake.

After the discussion of happiness, Aristotle focuses on reason and the rational part of the soul.  He points to the “three conspicuous types of life” (315): the sensual, political and the rational (or the life of thought).  He spends some time on political and social ideas here before turning to the more philosophical in Book II. 

There is a very important quote:  Aristotle claims that the “function of man is the activity of the soul in accordance with reason” (317).  The centrality of reason to Aristotle’s thought cannot really be questioned, but how that reason is deployed in determining virtue (or doing virtuous things) is crucial to understanding Aristotle’s ethics.

Book II begins with a short synopsis that encapsulates very important ideas.  For Aristotle, virtues are moral states.  He argues that moral virtues can best be acquired though practice and habit.  Studying about virtues will not create a virtuous person in Aristotle’s view – a person must actually do virtuous things to be moral.  For Aristotle therefore, the task of morality is not knowing and applying principles, but actually doing virtuous things.  So, for example, a person becomes just by doing what is just – and not by reading and pondering about what justice means.

For Aristotle, the mean between two extremes or vices provides a correct course of ethical action.  The two vices of excess and deficiency are discussed at length, so be sure to notice the examples Aristotle provides.  On page 325, Aristotle makes a reference “far from the spray and swell hold thou thy ship.”  When sailors would sail a boat close to a coastline, they needed to steer clear of the “spray” of the water on the rocks and also the “swell” of the rising and falling waves.  Aristotle is using this image to show the tenuous and difficult path of the moral mean between two evils.

Another message from Aristotle is that virtue is a “state of deliberate moral purpose" (323).  We need to recognize that ethics involves deliberate actions and Aristotle is showing the importance of intention or the will of a person.  Accidents do not make a person virtuous, but deliberate actions do.

Note how Aristotle’s passage ends.  He discusses choosing the lesser of two evils – this is, again, a plea to search for the mean in attaining virtue.

 

The Virtues – Macintyre

MacIntyre’s passage is from his longer work, After Virtue.  He refers to other areas of the text, but if you read carefully, you should be able to follow his outline of his arguments.

As noted in the introduction to the passage, for MacIntyre, virtues are relative to traditions or the customs within a society.  This is the single most important element throughout MacIntyre’s passage and near the end we should see how he opposes external and internal goods.  Note though, that he still considers external goods (possessions, health, etc.) as genuine goods (342).

He rightly points to the definition of the Greek word arête as “excellence” rather “virtue.”  He argues that for Aristotle, this arête refers to an excellence within moral standing.

Read his “partial and tentative” definition of virtue on page 337: “A virtue is an acquired human quality. . .”  Virtue is acquired – it must be earned or made in a sense.  Aristotle’s voice should be clear – a person becomes virtuous by doing virtuous things.

Notice the additions and adjustments to Aristotle that MacIntyre makes in his explanations of virtue ethics.

 

A Critique of Virtue-Based Ethical Systems – Frankena

In the introduction to the chapter (312), the authors note that Frankena argues “that whatever is valid about virtue ethics should be subordinate to a deontological system.”  This is important because we essentially need to read this passage as a criticism of virtue ethics.  This is the opposing view. 

One key idea that Frankena argues is that “Being without doing, like faith without works, is dead” (380).  There is a clear reference to the bible, but it is also a criticism of virtue ethics generally.  There can be no “moral character” without principles in Frankena’s view.  More formally, we would say that Frankena insists that (moral) traits without principles are blind. 

We should notice that Frankena is arguing the points of deontological ethics here, but he does see the value of virtue ethics, particularly toward the end of the passage.  Near the end of the passage, he comments that it is more desirable to have “people acting from motives like friendship, gratitude and honor . . .” instead of what he labels a “dry or driven sense of obligation” (388).  This was a major criticism of Kant’s deontology because of his focus on “duty.”

