Skripta Politika i etika_b83fa6b0-8c41-4325-bd3a-7e37fe271583_acccd0c5-a8f9-47f9-9747-233b68f89662(3).PDF

1. Justice Utilitarianism can conflict with the concept of justice, as illustrated by H.J. McCloskey’s example. Imagine a case where falsely accusing an innocent person of a crime could prevent racial riots and save lives. According to utilitarianism, bearing false witness would be justified becaus...

1. Justice Utilitarianism can conflict with the concept of justice, as illustrated by H.J. McCloskey’s example. Imagine a case where falsely accusing an innocent person of a crime could prevent racial riots and save lives. According to utilitarianism, bearing false witness would be justified because it leads to the best overall outcome. However, this violates the principle of treating people fairly based on their circumstances, which is central to justice. Critics argue that utilitarianism fails because it permits unfair treatment for the sake of good consequences. 2. Rights Utilitarianism also clashes with the idea of individual rights, as seen in the case of York v. Story. Police officers violated a woman’s right to privacy by taking and distributing indecent photographs of her. From a utilitarian perspective, if the officers derived more pleasure from their actions than the harm caused to the woman, their behavior could be seen as morally acceptable. However, this conclusion is troubling, as it dismisses her right to privacy. A similar problem arises with a Peeping Tom who secretly photographs a woman without causing her any direct harm. Since only the perpetrator derives happiness, utilitarianism would still deem the action acceptable. Critics argue that this approach enables the “tyranny of the majority,” where the rights of an individual can be ignored if doing so benefits many people. This contradicts the moral importance we place on individual rights. 3. Backward-Looking Reasons Utilitarianism considers only the future consequences of actions, ignoring obligations tied to the past. For instance, if you promised to meet a friend but chose to break the promise because staying home provides slightly more utility, utilitarianism would support this choice. However, most people believe that keeping promises imposes moral obligations that cannot be easily dismissed. This backward-looking perspective applies in other contexts as well: A crime committed in the past is a reason for punishment. A favor received last week is a reason to return the favor. Hurting someone previously creates a moral duty to make amends. By excluding these considerations, utilitarianism appears incomplete, as it fails to account for obligations rooted in past actions. Conclusion These critiques reveal key weaknesses in utilitarianism. Its exclusive focus on consequences overlooks important moral considerations like justice, individual rights, and backward-looking obligations. These limitations suggest that while utilitarianism offers a useful framework, it cannot fully capture the complexity of moral reasoning. 8.4.Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? Utilitarianism insists that everyone’s happiness must be treated equally, as Mill puts it, “like a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” While fair in theory, this idea is highly problematic. 1. Too Demanding The principle of equal concern creates overwhelming demands. For example, instead of spending money on personal luxuries, utilitarianism expects us to donate to those in need, even if it means giving up most of what we have. This goes beyond normal moral duty and fails to recognize acts of extreme generosity as supererogatory. Moreover, it disrupts personal lives by expecting individuals to abandon their goals and joys, such as raising a family or pursuing hobbies, to focus solely on helping others. 2. Harms Personal Relationships Utilitarian impartiality undermines personal relationships by treating loved ones the same as strangers. However, close relationships rely on partiality—prioritizing family and friends over others. This impartial approach ignores basic human emotions and responsibilities. For example, a parent who saves a stranger over their child would be seen as morally wrong, not heroic, as John Cottingham argues. Conclusion While equal concern may seem fair, it’s impractical and harms personal lives and relationships. These flaws show why utilitarianism often fails in real-world contexts. 8.5.The Defense of Utilitarianism Introduction Utilitarianism faces major criticism for neglecting justice, individual rights, and backward-looking reasons, along with its potential to impoverish individuals and weaken personal relationships. While most philosophers have abandoned the theory, others continue to defend it through three key arguments. 