Sunday, March 4, 2012

Ethics of Justice and Ethics of Care revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum’s Approach got it right?


by Ayesha Gautam

In the history of moral philosophy ethics of justice or public reason advanced by liberal tradition and the ethics of care as advanced by feminists has been percieved to be at loggerheads with each other. There are various criticism which has been levelled by proponents of ethics of care against the ethics of justice. My endeavor in this paper would be to advance the criticisms put forth by care ethics proponents against ethics of justice proponents and to show how the version of capability approach advanced by Martha Nussbaum has been able to take care of these criticisms thereby advancing an approach which is truly humanistic in the sense that it gives importance to  both the virtue of justice as well as  the virtue of care.

Let me begin by advancing the criticism put forth by care ethics proponents against ethics of justice. There are  three charges feminists have commonly leveled against the ethics of justice advanced by liberal tradition:

        The first criticism is that the ethics of justice is too ‘individualistic’. The language of ethics of justice pushes us to see the participant in moral practice as single clamorous individuals. An ethics of care on the other hand examines moral issues, values, and problems discernible in human relationships. It values connections between individuals as against excessive individualism of liberal moral theories. Empathy, sensitivity and attention to particular aspects of persons and their needs become important. (Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1982

       The second criticism advanced is that the ideal of equality advanced by proponents of ethics of justice is too abstract and formal; ethics of justice promotes a formal equality of treatment and in the process abstracts from a real asymmetry of power. Ethics of justice insists on identical treatment for all   ; for women and men,   regardless of their different location in the social hierarchy. Ethics of care proponents however insists that one should also take care of the background inequalities. Impartiality and equality which was the distinguishing and defining feature of morality in ethics of justice was criticized as being counterintuitive to the moral sense of women.

        The third significant criticism advanced by care ethics proponents against ethics of justice is that the emphasis ethics of justice places on reason underplays the significance of care and emotion in moral and political life. Feminist attention to relations in the family and to the values of care and connection has also called attention to different kinds of interdependencies which are generally ignored by liberal traditions.

Having given an insight into the three commonly leveled criticisms against ethics of justice, let me now place Nussbaum’s position in context of these criticisms. The first criticism advanced is that ethics of justice is very individualistic. Nussbaum can be said to have taken care of this criticism when she takes cue for her approach from Grotius’s natural theory approach. Put very simply, this approach holds that the way to begin, when we think about fundamental principles, is to think of the human being as a creature characterized both by dignity or moral worth and by sociability: by “an impelling desire for fellowship.  Among the list of 10 capabilities, Nussbaum also lists the capability which states the capability of being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. Second criticism advanced against ethics of justice is that it gives too much importance to equality and the ideal of equality advanced by them is formal and abstract not taking care of the various inequalities which one encounters in day to day life. Nussbaum can be said to have taken care of this criticism in the four frontiers of justice which she discusses at length in her works. As a criticism against social contract theory , Nussbaum has argued that there theory of justice has not been able to handle four problems; justice owed to people with disabilities, justice owed across national boundaries, justice owed to other species and  justice owed to nature. By taking up these issues, Nussbaum has clearly shown that one ought to take care of these inequalities in their theory of morality. As regards the third criticism according to which ethics of justice gives more emphasis to reason thereby underplaying the significance of care and emotion, one can opine that Nussbaum has aptly taken care of this criticism also in her work by giving importance to the virtue of care and emotion along with that of rationality and justice. In her list of the central human capabilities, Nussbaum has created space for such virtues as emotions, senses, imagination and thought. Moreover in her work, Nussbaum wants to know the capabilities that lead to a 'truly human' life. It can be opined here that the capabilities that would lead to a truly human life are also the ones that ethics of care would want to know and support. This becomes clear when one looks at the definition of care advanced by ethics of care proponents.

The care that is valued by the ethics of care can – and to be justifiable must – include caring for distant others in an interdependent world, and caring that the rights of all are respected and their needs met. It must include caring that the environment in which embodied human beings reside is well cared for. The ethics of care will strive to achieve these transformations in society and the world nonviolently and democratically but with persistence {Virginia Held, The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global, 2006, p66}

Brian Orend in his work has also opined that, “care for others means sympathizing with them and supporting them, helping them develop their skills, being committed to a personal connection with them based on trust and mutual respect, taking on responsibility to do what one can to ensure their well-being.” (Orend, B., 2002. Human Rights: Concept and Context. Peterborough, ON: Broadview pg 17)
.
To conclude it can be opined that the two approaches i.e., ethics of care and the capability approach seem to share the common goal, which is promoting truly human lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment