Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Consider
Are their significant differences in how you and your
spouse perceive opportunities and problems?
Are their significant emotional and intimacy needs that
distinguish you from your spouse?
Are their different modes of behavior between you and
your spouse? For example, are men really wild at
10
11
12
Stages
5&6
Understanding
of fairness
that rests on
free-standing
logic of equality & reciprocity
Stages 3 & 4:
Conception of Fairness
Anchored in the Shared Conventions of
Societal Agreement.
Stages 1 & 2:
Egocentric understanding of fairness based on
Individual Need
13
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lastly, she sees the problem being a failure of the druggist: it is not right
for someone to die when their life could be saved (pg. 29).
18
2.
3.
4.
Does not consider property and law but rather the effect that
theft could have on the relationship between Heinz and wife.
5.
6.
A Network of Relationships:
Honesty; open communication;
Heinz should fear a potential lack of care/loneliness/separation from his wife.
Heinz
Interpersonal
relationships
The Druggist
Druggist needs to
respond to the need
22
2.
24
4.
5.
6.
25
26
Other Observations:
Consider this fictional story:
Nick saw his life pass before his eyes. He could feel the cold
penetrating even deeper into his body. How long had it been
since he had fallen through the ice-thirty-seconds, a minute?
It wouldnt take long for him to succumb to the chilling grip of
the mid-February Charles River. What a fool he had been to
accept the challenge of his roommate Sam to cross the frozen
river. He knew all along that Sam hated him. Hated him for
being rich and especially hated him for being engaged to
Mary, Sams childhood sweetheart. But Nick never realized
until now that Mary also hated him and really loved Sam. Yet
there they were, the two of them, calmly sitting on a beach in
the riverbend, watching Nick drown. Theyd probably soon by
married, and theyd probably finance it with the life insurance
policy for which Mary was the beneficiary (pg. 40).
28
Other Observations:
Women see danger:
1.
2.
3.
Danger of isolation,
A fear in standing out or being set apart by success, left
alone (pg. 42),
A relational failure (pg 43).
Other Observations:
When the interconnections of the web are dissolved by
the hierarchical ordering of relationships, when nets are
portrayed as dangerous entrapments impeding flight
rather than protecting against the fall, women come to
question whether what they have seen exists and
whether what they know from their experience is true.
These questions are raised not as abstract philosophical
speculations about the nature of reality and truth but as
personal doubts that invade womens sense of
themselves, compromising their ability to act on their
own perceptions and thus their willingness to take
responsibility for what they do. This issue becomes
central in womens development during the adolescent
years, when thought becomes reflective and the problem
of interpretation thus enters the stream of development
itself (pg. 49).
30
Other Observations:
The struggle to be understood;
the struggle for uniqueness in a context of relationships.
34
36
40
43
46
47
According to Mill:
Individualism:
The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he
must not make himself a nuisance to other people. This is
in Mills chapter praising individualism as one of the
elements of well-being.
This, for Mill, is the pinnacle of moral responsibility: not
being a nuisance. And this is the sentiment expressed by Jake
when he explained that, if he wanted to kill himself, he should
do it with a gun rather than a stick of dynamite, since the
dynamite might kill others, i.e., be a nuisance to them.
48
Individualism according
to Rawls and Nozick
Individualism:
John Rawls and Robert Nozick, for example, although
differing from one another in substantial ways, are
unanimous in their individualism. The community
presupposes the individual and, for both of them, having to
live in community with others constitutes the problem that
philosophy must solve.
49
50
In Summary:
What Gilligan calls an ethic of care has not been
ignored in the history of philosophy. Indeed, an ethic
of care has been the predominant model for moral
thinking until the last few centuries. Still, one can
understand why it might seem as though the ethic of
care has been omitted. The major thinkers in modern
and even contemporary moral and social-political
philosophy have been largely concerned with what
Gilligan calls an ethic of justice. This is in view of the
rise of modernism and its ramifications in thought and
culture, and the two dominant ethical views prior to
1958 (Anscombes article): Utilitarianism vs.
Deontological ethics.
51
52
53
2.
3.
60
2.
3.
4.
5.
62