1. Contesting the Consequences Critics often argue against utilitarianism by imagining extreme situations where a morally repugnant action appears to have the best outcome. However, this defense questions whether such actions truly lead to good consequences in real life. For instance, McCloskey’s argument claims that utilitarianism would justify framing an innocent person to stop a riot. Yet, framing someone innocent would likely lead to worse outcomes: the lie could be exposed, trust in the justice system eroded, and the real perpetrator would continue to commit crimes. Thus, real-life utility is not served by actions like lying or framing the innocent. Similarly, actions like lying, breaking promises, or invading privacy usually have harmful consequences in reality, even if they seem beneficial in hypothetical scenarios. This defense suggests that utilitarianism is unfairly criticized based on imagined scenarios, though it admits that in rare cases, immoral actions may still have good outcomes, leaving the critique unresolved. 2. Rule-Utilitarianism A revised form of utilitarianism, Rule-Utilitarianism, focuses on rules rather than individual acts. Instead of judging actions by their immediate outcomes, this approach asks which rules maximize overall happiness. For example, instead of asking whether lying in a specific situation is justified, it considers whether following the rule “Do not lie” promotes the most happiness overall. By emphasizing rules like “Don’t bear false witness” or “Respect others’ rights,” Rule-Utilitarianism aligns with moral common sense. However, this theory faces challenges: 1. If exceptions are allowed to rules, it reverts to Act-Utilitarianism. 2. If rules are rigid and allow no exceptions, it might conflict with utility in rare cases. 3. If rules incorporate exceptions, they become indistinguishable from Act-Utilitarianism, failing to address criticisms. Some philosophers argue that rigidly following rules amounts to “rule worship” and deviates from utilitarianism’s core focus on happiness and consequences. 3. Rejecting Common Sense Some defenders dismiss the objection that utilitarianism clashes with common sense, arguing that “common moral consciousness” isn’t always reliable. a. All Values Have a Utilitarian Basis Utilitarians argue that values like honesty, privacy, and loyalty are rooted in their consequences. For instance, lying is wrong not because it’s inherently bad but because it leads to distrust and harm. Loving one’s children over strangers fosters familial bonds, which promote happiness. From this perspective, utilitarianism justifies and explains common moral values. b. Gut Reactions Can Be Misleading Critics often rely on instinctive reactions to unusual scenarios, such as McCloskey’s example. Utilitarians counter that gut reactions are shaped by past experiences where actions like lying caused harm. These instincts may misfire in rare cases where lying actually increases happiness. Thus, utilitarians argue we should trust the Principle of Utility over our instincts in exceptional situations. c. Consider All Consequences Utilitarianism often appears demanding because it highlights the broader impact of actions. For example, critics may focus on the injustice of convicting an innocent person, overlooking the harm prevented by stopping a riot. Similarly, objections to utilitarianism’s demands, like helping the poor instead of indulging in luxuries, seem self-serving when considering the suffering alleviated by such sacrifices. However, some examples, like the Peeping Tom, remain controversial. While utilitarians may argue the Tom’s pleasure outweighs harm if undetected, most people’s instincts reject such behavior, suggesting that utilitarianism cannot fully align with common moral intuition. Conclusion Defenders of utilitarianism respond to criticisms by questioning imagined scenarios, revising the theory with Rule-Utilitarianism, and challenging the reliability of common sense. While these defenses clarify utilitarianism’s reasoning, they reveal lingering tensions between the theory and moral intuitions, leaving its ultimate validity open to debate. 8.6.Concluding Thoughts Utilitarianism challenges our “common moral consciousness,” which often includes considerations beyond utility. Smart cautions that common sense should not always be trusted, as it may contain irrational prejudices. This warning might be Utilitarianism’s most significant contribution. History reveals the flaws in moral common sense. For example, many white people once believed that their interests were more important than those of black people. They trusted this as a moral “fact,” even though it was rooted in prejudice. Today, such beliefs are universally rejected. However, there may still be hidden biases in our moral common sense that future generations will uncover. Nobel Laureate Gunnar Myrdal highlights how cultural influences shape our beliefs and blind us to certain moral errors. He suggests that our assumptions and cultural norms affect how we perceive and interpret the world, potentially obscuring the truth. Looking ahead, future generations might criticize us for ignoring global suffering. They may condemn the way affluent societies allow preventable diseases to claim the lives of children in poorer regions or the mistreatment of animals in industrial farming. Utilitarian philosophers, with their focus on minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness, may one day be recognized for addressing these issues before they became universally acknowledged moral concerns. 9. Are There Absolute Moral Rules? 9.1. Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe Harry Truman is remembered for his decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. After becoming president in 1945, he learned from advisors that the bombs might end the war quickly, avoiding a costly invasion of Japan. Truman hesitated because the bombs would destroy entire cities, killing not only military targets but also civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. Despite concerns, Truman justified the decision, believing it would save lives overall. Winston Churchill later confirmed that the decision was unanimous among leaders, and Truman said he "slept like a baby" after authorizing the bombings. Elizabeth Anscombe, a Catholic philosopher and one of the greatest of the 20th century, strongly opposed Truman's actions. Known for her firm moral stance rooted in Catholic teachings, she argued that intentionally killing innocent people, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is always wrong. In 1956, when Oxford University planned to honor Truman with a degree, Anscombe protested and called him a murderer. She explained her position in a pamphlet, saying that some actions, like killing innocents, are absolutely wrong, regardless of the outcomes. Anscombe used the example of "boiling one baby to save a thousand people" to illustrate her argument. The suffering caused by the bombings, such as people dying in rivers while trying to escape the heat, reinforced her belief that certain actions, like killing the innocent, are immoral no matter the consequences. Along with her husband, Peter Geach, Anscombe championed the idea that moral rules are absolute and must never be broken. 9.2. The Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant argued that moral rules have no exceptions, claiming that some actions are always wrong, regardless of the consequences. Unlike hypothetical rules that depend on personal desires, such as "If you want to go to college, you ought to take the SAT," Kant emphasized categorical imperatives—moral obligations that apply universally, no matter one's desires or goals. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative, a principle every rational person must accept, which states: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This principle offers a way to judge if an action is morally acceptable. First, identify the rule or "maxim" underlying your action. Then, ask if you would want this rule to apply universally to everyone at all times. If yes, the action is moral. If not, it is forbidden. For example, Kant discusses lying to get a loan. If the maxim is "Whenever you need money, promise to repay it even if you can't," and this became a universal rule, no one would trust promises, making loans impossible. Thus, the act of lying is immoral. Kant also examines refusing to help others. If the maxim is "Let everyone fend for themselves," universalizing it would mean no help is available when you need it, which is irrational. Therefore, refusing aid is morally wrong. Kant's idea highlights that moral obligations stem from reason, not personal desires, and that we must act in ways that could be universally acceptable. 9.3. Kant’s Arguments on Lying Kant believed that moral behavior should follow universal laws, rules that apply in all situations, without exceptions. One of these absolute rules was the rule against lying, which Kant felt strongly about. He argued that lying under any circumstances is the "obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being." Kant offered two main arguments to support this view. 1. The Categorical Imperative Argument: Kant used the Categorical Imperative to explain why lying is wrong. He said that if lying became a universal rule, people would stop trusting each other, making lying pointless. If everyone lied, no one would believe anyone, and the act of lying would become impossible. Therefore, Kant concluded that lying is forbidden under any circumstances. However, this argument faces a flaw. For instance, if lying were done to save someone's life, the rule "lie to save a life" wouldn't be self-defeating. It could be universalized, contradicting Kant’s view that lying is always wrong. 2. The Case of the Inquiring Murderer: A second argument against lying involves a scenario where someone is hiding from a murderer, and you know where the person is. If the murderer  asks you where the person is, you could lie to save a life. Most would agree that lying in this case is justified. Kant, however, argued that lying is still wrong, as it breaks the absolute moral law of truthfulness. He believed that we should not make exceptions based on outcomes, because we cannot predict the consequences of lying with certainty. Even if the consequences seem to justify lying, Kant believed we would still be morally responsible for the act. Kant’s position on lying raises challenges. His theory assumes we are morally blameless when telling the truth, even if it leads to harm. This does not account for the fact that telling the truth can also aid harm. The “Case of the Inquiring Murderer” suggests that, in some situations, lying may be morally acceptable, especially when it’s done to prevent a greater harm, such as saving a life. Therefore, Kant’s absolute rule against lying faces significant philosophical challenges. 