Feminist thinkers tell us that our traditional ethical theories are sexist. They are male-centric. Moreover, traditional ethic is individual-centric. The deontology of Emanuel Kant is one such theory. It is reason based and is thought to be dispassionate basing our ethical actions in universal principles and ideals. Similar individualist ethical theory is found in the Aristotle’s virtue ethics. An individual is to cultivate virtues by a force of habit. Aristotle teaches that virtue stands in the middle. Excess as well as defect cannot be virtue. They are vices. Thus, for instance, courage as virtue has to find its middle. Courage in excess is rash and if it is less than we have fear.
The utilitarianism of the Jeremy Bentham also sees moral merit in it being good for the greatest number. It has to do with the consequences of the action. Consequencialism is rejected by the feminists. Jurgen Habermas seems to propose consensus theory of truth and good. His position of dispassionate rational, respectful and rule governed discursive construction of truth and goodness ethics in the public sphere is also reason-centric. Though there is relational search for moral responsibility and action in Habermas, we still miss the affective dimension of moral life. Habermas is also not grounded in the ethics of care.
Traditionally moral calculus is thought to be rational and unemotional. Feminist thinkers seek ethical response in relational responsibility and see affectivity of compassion as moral. Like Emanuel Levinas, the moral imperative arises from the relational Other. In this context the emphasis is laid on relationships rather than rules. Here we hit upon Heinz’s Dilemma. If relationships are more important then, husband is justified in stealing a medicine for his wife when he has no money to buy it. The primacy of relationship, and the good consequence of stealing the medicine might lead us to conclude, that it is morally acceptable to let the husband in situation that we have discussed above should be allowed to steal. Ethic of care does not teach such a moral choice. In fact, that moral choice is based on a reasoning that is discussing the costs and benefits rather than the relationship involved and the consideration of what might love demand.
Martin Heidegger taught that care is a way of being human. Feminist thinkers also teach that care as basic to human life. Humans are care givers. Capacity to care is a great strength of human beings. Ethics of care is also found in the communitarian ethics of the tribals. We can trace it also in Confucianism as well as Buddhism.
Ethics of care takes the relationship as the paradigmatic context of morality. It is based on emotions of sympathy, empathy and compassion. When we perceive moral outrage in any society, it is manifested of an ethics of care. People do care about people’s sufferings. Care is embodied and hence we can notice that there is a carnality about ethics of care. Some critique ethics of care as not being political and favor ethics of justice. But ethics of care is indeed political .
We can interrogate the heartlessness of our social , economic, religious and political institutions. Ethics of care challenges us to work to embody care in these institutions. Karl Marx critiqued religion and called it as the heart of heartless. We may extend his critique and take it to social, economic and political levels. We may ask: have our social, economic, and political institutions have become hearts of the heartless? This means we have to multiply practices of care. When we multiply practices of care, we will make our society livable. Therefore, we need cultivate caring attitudes, multiply caring practices and establish caring institutions. Care , thus, has to become the cores of our life.
