• I like sushi
    4.8k
    Applied ethics as the be all and end all of ethics is stupid.

    Ethics of Care as the be all and end all of ethics is stupid.

    Why?

    This is VERY simple. Both effectively resist any sense of responsibility.

    If we take the Trolly Problem and side with applied ethics then we veer towards some isolated scenario and such an isolated scenario cannot be applied across numerous other instances. It is an avoidance rather than some useful means to approach any given problem.

    If we take the Trolley Problem again and use the Ethics of Care then we dismiss the scenario as ‘unrealistic’ voicing concerns over the lack of human relationships and viewing humans as quantifiable items. If the scenario is skewed and we have vested emotional attachment to the people tied to the track then there is at least a flicker of a reaction. There is still no responsibility taken as many represent the Care as ‘doing whatever they can to avoid responsibility for actions’.

    My point here is that ‘justification’ for an action is a postmortem not reason for taking the action. Humans are very, very good at convincing themselves that they acted in some manner after the fact. Most if the time we actually ‘act before thinking’ and then shirk responsibility to varying degrees depending on whether or not the outcome of said action is satisfactory or otherwise.

    You may ask ‘if we act without thinking then how can we be responsible?’ Should we be forever stuck in a state of paralysis and decide nothing?

    No. Yet this is a common feature too often enough.

    ‘How should we live?’ Is directly at the heart of philosophical thought and therefore ethics too. It is with this questioning that we can employ such hypotheticals to pick apart our actions and imagine scenarios where we are confused and stressed. By taking the Trolley Problem seriously we can adjust it and move towards a hypothetical act that we would be most happiest with seeing ourselves carry out. Although such scenarios will never play out in real life it aids our sense of action to direct more or less towards how we would act without thinking - even if in reality our action turns out to be against our will. It is precise where we fail to act as we would have wished to that the strength of this view lies. Without this view we are more likely to ‘justify’ our action rather than analyse it and improve upon our possible future actions.

    In short, Ethics of Care can too easily be viewed as ‘justification’ and ‘Applied Ethics’ as pure unabated relativism in disguise where any form of ‘justification’ can be readily applied.

    The biggest hurdle I have found when approaching the question ‘how should I live?’ is in how I can recover from the ‘justifications’ I invent after acts and in how to use both the Ethics of Care (the interpersonal) and the Applied Ethics (the variety of life) without holding fast to either.

    A justification you can live with is still just a lie told to placate yourself and others (herein lies the problem with Care Ethics). How we relate is clearly important, yet within our communication and relation we form false judgement to navigate the spectre of the public world and how it imposes upon us through some imagined body.

    In a unique situation (which all situations are) one should probably have a touch stone to refer to (herein lies the problem with Applied Ethics). In an ever shifting scheme of ethical problems we are instantly forgiven due to the diversity of experience; justification is a soothing balm that leaves a scar deep within. If we truly wish to act as we would like to act then failure is essential and facing failures in thought puts us in good stead to perhaps fail in a more manageable way. Without assessing some set hypothetical problem with a serious head we miss the opportunity to hone our future behaviour.

    The readiness for humans to avoid the uncomfortable is understandable but I see no ‘Justification’ for doing so other than as a means to slowly destroy yourself and others around you. One possible solution here is to view the ‘uncomfortable’ as a challenge and chip away at it bit by bit … but beware that such an action allows you to ‘justify’ any future actions you take.

    Thanks for reading :)
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    My point here isI like sushi
    What's your point? How would you respond to the trolley problem yourself?
    Or have you thought about how you feel about the trolley problem and you find that you're not decided either?
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    My point was that both Applied Ethics and Ethics of Care essential avoid responsibility and that the real issue is people’s constant crutch of ‘justification’ above and beyond any actual responsibility.

    My answers to such Trolley problems are irrelevant here because I do not believe public statements made about how we would act in such a scenario are anything but social posturing. That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives.I like sushi
    That's fair.

    To me, whatever action one takes, there's always an imperfect consequence. But it's not necessarily "wrong". No wrong answer.

    Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too?