9.4. Conflicts between Rules When two absolute moral rules come into conflict, it creates a dilemma. For example, if it is wrong to do both X and Y in any situation, what should a person do when they must choose between them? This conflict suggests that moral rules might not be truly absolute. One response to this issue is to deny that such conflicts happen in reality. Peter Geach, for example, argued that God’s providence could prevent these situations from arising. He suggested that if God is rational and governs all events, He would ensure that no one faces a choice between violating two absolute moral rules. In other words, although these moral dilemmas can be imagined, Geach believed God would make sure they never actually occur. However, real-life examples show that moral conflicts do happen. For instance, during World War II, Dutch fishermen smuggled Jewish refugees to safety, often facing situations where they had to lie to avoid being stopped by Nazi patrols. In these cases, the fishermen faced a clear choice: either lie or risk the lives of everyone on their boat. Geach's idea that these dilemmas wouldn’t occur appears naïve, as such hard choices do happen in the real world. This leads to the question: If moral rules can clash, does this disprove the idea of absolute moral rules? For example, if lying is wrong and facilitating murder is also wrong, what should a person do when they must break one of these rules to save lives? The conflict between these two rules challenges the idea of absolute moral laws. However, this argument only applies to pairs of absolute rules. It doesn’t necessarily undermine the belief in a single, overarching moral rule—such as “do what is right.” While this rule is widely accepted, it is so general that it doesn’t provide specific guidance in difficult situations. Therefore, it is not the same as the strict absolute rules that Kant, Geach, and Anscombe were discussing. 9.5. Kant’s Insight Few contemporary philosophers defend Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but it might be wrong to dismiss it too quickly. Alasdair MacIntyre points out that for many people, morality is similar to what Kant described—a system of rules to follow out of a sense of duty. Even if we don’t believe in absolute moral rules, there is a basic idea in Kant’s philosophy that we might still accept. Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative is binding on rational agents simply because they are rational. A person who rejects this principle is not just immoral but also irrational. This is a compelling idea. But what does it mean to be irrational in this context? A moral judgment must be backed by good reasons. For example, you might think it’s wrong to set forest fires because of the harm they cause. Kant's twist is that if you accept reasons in one case, you must accept them in all similar cases. For instance, if destroying property and killing people is a valid reason not to set fires, it must be a valid reason in all cases. You cannot accept reasons some of the time but reject them at other times. This requirement of consistency is essential, and Kant was right to argue that no rational person can deny it. Kant’s insight has important implications. It means that a person cannot consider themselves morally special, allowing them to act in ways others cannot. For example, if it's wrong for others to drink your beer, it’s wrong for you to drink theirs. Furthermore, it shows that there are rational limits to what we can do. If you want to drink someone else’s beer, you must accept that they could drink yours. Kant’s insight forms the foundation of a moral system, but he went a step further, arguing that consistency requires rules with no exceptions. This extra step, however, has caused trouble for his theory, as rules need not always be absolute. In Kant's framework, when we break a rule, we must have a reason that anyone would accept. In the Case of the Inquiring Murderer, we can break the rule against lying only if we would accept others lying in the same situation. Most people would agree with this idea. Similarly, President Truman could argue that anyone in his position would have been justified in dropping the atomic bomb. Even if Truman was wrong, Kant’s arguments don’t necessarily prove it. Different opinions on his actions may exist, but they don’t violate absolute rules. 10. Kant and Respect for Persons 10.1. Kant’s Core Ideas Immanuel Kant believed that humans occupy a special place in creation. Unlike other creatures, humans are considered by Kant to have "intrinsic worth" or "dignity," which makes them valuable “above all price.” Kant argued that animals have value only in relation to how they serve human purposes. He claimed that we don’t have direct duties to animals and can use them as tools, although he condemned cruelty towards them, not for the animals' sake but because such cruelty makes people harder towards other humans. Kant believed people are irreplaceable. The death of a child is tragic, and no replacement child can fill that loss. This is in contrast to “mere things” like a broken printer, which can be replaced. Humans are valuable because they can have desires, making things valuable in relation to fulfilling those desires, while animals, being less rational, are considered “mere things.” Kant did not believe animals have self-conscious desires like humans, though modern views suggest that animals may have desires, possibly challenging Kant’s ideas. What sets humans apart is their rationality. Humans are the only rational agents capable of setting goals, making decisions, and guiding their actions by reason. Moral goodness, for Kant, arises when rational beings act from a good will—following moral duty. Without rational agents, there would be no moral dimension in the world. Kant’s core moral system is built around the Categorical Imperative. This principle demands that we treat humanity “always as an end and never as a means only.” To treat someone “as an end” means promoting their welfare, respecting their rights, and not manipulating them. Kant gives an example: if you need money but cannot repay it, lying to a friend would be using her “merely as a means” to your goal, which is wrong. However, using someone as a means is not inherently wrong. For instance, hiring a plumber to fix your sink is not wrong, as long as the plumber is treated with respect and makes the choice freely. Kant emphasizes that the issue arises when people are treated only as tools for achieving someone else’s goals. Respecting others means respecting their rational capacities. This extends to allowing individuals to make decisions freely, without force or coercion. Kant would argue against laws that force people to protect themselves (like seat belt laws), believing individuals should make their own choices. Respecting others also means respecting oneself, taking care of your talents, and not just existing. Kant’s moral system is complex, but these ideas serve as the foundation of his ethical theory. 10.2. Retribution and Utility in the Theory of Punishment Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, argued that “all punishment is mischief” and inherently involves causing harm to the punished person. Punishment, like fines, prison sentences, or even the death penalty, raises the question of how such treatment can be justified. Retributivism, an ancient justification, argues that punishment is necessary to “pay back” the offender for their crime. According to this view, if someone harms others, justice requires that they suffer in return. This principle is summed up in the saying, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” However, Bentham strongly criticized retributivism, arguing that it increases misery in the world without any compensating happiness. For him, punishment is wrong if it does not bring about a greater good. Kant, however, embraced the retributivist view, accepting the suffering it causes as justified, especially if it is inflicted on those who deserve it. In contrast, utilitarianism focuses on the greater good, advocating that punishment should only be used if it leads to more happiness than harm. Bentham explained that punishment should be justified if it excludes a greater evil. Utilitarianism defends punishment for various reasons. First, it provides comfort and gratification to victims and their families, as they feel justice is served when criminals are punished. Second, by imprisoning or executing criminals, society is protected from further harm, reducing crime. Third, punishment serves as a deterrent, warning potential criminals of the consequences of their actions. Lastly, punishment can help rehabilitate offenders, addressing underlying issues like mental health, lack of education, or unemployment, so that they may reintegrate as productive members of society. Historically, the utilitarian approach dominated in the U.S. during the mid-20th century, with a focus on reforming inmates. Prisons offered rehabilitation programs aimed at turning criminals into responsible citizens. However, the “war on drugs” in the 1970s shifted the focus toward longer sentences and more retributive punishment, leading to overcrowding and underfunded prisons. This marked a return to a more punitive, retributivist mindset, where the goal was to punish, not rehabilitate, offenders. This shift highlights the ongoing tension between retributivism and utilitarianism in the theory of punishment. While retributivists focus on justice and retribution, utilitarians stress the importance of outcomes that benefit society as a whole. 10.3. Kant’s Retributivism Immanuel Kant strongly opposed utilitarianism and argued that punishment should be based on justice and human dignity. He criticized utilitarianism for using people as mere means to an end, which violates the belief that individuals should never be treated only as tools for the benefit of others. Kant also rejected rehabilitation, seeing it as a way to manipulate people's personalities, thus infringing on their right to determine their own path. According to Kant, punishment should be based on two principles. First, people should be punished because they have committed crimes, and no other reason. Second, the punishment should be proportional to the crime. For example, smaller crimes deserve smaller punishments, and larger crimes demand harsher ones. Kant’s famous idea is that if you harm someone, it is as if you harm yourself, reflecting the principle of equality in justice. Kant also endorsed capital punishment for serious crimes like murder, arguing that only death is a fitting response to such acts. He believed that failure to carry out justice would imply that the whole society participated in the crime. However, while Kant supported the death penalty in theory, he acknowledged practical concerns about mistakes in executions, where innocent people might be killed, which complicates its implementation. Kant’s approach to punishment sharply contrasts with Christian teachings of forgiveness. He believed that responding to evil with “turning the other cheek” is not just imprudent, but unjust. For Kant, punishment is a matter of upholding justice, while forgiveness might undermine it. Kant’s theory also highlights the importance of treating people as rational beings, who are responsible for their actions. Unlike animals or people with mental illness, criminals are accountable for their behavior because they make choices. Punishment thus becomes a natural response to those choices, showing that criminals are responsible for their actions. Kant believes that when criminals commit an offense, they implicitly decide how they should be treated, and punishment is a way of respecting their choice. However, Kant’s view raises questions. Should we always follow a criminal's choice in determining how to treat them? Or should we strive to be better than they are? This question touches on the philosophical debate over free will. Those who view criminals as rational agents might support Kant’s retributivism, while those who see them as victims of circumstances may favor utilitarianism, which focuses more on rehabilitation. Ultimately, Kant’s ideas rest on the belief that people freely choose their actions, and punishment is a response to that freedom. 11. F eminism and the Ethics of Care 11.1. Do Women and Men Think Differently About Ethics? The idea that women and men think differently has often been used to justify discrimination. Historically, thinkers like Aristotle and Immanuel Kant claimed that women were less rational and had no place in public life, while men were seen as leaders. This idea was challenged in the 1960s and 1970s by the women’s movement, which argued that women and men are psychologically the same. However, today most feminists believe that women do think differently than men, but these differences do not make women inferior. In fact, women’s ways of thinking can bring new insights, especially in fields like ethics. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory on moral development, using Heinz’s Dilemma. Heinz’s wife is dying, and he cannot afford the drug that could save her life. Should he steal the drug? Kohlberg identified six stages of moral development, from obeying authority to following abstract moral principles. In his study, an 11-year-old boy, Jake, said that Heinz should steal the drug because life is more valuable than money, showing a more advanced stage of moral reasoning. In contrast, Amy, another 11-year-old, saw it differently. She focused on relationships and the consequences of Heinz's actions, suggesting a stage where personal relationships are important. Gilligan’s Objection Carol Gilligan, in her book In a Different Voice (1982), criticized Kohlberg’s theory. She argued that Amy’s way of thinking was not inferior, but simply different. Amy's response reflected a “female” approach—focusing on relationships and caring, rather than abstract principles like Jake. Gilligan pointed out that men’s focus on principles often ignores the complexities of real-life situations, which women are more attuned to. Women’s moral orientation, according to Gilligan, is based on care and responsibility toward others. This caring approach is not weak but rather a strength, as it focuses on relationships and context, something often overlooked by a principle-based approach. Feminist Views on Ethics Other feminists, like Virginia Held, have expanded on Gilligan’s ideas, emphasizing that caring, empathy, and sensitivity to others’ feelings are better guides to morality in real-life situations than abstract rules. These ideas challenge traditional ethics, which has often been shaped by male philosophers. Do Women and Men Think Differently? Research has shown some differences in how women and men approach ethics. Women generally score higher in empathy tests and show less desire to punish those who wrong them. They also tend to value close, personal relationships more than men, who are more concerned with broader, less personal connections. However, these differences are not huge. Both men and women can agree on important moral principles, such as the value of life over money. While women might be more caring, men can also recognize the importance of intimate relationships. Overall, women and men do think differently about ethics, but these differences are not as extreme as they might seem. Social and Genetic Factors There are two possible reasons for these differences: social conditioning and biological differences. Socially, women have traditionally been expected to care for the family, which could explain their emphasis on care in moral decisions. Biologically, evolutionary psychology suggests that women’s tendency to care may have evolved because they invest more in each child, whereas men’s reproductive strategy focuses on quantity. This explanation is not about conscious choices but about patterns shaped by evolutionary pressures. In conclusion, while women and men might think differently about ethics, these differences are subtle and do not imply one approach is superior. Both care-oriented and principle-based thinking have their place in moral decision-making. The main point is that women’s emphasis on relationships and caring brings important perspectives that should be valued equally with men’s more abstract reasoning. 