The Ethics of Care

11 June 2018

This week, we’re thinking aboutfeminism and care ethics. Caring and being cared for are really important for human flourishing. Imagine a person who cared about nothing but him or herself. Such a person would be a monster. On the flip side, a person that nobody else cared about at all would be lonely and invisible.

But caring has its risks too. Caring about one person too much can cause you to care about other people too little. Or you can care about the wrong things altogether. Imagine a person who cared mostly about doing everything in their power to embarrass other people. Such a person would be very strange indeed. But figuring out who and what to care about and to what degree—that can be a tricky thing.

Still, there are a few clear cases of where our care and concern should lie. I clearly owe my own children more care than I owe complete strangers. I would never abandon my station as their caregiver and run off, even to do something very noble like working to save starving children in some distant land.

这并不是说对那些饥肠辘辘的孩子们的需求完全漠不关心就可以了。我对自己孩子的过分关心使我完全忽视了他们的需求,这当然是错误的。我并不是漠不关心;事实上,我一点也不想看到他们挨饿、被贩卖或被忽视。但我承认,虽然我对他们的需要不是漠不关心,但我对自己的孩子比对别人的孩子更偏心。

But therein there still lies a potential problem. Caring about someone typically comes with a degree of partiality toward them. To care about someone is to elevate their needs to some degree in your calculation of what matters. But justice sometimes requires us to adopt an impartial point of view. And this requires us not to favor one person’s needs over another, but to regard them, at least initially, as equally important. Hence some people worry that an ethics of care—which involves and permits partiality to some over others—may be irreconcilable with the demands of justice, which often requires impartiality.

While impartiality sounds good and morally compelling in the abstract, it’s not entirely clear what it can mean in practice. After all, I’m not in a position to take care of children around the world as I can my own children. Nor is it clear that focusing on my children is necessarily incompatible with the demands of impartial justice. Isn’t it a good thing that I do what I can to help those I am most able to help? Does impartial justice really require me to do otherwise? I don’t mean to suggest that I should let my care for my children take upallmy energies. For example, instead of buying your child that extra toy that he thinks he just can't live without, I might donate the money I would otherwise spend on that extra toy to some charity devoted to helping disadvantaged children around the world.

We need to distinguish here the concept of caring about someone from the concept of taking care of them. Icare aboutlots of people I’m in no position totake care of. In the abstract, maybe impartiality does require me to care about all children equally. But it doesn't follow that my personal energies should be equally devoted to taking care of them on a day to day basis, which is a good thing, since I couldn’t possibly do so, even if I wanted to.

But this raises an important a question. How do we ensure that people in need are adequately cared for? On whose shoulders should the burden of caring fall? Now I know where the burden mostlydoesfall—on the shoulders of women, whether in the family or in the paid caring economy. That’s one reason that feminists care so much about the ethics of care.

When I talk about the ‘burden” of caring, I don’t mean to deny the intrinsic worth and importance of caring for others. The work of caring is noble work. And it can be deeply spiritually and emotionally rewarding. We should praise the overburdened women who so often do care work in our society. But we should alsopaythem. That we don’t is a form of injustice. In the context of the family, care work is basically uncompensated labor, unequally shared between men and women. Even in the paid economy, care work is radically undercompensated. Paid care workers are atomized, marginalized, stigmatized, and exploited. And they’re mostly women of color.

Given how crucial to human flourishing caring and care work clearly are, it makes no real moral or economic sense for us to treat care workers the way we do. And this raises the question of what we can do collectively to elevate the status of care work in a society that seems for not entirely clear reasons to care so little about those who do most of the caring.

Perhaps you have some thoughts. If you do, join the conversation. Indeed, do so, even if you have more questions than answers.

Comments(3)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Monday, June 11, 2018 -- 4:01 PM

See my comments on robot care

See my comments on robot care giving, if you wish. The ramifications are not commensurate, certainly, but, if we place care giving into a feminine context, then we expose care giving to a feminist point of view. Which, is to say, we endow (or enslave) women with more of a responsibility of care giving. (See also: the post regarding slavery, vis-a-vis, information technology, etc.---It is all connected, more-or-less)...
Feminists love all of this, because it fossilizes their root-beliefs and contentions about the rights and wrongs of the human condition. Probably so. But, they have been here as long as men have---or longer? And how do we resolve THAT question...hmmmm?
I do not know, for example, the ratio of men to women doctors. This has, I SENSE, changed over the last fifty years (though I have no statistics...). So, what next, professor? You invited more questions, yes?

hedera's picture

hedera

Sunday, May 10, 2020 -- 2:04 PM

Listening to this morning's

听今天上午的节目,我注意到关于“护理工作”主要是女性的工作,而且报酬不高的讨论忽略了大量的历史背景。我记得有人评论说,作为一个民主国家,我们依赖于关心我们的人。我想纠正这一点。当这个国家建立之初,我们的民主依赖于公民的关心和参与。让我提醒你,那些公民都是拥有财产的白人男性。18和19世纪的女性大多不是公民。他们无法投票。在美国,已婚妇女直到1848年的《已婚妇女财产法》才可以拥有财产;在英国一直等到20世纪20年代初!从本质上讲,女性是丈夫的财产,她们做护理工作是因为这是她们的期望,而不是她们想做。 Over the years we have slowly grown away from this attitude, but we still have men who believe they have a right to abuse their wives, merely because they are married to them. The founding conditions of this country are still with us in some people's minds.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Thursday, March 11, 2021 -- 8:47 AM

Cross linking to 2020 re

Cross linking to 2020 re-airing show notes. Alfredo has some cool insights in the comments.

//www.f8r7.com/comment/reply/5996/6610

Ken's blog is worthy of itself, it sets the stage for the show and I doubt Alfredo would comment here without both.