    I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people.L'éléphant
    :up: :up:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it.L'éléphant

    Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. The ‘justification’ is @180 Proof where the ‘responsibility’ is shirked as one is ‘justified’ without a need to claim responsibility because ‘The Ethics of Care’ is your back up.

    Point being that strict adherence to Applied Ethics or Ethics of Care is a means of ‘justification’ where their use is truly about exploring ‘how we wish to act’ rather than applying ‘justification’ in a social realm before or after the act.

    The very idea of some ethical doctrine seems contrary to me.

    Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think? I believe Virtue Ethics is more or less about how we wish to be as a person rather than focusing on our degrees of empathy to those familiar and unfamiliar to us?

    Correct me if I am wrong. I generally see Ethics of Care as a very narrow scope of the human condition but certainly an important one when dealing with ethical problems.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think?

    Correct me if I am wrong.
    I like sushi
    I have already in my previous post corroborated with a link to the wiki article on care ethics along with its founder Carol Gilligan.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    So I was not wrong. You are making a judgement based on how some individual chose to classify it (based on buddhist views).

    When I hear Virtue Ethics I tend to think of Aristotle and the foundation of ‘know thyself’ rather than cleaving to ’benevolence’ as the most important item.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    "Some individual" is only the originator of the form of ethics at issue. Nevermind, sushi.. You're welcome to your incorrigible misunderstandings. :shade:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Check your own source you referenced. Jason Josephson Storm Is not the originator of Ethics of Care at all.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    I've already referred you to Carol Gilligan. :roll:

    Update:

    For anyone interested in actually reading a more extensive synopsis of care ethics than the wiki article:

    https://iep.utm.edu/care-ethics/#H5
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Take your patronising tone somewhere else matey.

    Bye bye.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    You asked to be corrected. I've done so. Grow up. ¡Hasta!:sweat:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Anyway, to be clear about the debate of how Care Ethics is classified there is no actual clear cut answer.

    I will say that the whole development of Care Ethics was someone in opposition to Virtue Ethics which focuses on individual flourishing and it is this precise point where Care Ethics strongly stands in opposition to it.

    Gilligan is where the idea originated. Storm compares Care Ethics to Buddhist Virtues. None of this is particularly relevant to the OP and my claims.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one.I like sushi
    First off, I think you misunderstood what care ethics is.

    You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too?180 Proof
    :up:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    I do not. That point was one of the issues Care Ethics has when it comes to addressing interpersonal relations.

    By responsibility I thought it was clear enough? If not … the ‘responsibility’ is shirked when the Ethical doctrine is held up as ‘justification’ for actions after the fact.

    ‘Benevolence’ is just a vacuous stance that does not intend to do good only to behave as if one is caring and well meaning. No one can truly be ‘well meaning’ and ‘kind’ in the face of problems life throws at you. Virtue Ethics is not merely an isolated part of humanity being raised on some pedestal above all other human attributes and characteristics. Nor is Virtue Ethics an isolation of ‘masculinity’.

    Anyway, I guess I will have to explain the problem with Applied Ethics again as well if that was not clear. The problem with Applied Ethics is that it avoids any kind of definition clinging on to relativism. The perpetual response being ‘it depends’ … true enough generally, but useless overall.

    Of course I DO NOT think either idea is so dogmatic. Together Applied and Care Ethics do a damn good job of complementing each other. In isolation they are pretty hobbled.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Care ethics, from a drive-by of its Wikipedia entry, has as its point of origin the realization that there's more to ethics than logic (deontological ethics) and mathematics (utilitarianism) as proven by the murderer at the door and the trolley problem gedankenexperiments. It's a kind of virtue ethics says Wikipedia

    This fits like a glove with my belief that both deontological & consequentialist ethics were known to but rejected by Aristotle (father of virtue ethics) & other ancient Greek philosophers. It's also possible that the Kantian & Benthamian ethics are subsumed, are a part of, virtue ethics and Aristotle simply didn't mention them separately because it was just too obvious, leaving us to connect the dots as it were.