 

The Sermon on the Mount; The Good Samaritan – Jesus of Nazareth

The two short passages are here from the Bible.  The Sermon on the Mount includes what are known as the “Beatitudes.”  This is the section that begins “Happy are those….”  Some translations begin with “Blessed are those…”  There are varied interpretations of this very often quoted text, and many passages have been used as evidence of Jesus’ message of nonviolence and love for all humankind. The Good Samaritan is a short parable told by Jesus to his disciples.  It is often used to illustrate Jesus’ teaching about the love for neighbors (translated here as “fellow-man”).  At the end of this passage, Jesus asks, who is your neighbor? 

 

Jealousy, Malice and Ingratitude – Kant

Kant takes three vices and explores their impact on ethics within this short passage.  I want to introduce the context of Kant’s Lectures on Ethics, from which this passage was taken.  These are not Kant’s direct words, and the text was compiled from his students.  His audience for these lectures was generally young men (ages 15-19 or so) who were had just begun university studies.  Most of his students were in their mid-to-late-teens, and Kant took it upon himself to warn students about the “ways of the world” and give what he thought was straight-forward practical advice.  In other areas of his lectures, there are pages about how certain vices (sexual desire, envy, lying, cheating, and others) will destroy the soul.  His focus is generally on how to control one’s passions – which he saw as important for his young students.

Some of Kant’s authoritative tone comes through here in this passage and these three vices are particularly undesirable for Kant.  Note the comment on page 404: “The three vices which are the essence of vileness and wickedness are ingratitude, envy and malice . . .”

For practical – and perhaps still sound – advice from Professor Kant, look at the last paragraph about malice.  Kant tells us that the one who hates is more disturbed by his or her own hatred!

 

The Stoic Catechism – Epictetus and others

Stoicism is a very subtle and detailed school of thought.  There is a cultural definition of “stoic” or “stoicism” that generally refers to a person who shows no emotion and accepts the events that are happening around them (or things that are done to them).  This is just one of the important features within stoicism with regard to ethics. 

Emotions are generally seen as a weakness, and the stoic is careful to not let moral feeling stand in the way of right action.  Notice paragraph 1 (410), where Epictetus wants us to know that human beings cannot control certain events.  He simply says that some things are not up to us.  He then discusses that moderation is not always the answer – there are some things human beings should avoid altogether.  This is a reaction to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. 

Stoics were far from unfeeling or unemotional, and there is a sense in which there is a passion for the simple life.  Stoics cast aside luxury and reputation, but certainly embraced a life of thinking. 

In paragraph 11 (412), Epictetus asks the question, “What concern is it of yours....?”  There is a notion here of fate and gift-giving from the divine.  Whatever a person has, it is to be treated as a gift and “given back” at the appropriate time.  This “giving back” relates to everything in life, including life itself.

Note for Epictetus, nothing in the world is intrinsically evil (p. 414, paragraph 27).  This relates back to the idea in paragraph 5 that things do not upset people (for how could they if they are not evil?).  Rather the ideas about those things (ideas that people think and act on) are what really upset people and can bring about destructive emotions.

 

 

 

Lecture - Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care

 

Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care

As noted in the Crosthwaite passage, feminism has a unifying theme which is “the concern to understand and eliminate the oppression of women in all its guises” (p 450).  Feminist ethics attempts to bring this concern and related concerns into the ethical world.

For the first chapters of this part of the book we read about utilitarianism, deontological ethics and virtue ethics.  This chapter is a little different.  Many view feminist ethics as a kind of anti-ethical theory approach to ethics because it questions and critiques long-standing theories.  As the authors of the introduction to this chapter tell us, “Many feminists think that the familiar principles of Western ethics – autonomy, utility, freedom, equality, and the like – are too broad and abstract to help make moral decisions about specific persons who are enmeshed in concrete social situations” (p. 433).

There are a few important themes to mention at the outset.  There are undoubtedly more, but I will group them into four categories.  Our authors for this chapter, as you will see, will add to and modify these initial themes.  First, the principles or vocabularies of ethics are questioned within feminist ethics.  Secondly, and related to the first, these principles are thought to be too abstract and not related to actual human beings.  Thirdly, the particular outweighs the universal.  Lastly, the notion of care is either declared unimportant or altogether ignored.  I will briefly discuss these points further.

