Dr. Clea F. Rees ReesC17@cardiff.ac.uk Centre for Lifelong Learning Cardiff University Autumn 2011
Outline Organisational Evaluations The story so far Two Questions Feminist Accounts First Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Generalised Evils Evils vs. Inequalities References Notes
Organisational Organisational please hand in as applicable: any work you wish marked available to collect: any marked work available earlier handouts (also online) compiled glossary (not online) Friday 23/12/2011 noon: deadline for assessed work: papers short responses submit by email questions, comments & concerns
Evaluations Evaluations Please complete an evaluation form! now, in class later, return to Centre later, download form from web Please do not give your name. I do not see the forms until after submitting your grades. I do not touch the forms until after submitting your grades. I do read them. I do take your feedback seriously. I need a volunteer to return the forms to the Centre.
The story so far The story so far Hobbes Locke Mill Rawls Nozick Okin Nussbaum Taylor Walzer Anderson Most of the authors we ve looked at have emphasised: I I I I rights; justice; equality. b
The story so far Two Questions The story so far Two Questions Recall Richard A. Wasserstrom s questions 1 : 1. What should we aim at? What would be ideal? 2. How should we get there? What strategies could move us from here to there? Which ones should we implement? e.g. Affirmative action might not be part of the ideal but it might be a justified and effective strategy from achieving the ideal given our starting point. 1. Wasserstrom 1979
The story so far Feminist Accounts The story so far Feminist Accounts Virginia Held Claudia Card
The story so far Feminist Accounts The story so far Feminist Accounts Identify problems in liberalism Problems are fatal? No Yes (Traditional) liberalism has adequate resources? e.g. Card? Held? Yes No e.g. Okin e.g. Nussbaum
Justice
Justice Care
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Care
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Care Partial/particular
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Care Partial/particular
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Practice e.g. courts, police etc. Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Practice e.g. courts, police etc. Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships Practice e.g. parenting, childcare, nursing etc.
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Practice e.g. courts, police etc. Value Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships Practice e.g. parenting, childcare, nursing etc.
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Practice e.g. courts, police etc. Value Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships Practice e.g. parenting, childcare, nursing etc. Value MISSING!
Justice Impartial ( blind ) Persons as equals Independent persons Individualism Practice e.g. courts, police etc. Value Care Partial/particular Persons as having different needs, abilities Interdependent/Dependent persons Relationships Practice e.g. parenting, childcare, nursing etc. Value MISSING! Justice as presupposing care...
Care as: labour (Tronto);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc.
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc.
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc. Held: labour but more than labour;
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc. Held: labour but more than labour; a matter of caring relations (64);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc. Held: labour but more than labour; a matter of caring relations (64); meeting needs but also expressing attitudes/relationships (61);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc. Held: labour but more than labour; a matter of caring relations (64); meeting needs but also expressing attitudes/relationships (61); a virtue of individuals but also a matter of their relations to each other (66);
Care as: labour (Tronto); intrinsically relational labour (Ruddick); meeting objective needs (Bubeck); a motive/attitude/virtue (Slote); etc. Held: labour but more than labour; a matter of caring relations (64); meeting needs but also expressing attitudes/relationships (61); a virtue of individuals but also a matter of their relations to each other (66); etc.
Most general normative (ethical) terms
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms Justice Care
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms Justice Care e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (im)partial, (un)biased persons
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms Justice Care e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (im)partial, (un)biased persons e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (in)equitable, discriminatory societies
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms Justice e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (im)partial, (un)biased persons Care e.g. (in)sensitive, (un)trustworthy, (un)caring, warm/cold persons e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (in)equitable, discriminatory societies
Most general normative (ethical) terms e.g. good, bad, right, wrong More particular normative terms Justice e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (im)partial, (un)biased persons e.g. (un)fair, (un)just, (in)equitable, discriminatory societies Care e.g. (in)sensitive, (un)trustworthy, (un)caring, warm/cold persons e.g. (dis)trustful, mutually (un)concerned societies
Need to theorise care as a value:
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices;
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards;
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible;
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform.
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring:
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring: personal, close caring relations:
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring: personal, close caring relations: family/friendship/intimate ties as required building blocks for society;
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring: personal, close caring relations: family/friendship/intimate ties as required building blocks for society; weaker, less personal caring relations between citizens etc.:
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring: personal, close caring relations: family/friendship/intimate ties as required building blocks for society; weaker, less personal caring relations between citizens etc.: mutual concern as required for trust;
Need to theorise care as a value: enables understanding of existing practices; provides an ideal/standards; makes criticism of existing practices possible; enables reform. Just societies (any society) as requiring caring: personal, close caring relations: family/friendship/intimate ties as required building blocks for society; weaker, less personal caring relations between citizens etc.: mutual concern as required for trust; trust as required for mutual respect and peace.
Thesis Feminists should prioritise the elimination/mitigation of evils as opposed to the elimination/mitigation of inequalities.