11.2. Implications for Moral Judgment The ethics of care is a significant part of modern feminist philosophy, though not all feminists embrace it. As Annette Baier notes, "Care" has become an essential term. This ethical perspective is different from traditional ethics, and it has important practical implications. Family and Friends Traditional theories, like those based on duty and obligation, struggle to explain relationships with family and friends. According to Baier, being a loving parent is driven by love, not by a sense of duty. If parents care only out of duty, children may feel unloved. The ethics of care, however, prioritizes personal relationships. It emphasizes that living well involves caring for people we have close bonds with, without the need for impartiality or duty. The ethics of care supports devoting time to loved ones, acknowledging that they hold a special place in our lives, which is more natural than impartial principles. Children with HIV Over 2.5 million children under 15 have HIV globally, with many not receiving proper care. A traditional ethic of principle, like Utilitarianism, would suggest that we have a strong duty to support organizations like UNICEF. However, the ethics of care focuses on personal relationships. Nel Noddings argues that care can only exist when the cared-for can interact directly with the carer. Therefore, according to the ethics of care, we may not feel an obligation to help those far away. Yet, many feminists think this view is too extreme. A balanced approach could combine both personal relationships and a broader concern for others. Animals Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals? Some argue that because raising animals for food causes suffering, we should avoid cruelty, which has led many to adopt vegetarianism. Noddings points out that the ethics of care depends on personal relationships. We may form bonds with pets, but not with animals raised for food. This suggests that while we care for animals we know, we may not have the same obligation toward those we don’t have a personal relationship with. However, arguments against this view stress that principles of ethics, such as fairness, should still guide our actions, regardless of personal feelings. In summary, the ethics of care challenges traditional moral theories by focusing on personal relationships, care, and emotional connections. It redefines moral obligations, sometimes prioritizing personal bonds over impartial principles. However, balancing care with broader ethical considerations, such as justice, is important for a fuller moral understanding. 11.3. 11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory The influence of men’s experiences on ethical theories is clear. Historically, men have controlled public life, which often involves impersonal and contractual relationships. In fields like politics and business, these relationships can even be adversarial. Decisions in public life typically impact many people, leading to the need for calculations on how to achieve the best overall outcomes. As a result, men’s ethical theories emphasize impersonal duty, contracts, balancing competing interests, and cost- benefit analysis. This focus on impersonal concerns has led feminists to accuse moral philosophy of having a male bias. Feminists argue that these theories fail to address private life, where relationships are personal and driven by care. Carol Gilligan calls this the “different voice” that is often absent in traditional ethical theories. A theory better suited to women’s concerns would focus less on bargaining and calculations, and more on love and caring. In private life, such values are central, and it is clear that morality must consider them. However, it is difficult to fit private life into traditional moral theories. Being a loving parent or a loyal friend isn't about calculating duties; it is about being a certain kind of person. This contrast between “being a certain kind of person” and “doing your duty” is a central issue between two ethical approaches. Virtue Ethics emphasizes moral character—traits like kindness, generosity, and courage. On the other hand, theories of obligation focus on impartial duty, where the moral agent listens to reason, determines what is right, and follows through. Virtue Ethics is well-suited to both public and private life, as it accounts for the different virtues needed in each sphere. Public life demands virtues like justice and beneficence, while private life calls for love and caring. Therefore, the ethics of care can be seen as part of Virtue Ethics, which many feminist philosophers view as integral to feminist ideas. While Virtue Ethics isn't exclusive to feminism, its connection to feminist concerns is strong, with Annette Baier referring to its male proponents as “honorary women.” Ultimately, the ethics of care’s effectiveness may depend on the viability of a broader virtue-based ethical theory.