Why does Annette Baier think we need “more than justice”? What more does she have in mind? Using two other philosophers or readings, argue for or against Baier’s position.
Annette Baier’s article ‘The Need for More Than Justice’ is concerned with the shortcomings of a system of ethics based exclusively on justice. The philosopher’s approach to ethics presented in this article consists of the following. Men and women differ in their assumptions of right and wrong because of the different value systems they have. Whereas males take moral decisions according to the idea of justice, women are ruled by the sense of trust and caring. The author claims that as a history of philosophy has been created by men, philosophy often fails to take into account the role of nurture and trust.
Baier suggests introducing ‘care’ as an ethical system, to extend the traditional liberal theory of justice. She maintains that caretaking fulfills humans’ emotional needs. Care should be both maintained between equals and unequal. There should not be any differentiation between men and women when it comes to caring, the ethos is universal.
According to Baier, the category of care will design ethics for practical application. Care is more concrete than justice and, therefore, is more likely to make the world a more pleasant place. Baier focuses on the practical implication of women who can transmit care to their children thus changing the world for the better.
Also, care becomes the main concern of Patricia Hill Collins’s work ‘Black Women and Motherhood’. The book depicts the way black communities raise their families; it examines how family, friends, and people, in general, take part in child-raising and the mothers’ style in parenting.
As in African-American communities bringing children by mother alone is unwise and impossible, therefore, parenting comes from the biological mother, friends, family, and the community where the child grows up. The author claims that this is care that unites all the links of this complex system. As the responsibilities of child care are shared between each other, this contributes to the establishment of trustworthy communities. In such communities, people become stuck together against race, gender, and class problems. Here where the connection between care and justice is revealed.
The problem of care is considered by many feminist philosophers and is the characteristic feature of feminist ethics in general. Women cannot remain indifferent to family problems, to children’s upbringing; one can hardly consider these issues without giving proper consideration to caretaking. Feminist ethics will keep on seeking the most appropriate way to apply to caretake for making considerable changes in human relationships.
Describe a moral problem you have recently had to deal with. Choose two traditional philosophers that we have read and explain how you would approach the problem from their philosophical vantage point. Then examine the problem from the perspective of care ethics. Which of these approaches do you find most helpful and why?
It often happens that in the course of everyday life one faces a lot of ethical problems to solve. Everyday moral choices are made by people regarding this or that philosophical theory. Even if we do it subconsciously, normally, we are ruled either by consequentialist, deontological theories, or ethics of care approaches.
Recently I had to deal with the following ethical problem: one of my fellow students strongly believes in God, this faith of his seems to be fanatic. His actions often strike the people around, as most people believe that it is impossible to live in the modern world with such a kind attitude to the events around that his faith dictates him. For example, when some problem arises because of someone’s fault, he stands the racket; when someone offends him he keeps silent and never tries to defend himself.
The numerous examples of this type created an image of this boy as a bit strange one. He does not have any friends; earlier, it was me who was patient with his strange stories about God and conduct ruled by religious principles. But one day I could not bear any longer his behavior. Being a person who does not believe in any superpower I found it extremely difficult to communicate with him. He noticed that and asked about the reason for my reluctance to talk to him. On the one hand, I knew that I could not spend so much time listening to the concepts that contradicted my views; on the other, I could not leave that person alone, I was the only one who he could rely on.
Regarding my problem from the point of view of consequentialist ethics the first name that comes to my mind is Auguste Comte. This French philosopher who coined the term ‘altruism’ seems to have foreseen my problem in detail.
Ethical altruism is a concept of consequentialist ethics that implies that one should take actions that have the best consequences for other people, disregarding one’s own welfare. Live for others – this is the main principle of the philosophy I am talking about.
I am not sure whether I am ready to sacrifice myself for the benefit of the whole society and the fellow student, in particular. In the long run, it seems to me that this possible sacrifice of mine will not be appropriately appreciated by him, and even the fact that I have thoughts of the type does not allow me to take this philosophy as the leading one in my life.
If I think over my problem from the point of view of deontological ethics and William David Ross’s, in particular, I will see that I need to be ruled by the following duties: duty of beneficence (which makes me help the boy somehow), the duty of non-maleficence (that states that I should avoid harming him), the duty of justice (which means that if the boy deserves to be understood by others, they should at least listen to him), the duty of self-improvement (helping the boy I will improve my abilities to understand others, and to help them), the duty of reparation (when I understand the boy was treated wrongly, I should act somehow to recompense him), the duty of gratitude (I realize that the boy has benefited me, therefore, I should benefit him), the duty of promise-keeping (though I have not given any promise to him, if he once felt that he could rely on me, I should not let him down). This philosophy seems rather close to me, but as well as the previous one, requires much effort from me.
Considering my problem from the ethics of care developed by feminist critics (S. Bartky, C. Gilligan, V.Held, and others) I should pay more attention to the relationships between the boy and the people around and me, in particular. If I want to preserve the relationships that have some value for me, I should do my best to understand the essence of the problem and to solve it regarding both the boy’s position and my own preferences.
Thus, all the theories that I have discussed above can be applicable to my problem. Each of them has a grain of truth and if appropriately made use of the problem will disappear by itself.