    I wouldn't want to say ethics is not about consistency (Kant) and numbers (Bentham-Mill) and I'm fairly certain Gilligan will agree; what care ethics, a type of virtue ethics, does is point out that ethics is beyond such considerations i.e. they matter, true, but even together they fail to capture the essence of ethics. Care ethics is an attempt to expose and fill in the gap in our understanding of ethics.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently.I like sushi
    And I'm still stuck here until I articulated enough that this kind of thinking is what we do when we discard ethics and start playing the zero-sum game. Ethics is not zero sum.

    The trolley problem is meant to remove your personal interest out of the equation and lets you decide for yourself what to do -- you're not supposed to be personally invested in those people.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    And I should qualify my post above by mentioning another ethical dilemma about the man whose wife is dying of cancer but there's a cure, which unfortunately is in the possession of a doctor who would sell it to him for whatever sum of money the doctor wants, or else he won't get the drug. Does he murder the doctor since he can't afford the drug, and that's the only drug available?

    Please let me remind you that this is not an example of a zero sum game. The doctor's situation and the man's wife situation are not on par. They're just not disadvantaged on the same level.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Hypotheticals are meant to be tinkered with imo.

    If the cancer problem was framed ‘if you do not kill and steal the cure your wife will certainly die’ then it is similar to the Trolley Problem. The biggest difference being the ‘hands on’ element of committing homicide whereas with the Trolley Problem you are in the situation with no vested interest … but that can easily be altered by saying your wife is on one track and the inventor of the cure for cancer is on the other.

    Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught?

    Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP?

    All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome.
  • L'éléphant
    1.5k
    Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught?I like sushi
    Okay that's correct -- murder is not the first reaction.

    Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP?I like sushi
    I'm trying to tell you that what you think is ethics, it's really not. When you use the family relationships as a measure of your ethical decision, you're no longer talking about ethics, but something else.

    All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome.I like sushi
    All ethical systems are ethics. But not all decisions are ethical or ethics. One could decide based on height who to deprive of benefits, this is not ethics.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Do not try. Just tell me and explain or leave.

    I am not here to waste my time or yours so spit it out before I lose patience … then address the OP more directly perhaps rather tell me what I think?
  • Banno
    24.8k
    Hmm. A surprisingly accurate post. Well done.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Hmm. A surprisingly accurate post. Well done.Banno

    :grin: I try ...
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    His account of the wiki page was at least more accurate than some.

    My point - which is overall irrelevant to the OP - was that the primary difference between care and virtue ethics is that care was set up in stark opposition to virtue ethics focusing on relationships whereas virtue is more about the individual.

    And yes I am aware that philosophers have claimed that our relationships are who we are therefore care ethics is about the individual.

    I guess I will need to rewrite the OP and start again as there is too much distraction.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    how to use both the Ethics of Care (the interpersonal) and the Applied Ethics (the variety of life) without holding fast to either.I like sushi

    That's a pretty central issue in my own considerations, too. The advantage of virtue ethics seems to be in the recognition that ethics is too complex to be captured in some finite set of rules; one has to trust one's judgement, and so one ought work to develop the capacity to judge. Hence cultivating virtue becomes the mark of a life well lived.

    Care ethics serves to bind virtue to context.

    So I don't see any opposition between care ethics and virtue ethics. But you seem to be juxtaposing them...

    And I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop.

    Seems that the OP has some quite complex and intriguing consequences.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop.Banno
    :fire:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    That's a pretty central issue in my own considerations, too. The advantage of virtue ethics seems to be in the recognition that ethics is too complex to be captured in some finite set of rules; one has to trust one's judgement, and so one ought work to develop the capacity to judge. Hence cultivating virtue becomes the mark of a life well lived.

    Care ethics serves to bind virtue to context.

    So I don't see any opposition between care ethics and virtue ethics. But you seem to be juxtaposing them...

    And I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop.

    Seems that the OP has some quite complex and intriguing consequences.
    Banno

    :up:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Well, ignoring romance scams perpetrated by young women on old but rich men + those Russian girls on Tik Tok saying all they're looking for in a man is money + racist women + Mrs. Boynton (Appointment with Death, Hercule Poirot), I'll have to say that women are generally more caring than men. :snicker:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Nah! They just tend to care about different things.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Nah! They just tend to care about different things.I like sushi

    Ok, explain then, what different things do men & women care about? Also, how does this difference impact ethics?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.