a new way of looking at...     philosophy >> rehabilitating kant - 5

- info -
comments
contact

- navigation -
philosophy
home
feedback

 		A second problem brought forward is that an ethics of care leads to self-effacement and a loss of integrity. They feel that to help another, one should not over-identify with the one in need of care. I see this as simply treating yourself as an end in a caring relationship. One must help someone in a caring relationship, but not to go so far overboard as to become used or compromise principles they might hold.

A third problem is that an ethics of care puts too much emphasis on a mother-child relationship, which is fault in many ways. The idea is that while there is insight to be taken away by this particular relationship, other caring relationships (such as doctor-patient) may also contain wisdom to be had.21 I see this again as the balancing act between treating the other as an end and treating yourself as an end, taking into account the freedom of the individual for whom you are caring.

Finally, the scope of an ethics of care is too small. The original scheme would lead to only helping those that you exist in relationships with already.22 Carse and Nelson want to broaden the scope to make an ethics of care "a demand for justice."23 Up until this point, we have seen the parallels between the rehabilitated ethics of care and Kant's Principle of Humanity. I would argue that what Carse and Nelson are proposing is a kingdom of ends. In order to demand justice, one would have to work to removing any barriers to justice that exist, which would allow more people to think themselves as having freedom to make choices. Once reason has the ability to make a choice, one could then work towards treating people as ends instead of as a means only. One could move from arrogant perception to loving perception. If everyone existed in such a manner, then a person would go around helping to further the ends of other people.

Conclusion
Kant developed a morality based upon reason alone. While the origins are difficult to accept, the result is a world in which everyone treated everyone as equals, helping each other out and developing relationships between persons of mutual benefit. You can call it the Principle of Humanity, loving perception, or a rehabilitated ethics of care. All three ways of looking at relationships and the correct choices to make within them stem from different sources, but in the end promote the same notion of ethics. Starting with Kant's Categorical Imperative, we see that it is lacking in certain areas, mainly the need for everyone to play by the rules in order for it to work. Frye recognized the reason why the world doesn't work, as Kant would have it work. The rehabilitated ethics of care is a working model of this same principle, looking at concrete, particular people but still treating them the same respect because they are human so long as they are treated as human. I do not wish to say that Kant was right about his morality, but the obvious ties between the later two ethical theories shows homage to Kant's Third Categorical Imperative.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6