Outright sexist attitudes, the threat of violence, care of dependents, and racism are some of the factors that women have claimed work against their full acceptance as equal citizens. Choose three readings to illustrate how two or three of these factors are discussed by feminist ethics. Choose one author and explain if you agree or disagree with the position she or he argues for.
Feminist ethics does not restrict to criticism of male supremacy only. Such issues as racism and the threat of violence are closely inspected in the works of S. Bartky, P. H. Collins, D. Roberts, and other feminists.
Sandra Bartky’s views on the problem of racism are displayed in her ‘Feminist Ethics’ series. She argues that people are to blame for racism when they benefit from it without protest. Going by the philosopher, the most dramatic thing in the problem of racism is that white people do not consider themselves to be responsible for the perpetration they make. As far as people’s attitude to racism is concerned, Bartky singles out the following types: the Fantasists – those who believe that there is no problem of racism as it has already been overcome; the Clueless – those who do not understand racism at all; the Culpably Ignorant – those who want to know much about the problem, actually, know it and realize it, but are not able to use their knowledge to solve the problem; the Self-Deceivers – those who are capable, but not ignorant and know a great deal about racism; the Fatalists – those who do not deny white racism, but do not believe that anything can be done about the problem; the Deplorers – people who recognize racism for the evil and deplore it instead of acting against it.
The author’s position about the importance of taking responsibility for every action of us appeals to me. I am inclined to believe that the problem of racism is rooted in the people’s disregard of their personal responsibility for their unjust treatment of people of different skin color. Bartky’s classification seems absolutely fair, but I can also add such groups, as the Self-Interested – those who benefit from the racial problem and the fearful – those who do realize the seriousness of the problem but are extremely afraid of becoming opposed to the norms existing in society.
One more problem that Bartky touches upon is the problem of the constant threat of violence that women face with. The philosopher understands violence against women as caused not simply because of their sex, but in its close interconnection with race and class. These three factors – gender, race, and class – engender violence against women, according to S. Bartky.
Another representative of feminist ethics, Patricia Hill Collins argues that the problem of racism is closely interconnected with oppressions of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Oppositions caused to black women resulted from external definitions of black womanhood. Black women, going by P. Collins, have created world views striving for self-definition and being ruled by the desire to work on behalf of social justice. Collins claims women in black communities are under the threat of extreme violence and this problem should be served on the state level.
Dorothy Roberts’ work ‘Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty’ is concerned with the problem of liberty and equality in American society from a black feminist perspective. Racism is treated in different aspects: the author analyzes the birth control for poor black women, the parental rights of black women, the new reproductive technologies that wealthy white couples use to ensure genetically related offspring. Roberts concludes that the role of government is the crucial one in fostering American liberty and equality throughout the country. The threat of violence is regarded by the author as the state one. Roberts explores past and contemporary torture caused by the U.S to foreigners to maintain white supremacy.
As we can see the problems that feminist ethics is concerned with are rather diverse and problematic. As they need urgent solving, they will always be hot-debatable and feminist ethics will always strive to solve them.
The veil of ignorance in John Rawls’s philosophy is a way in which the importance of impartiality in justice-based ethics is manifested. Explain what the veil of ignorance is and how it functions in Rawls. How is the value of impartiality evident in one of the other philosophers we have read. Are there situations in ethical life where impartiality may not be desirable? Use still another reading to explain why or why not?
Contemporary philosopher John Rawls in his work ‘Toward a Theory of Justice’ suggested the concept of the veil of ignorance. This method was introduced by him to define which social customs were just and which were unjust. Its main principle is impartiality manifested in justice-based ethics.
Rawls talked about a society that was absolutely different from the existing one. People of that society were in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. This veil meant that the rule was considered just if everyone agreed to it being ignorant of one’s position in society. Behind the veil of ignorance, people knew nothing of their sex, race, nationality, individual tastes, and natural abilities. The existence of such a veil makes all people morally equal and free. Thus, Rawls’s society differs from the real world by the fact that people are not distinguished by any criteria and decide what is just and what is unjust irrespectively of their own self-interest.
Any personal knowledge could prevent people from following the principles of justice that are according to Rawls should be: general in form, universal in application, commonly recognized, considered as the final authority, and should prioritize conflicting claims. Class position, social status, natural talents, abilities, intelligence, a plan for a good life are distributed equally in society and the latter will be designed fairly as people do not risk ending up in an intolerable position.
The problem of impartiality acquires its close examination also in Kant’s works. Kant investigates impartiality is studied in terms of universalizability. He claims that defining whether something is just or unjust is universalizable, that is independent of any particular point of view.
My view is that this position is not acceptable for modern society, as its progress is determined by the examination of all of the factors that people were ignorant of in Rawl’s society. During the present days, impartiality does not hold any good in its store and hampers the general development of any society.
References
Baier, A. C. (1994). Essays on Ethic. Harvard University Press.
Bartky, S. L. (2002). Sympathy and Solidarity: and Other Essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Comte, A. (1998). Introduction to Positive Philosophy. Hackett Pub Co Inc.
Rawls, J.(2005). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Belknap Press.
Ross, W. D. (2007). Foundations Of Ethics. Bakhsh Press.