Feminist ethics questions the value or importance of certain concepts or ideas within the study of ethics.  For example, the ideas of autonomy and freedom as ethical ideas are usually defined and put in practice to create “autonomous moral agents.”  People are treated as individuals first, and only secondarily as social beings who have a dependence on one another. 

Following from the first theme, for example, equality is an abstract term.  While at first it seems sound to say that all people are treated equally, this is not the case in practice.  Parents treat their own children with a different priority than others (as perhaps they should).  Leaders of communities privilege their own citizens above others.  People in committed loving relationships treat their partners with a different priority than others.  Feminist ethicists tend to point out that universal rules may sound appealing, but they cannot really be put into practice – at least in any effective way.  The text tells us on page 433 that, “Theoretical autonomy does not mean much if it is to thoroughly undermined in reality.  You should note that Kant is a target of critique throughout this chapter.

The third point I want to mention is that the particular outweighs the universal.  This does not equate to moral relativism.  This is not something like “situational ethics.”  This means that particular groups of individuals, and feminist ethics focuses on specific classes of historically oppressed or ignored people (especially women and children) do not fall into certain categories.  Again, Kant is cited as saying that only a “moral agent” or only someone worthy of being called a (rational) person can attain equality, autonomy, freedom is capable of acting morally.  As a side note, while Kant did seem to have a complete disregard for the “rational” capabilities of women, we should note that he lived from 1724-1804 in Prussia (present day Russia).  While we may easily call him a “sexist” his views were certainly not unusual or thought of as demeaning during his lifetime.  We can and should critique them, but I want to note the context in which Kant lived and wrote.

Lastly, and what leads us to the ethics of care as an ethical theory unto itself is that feminist ethics generally holds that care as a part of ethics has been largely ignored.  Caring is considered a “vital part of morality” (435-6) and should be a part of any moral decision making process.  It is important to note that the ethics of care is not the same theory as feminist ethics but rather grows out of it.  It is important to recognize this difference.

The introduction ends with a quote from Annette Baier, who we read in the third passage, “The Need for More than Justice.”  She tells us that the best moral theory harmonizes care and justice, and that men and women must work together to produce the best moral theory.

I only briefly introduce and discuss the readings below.  These readings should be much more accessible (and less technical) than those of Kant, Bentham and Mill for example.   Please do email or post questions, particularly because there is an analysis paper due for this unit.

 

Feminist Ethics – Jaggar

From the footnote, we should recognize that this is an encyclopedia entry on feminist ethics.  It provides us with the basic tenets along with the history of development of feminist ethics.

Early in the passage, Jaggar clearly states that “Nonfeminist approaches to ethics are not necessarily anti-feminist or male-biased; they may or may not be so” (437).  The question is if the writers and thinkers within the history of ethical theory have either ignored women, or have purposefully or intentionally oppressed women.  There is a significant difference, and it seems that feminist writers within ethics mean to bring the moral issues of women, as they do differ from men or society in general, to the forefront.

Jaggar lists five criticisms of Western ethics, five misconstruals of feminist ethics and four minimum conditions of adequacy for feminist ethics.  As you read through these, note that the goals of feminist ethics appear to be to critique and correct the current state of ethical theory.  There are, of course, some who argue to completely dismantle or replace “male-ethics” with a distinct “female-ethics,” however, the general trajectory seems to involve a development of feminist concerns alongside “justice” based ethical systems.

Within the section on current concerns in feminist ethics, Jaggar notes Descartes “I think therefore I am” philosophy and epistemology.  There is a sense in which the “self” – as in the autonomous moral agent – is a disembodied thing.  The self is not affiliated with the body and is as an ethical self, can easily be seen to be male-biased.  Men wrote this philosophy, and the prevailing view of the self or soul or even a “person” was seen as a “male person.”  Feminist ethics, for Jaggar, seeks to re-embody the person to see the particular differences between men and women.

 

Gender and Bioethics – Crosthwaite

Crosthwaite’s passage focuses of the issues of gender within biology and the sciences.  By claiming a male-dominated worldview has overshadowed developments within biology (and in turn bioethical discussions) Crosthwaite aims to show that women’s voices have been largely ignored.

For Crosthwaite, there is disagreement among feminists, but, she claims that feminism has a unifying theme which is “the concern to understand and eliminate the oppression of women in all its guises” (p 450).  She goes on to say that this should be done “in their own voices” (451) which is a call for women to be involved in the development of feminist ethical theory.

Within the section on gender and health care, there is an important distinction (and stereotype) that Crosthwaite combats.  Within healthcare, women are in caring positions and men in curing positions.  More crudely put, men are doctors or researchers and women are nurses or care-takers.  This is certainly not always the case and many of us know women who are doctors and men who are nurses.  (Personally, I do!)  But the stereotype remains as an important problem and it is especially relevant to the field of ethics.  Crosthwaite implies that research or decisions in medicine tend to be primarily made from a male perspective, and that issues in health related specifically to women only have to do with reproductive differences from men.  There is a suggestion that women are only relevant within healthcare as bearers of men’s children.  This is one view on the spectrum of feminist thought.

In the passage we should note the marked differences between approaches to ethics that involve justice and those that involve care.  Crosthwaite also discusses the importance of an “engaged moral response” (457) that many feminists emphasize.

 

The Need for More than Justice – Baier

Baier first discusses on the Carol Gilligan’s work, In a Different Voice and Baier says that the best moral theory has to be a cooperative product of women and men, and it must “harmonize justice and care”(459 and 471).  This harmony is the focus of this passage.

While justice is of course a social and ethical value of high importance, care has been neglected.  There is a sense in which care relates to the “domestic” work of women and slaves (465).  Male-dominated or patriarchal societies may value these roles, but they seem subservient, Baier argues.

Again, there is a strong critique of Kant and the notion of “autonomy” as is arguably only relates to men as “first class, really rational, persons” (466).  Women, for Baier and others, have been long excluded in the discussion of moral decision making.  The idea of care alongside justice within ethics, is meant to provide women with an equal voice that works with (rather than just opposes) the traditional views from Aristotle, Kant and others.  In the end, Baier hopes to see a less “marked” (471) difference in ethics, especially as it relates to gender.

 

The Ethics of Care - Held

Many scholars in ethics have argued that care is a virtue, and thus the ethics of care is simply a part of virtue ethics.  Held, as you should see in this passage, does not agree with this sentiment. 

Held outlines five major features of the ethics of care.  I briefly mention them here, as they are discussed at length in the text (pages 472-478).  The first feature is the care for others for whom we have moral responsibility.  Secondly there is a process related to epistemology (the theory of knowledge) about how we know which emotions should be valued within the ethics of care.  Thirdly, there is a claim that ethics should avoid abstraction to lessen the likelihood of bias and arbitrary moral decision making.  Fourthly, there is a reconceptualization of the public and private spheres in morality.  Lastly, and this moves into the longer section of how the ethics of care critiques the tradition concept of “personhood.”

Personhood or individuality is a key concept in “traditional” or “dominant” ethical theories according to Held and others.  The integrity of the individual is of utmost importance in moral decision making.  Within the ethics of care, however, we need to see the primacy of the community or family-unit.  There is a sense in which the “autonomous moral agent” is really not that autonomous but actually dependent upon others within a family and the community.  Children are born fully dependent and there are many people who need care from others on a consistent basis, but in actuality all people are dependent upon others.  On page 484, Held says that the ethics of care “often calls on us to take responsibility, while liberal individualist morality focuses on how we should leave each other alone.”  There is a clear message put forth in the ethics of care that responsibility within a community or family takes precedence over that of the individual person’s autonomy.

Held addresses a necessary balance of justice and care within ethical decision making.  She mentions that “justice protects equality and freedom, care fosters social bonds and cooperation.” (478)  Care is asserted as an important value and as a virtue, although it is clear that the ethics of care should not be subsumed by virtue ethics, and should be kept distinct at least for Held.

As you have read these four passages, note the distinctions and similarities between feminist ethics and the ethics of care.  Think about the distinctions between justice and care within ethics.  In what types of situations is justice or care more important or relevant?  Are there ethical decisions that require both?