2 part response to 2 student discussions on ethics

ESPOND TO BOTH PARTS FOR BOTH STUDENTS/100 words or more Per response to classmate. You can cite anything from Burnor, Richard and Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices. New York: Oxford University, 2011. Print. ALSO for each students PART 2, this is the question they are answering just to give you better insight…In this week’s module we saw that the ethics of care views human life in terms of cycles of attachment. Overlapping relations and cycles of relations make up who we are as individuals. We do not get a sense of who we are by detaching ourselves from our relations with others. This contrasts with the conception of defining the self in separation from and even opposition to others. Do you agree with the idea that we are who we are in terms of our relations, and that we are neither independent nor separate?

In the AVP for this week we also saw that Gilligan rejects Kohlberg’s assumption of a hierarchical ordering that places abstract thinking above thinking in terms of narratives involving human relations when trying to gauge the moral development of individuals. Do you see her critique as a strong one? And if so, what might the success of her critique suggest about employing similar feminist approaches to other areas of the Western philosophical tradition beyond just ethics—such as metaphysics or epistemology? These disciplines too, have tacitly assumed—at least since the Enlightenment—that genuine insight into the nature of reality and the structure of truth is to be arrived at via a penchant for abstract thinking, universalizable principles, and a strict adherence to rationality. For instance, how might a feminist, or what other philosopher’s have called a “Communitarian”, approach to the metaphysical question concerning the nature of the individual, or self—and what it means to be one—contrast with what Hobbes or Kant took the self to be?

  • Build the discussion by posting thoughtful and substantive, interactive responses of 100 words or more to your classmates’ posts.
  • Interaction should include constructive criticism (positive and negative) offered in a supportive, collegial spirit. In an active learning experience such as discussion, constructive criticism can be a very powerful learning tool if offered in this manner.
  • The following questions may be used as guidance for a good response:1.Do you agree with the view put forth? Why/why not?2.What are some of the strengths of such a view? How might one go aboutbuilding upon and developing such a view?3.What are some of the shortcomings of such a view? What sorts ofobjections come to mind to the view put forth? All written material must also conform to proper standards for spelling and grammar.


Part I: Case 19, p. 132

Although what Elvira is plotting against her fiancé Ethelred is 100% morally wrong unfortunately it is something that happens all the time in our society. Forcing someone to marry you or rush them is only going to end badly for both of you. What people don’t realize is that even if the other person isn’t saying it there is a reason why they don’t want to marry you. Elvira is getting Ethelred’s hopes up for a child, what we don’t know is that maybe Ethelred has always wanted children. I truly believe that everything eventually comes to light and when Ethelred finds out that Elvira faked the pregnancy their marriage will be over. In all three cases the Parents and the woman are trying to force the other parties into doing what they want. They aren’t thinking of the other parities involved. For a person to come out as gay is a big and potentially scary thing, only to be rejected by her parents. In the second case, I understand the parents are well again and want their daughter back however they should give it time and get to know her first. It is more traumatizing to uproot a child who has already been bounced around due to their parents life style. Lastly in case three the Woman just wants a way to force the man into marrying her. The parties involved are all only looking out for themselves and not looking at the bigger picture or concerned about who else is getting hurt.

Part II:

I Disagree with the idea that we are who we are in terms of our relations, and that we are neither independent nor separate. Although much of our lives are dependent on our relationships we also need to take time for self care and for some of us that means separating ourselves from certain people so we can focus on ourself. Yes as Children we depend on the adults around us to take care of us and once we have kids we need to take care of them and our parents as they get older. However we all need some “me” time and to focus on just ourselves and that comes at different times in each of our lives.

Gilligan rejects Kohlberg’s assumption of a hierarchical ordering that places abstract thinking above thinking in terms of narratives involving human relations when trying to gauge the moral development of individuals is a strong one. Assuming that all girls are responses are inferior is wrong. Some people see things as black and white where others see the gray area’s involved. I don’t think that has anything to do with gender and more so how you were raised.


Part 1

The parties involved are the parents and the daughter attending college. The moral issues at stake are disowning their daughter because her different views and the parents judging and controlling their daughter because of her sexual preference. The big similarity in this case and the other two are each one has somebody trying force their another against their free will. They are trying hard to persuade the views of the other person. The college student’s parents should be protecting and caring for regardless of her sexual preference. This is going to just push their daughter away and affect her relationship with her future kids and her partners. Because of the “care perspective, a feminine moral perspective that focuses upon feelings, relationships, and individual needs,” this girl is going to handle this situation differently than from the justice perspective (Burnor & Raley, pg. 245). The girl is not going to rebel against her parents and “instead be worried about her parent’s fear of” her new sexual preference (Burnor & Raley, pg. 241).

Part 2

From the day you are born you immediately for relations with another person. This starts to develop yourself and how you make decisions. For instance, if you were never nurtured as a child, you would not know exactly how to reciprocate that love to your child as easily because you had not experienced it. There are negatives effects to care as well, for example, if you are coddled to much as a child, you grow too close to that individual and it is hard to detach and form other relationships and you are too reliable on that person and lacking independence. No one person is without some sort of relationship with someone, even if you choose to be distant you still have relations.

I see Gilligan’s rejections of Kohlberg’s assumption as a strong case. Her argument against Kohlberg is that just because a female perspective is to take more of ethics of caring approach, doesn’t mean it’s inferior to a male’s universal approach accounting utility and consequences. When you thing about ethics of caring it utilizes the human relations to develop sound moral perspective and really think of another way of attacking a problem instead of the you relying on your thinking as an individual and the answer being in black and white.