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices Evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad Evils morally (very) bad
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad less serious Evils morally (very) bad more serious
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad less serious unworthy of too much attention Evils morally (very) bad more serious worthy/demanding of attention
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad less serious unworthy of too much attention can/should be got over Evils morally (very) bad more serious worthy/demanding of attention cannot be simply got over
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad less serious unworthy of too much attention can/should be got over might be chosen for some benefit Evils morally (very) bad more serious worthy/demanding of attention cannot be simply got over would not be freely chosen by anybody for any reason
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices morally bad less serious unworthy of too much attention can/should be got over might be chosen for some benefit less urgent Evils morally (very) bad more serious worthy/demanding of attention cannot be simply got over would not be freely chosen by anybody for any reason urgent
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices Evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices damage is minor, temporary Evils damage is serious, lasting
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices damage is minor, temporary Evils damage is serious, lasting harm to basic well-being of individuals/relations
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices damage is minor, temporary Evils damage is serious, lasting harm to basic well-being of individuals/relations harm to fundamental well-being damage is lifelong/long-lasting harm affects many/all aspects of life
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils Inequalities/Injustices damage is minor, temporary not attacks on humanity/dignity as person Evils damage is serious, lasting harm to basic well-being of individuals/relations harm to fundamental well-being damage is lifelong/long-lasting harm affects many/all aspects of life attacks on humanity/dignity/personhood
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils some inequalities may be evils in virtue of their roles in systems of oppression
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils some inequalities may be evils in virtue of their roles in systems of oppression South African apartheid, segregation in US South examples
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils some inequalities may be evils in virtue of their roles in systems of oppression South African apartheid, segregation in US South examples other inequalities may be institutionalised/systematised without being evils
First Aspect of Evils First Aspect of Evils many inequalities/injustices are not evils there are many evils feminists should prioritise evils rather than inequalities which are not evils some inequalities may be evils in virtue of their roles in systems of oppression South African apartheid, segregation in US South examples other inequalities may be institutionalised/systematised without being evils Lamont Library example
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing.
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing. Tornadoes may cause great harm to well-being but are not evils.
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing. Tornadoes may cause great harm to well-being but are not evils. Wrong-doing agents need not intend evil or be evil.
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing. Tornadoes may cause great harm to well-being but are not evils. Wrong-doing agents need not intend evil or be evil. Eichman example (possibly bad example)
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing. Tornadoes may cause great harm to well-being but are not evils. Wrong-doing agents need not intend evil or be evil. Eichman example (possibly bad example) Milgram s subjects
Second Aspect of Evils Second Aspect of Evils Evils of the relevant kind involve wrong-doing. Tornadoes may cause great harm to well-being but are not evils. Wrong-doing agents need not intend evil or be evil. Eichman example (possibly bad example) Milgram s subjects subjects in Stanford Prison Experiment
Generalised Evils Generalised Evils Evils Two aspects of evils:
Generalised Evils Generalised Evils Evils Two aspects of evils: 1. Evils involve harms of the worst sorts which seriously damage the well-being and dignity of living beings and their relations with each other. They inflict deep, lasting harms from which recovery is difficult or impossible.
Generalised Evils Generalised Evils Evils Two aspects of evils: 1. Evils involve harms of the worst sorts which seriously damage the well-being and dignity of living beings and their relations with each other. They inflict deep, lasting harms from which recovery is difficult or impossible. 2. Evils are either caused or aggravated by (moral) wrongdoings.
Generalised Evils Generalised Evils Evils Two aspects of evils: 1. Evils involve harms of the worst sorts which seriously damage the well-being and dignity of living beings and their relations with each other. They inflict deep, lasting harms from which recovery is difficult or impossible. 2. Evils are either caused or aggravated by (moral) wrongdoings.
Generalised Evils Generalised Evils Evils Two aspects of evils: 1. Evils involve harms of the worst sorts which seriously damage the well-being and dignity of living beings and their relations with each other. They inflict deep, lasting harms from which recovery is difficult or impossible. 2. Evils are either caused or aggravated by (moral) wrongdoings. Evils are things nobody would choose to suffer and that nobody should have to suffer.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Prioritising evils focuses on the worst harms of oppression.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Prioritising evils focuses on the worst harms of oppression. Evils regardless of the type of oppression non-human animal suffering, racism, sexism, etc.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. If resources are limited, an inequality might require nobody having some benefit.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. If resources are limited, an inequality might require nobody having some benefit. If resources are limited, it is better to eliminate as many evils as possible even if others remain.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. If resources are limited, an inequality might require nobody having some benefit. If resources are limited, it is better to eliminate as many evils as possible even if others remain. e.g. Schindler.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. If resources are limited, an inequality might require nobody having some benefit. If resources are limited, it is better to eliminate as many evils as possible even if others remain. e.g. Schindler. e.g. Famine relief.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. If resources are limited, an inequality might require nobody having some benefit. If resources are limited, it is better to eliminate as many evils as possible even if others remain. e.g. Schindler. e.g. Famine relief. e.g. Medical care in conflict zones.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil. e.g. Women suffer more sexual assaults but it is no solution to increase those suffered by men.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil. e.g. Women suffer more sexual assaults but it is no solution to increase those suffered by men. Inequality is sometimes required to address an evil.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil. e.g. Women suffer more sexual assaults but it is no solution to increase those suffered by men. Inequality is sometimes required to address an evil. e.g. Women may need more resources to travel safely at night than men.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil. e.g. Women suffer more sexual assaults but it is no solution to increase those suffered by men. Inequality is sometimes required to address an evil. e.g. Women may need more resources to travel safely at night than men. e.g. Gay PRIDE might require greater police protection to march safely.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Thinking of evils in terms of inequalities is unhelpful. The equal distribution of evil does not eliminate the evil. e.g. Women suffer more sexual assaults but it is no solution to increase those suffered by men. Inequality is sometimes required to address an evil. e.g. Women may need more resources to travel safely at night than men. e.g. Gay PRIDE might require greater police protection to march safely. e.g. Needing more shelters for women and children fleeing domestic violence.
Evils vs. Inequalities Evils vs. Inequalities Should feminists prioritise evils rather than inequalities?
shrink References Wasserstrom, Richard A. 1977. Racism, sexism, and preferential treatment. UCLA Law Review (Feb.): 581 615.. 1979. Racism and sexism. In Philosophy and women, ed. Sharon Bishop and Marjorie Weinzweig, 5 20. The Wadsworth Series in Social Philosophy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Excerpted from Wasserstrom (1977) with renumbered footnotes, isbn: 0534006094.
Notes Notes