Download phi_107_overview_4

PHI Overview 4
Social Contract Ethics and Care
Ethics
Welcome to Module Four. Why is there a list of words that the FCC has decided are not
allowed on television? Everyone knows what these words are, but we as a society have
agreed not to use them or that it is wrong to use them in certain circumstances. Who
exactly agreed what words would be inappropriate? This module considers a system of
ethics based on society's agreement, called the social contract theory. It will also discuss
care ethics, which is an ethical theory in which empathy and relationships are as equally
important as reasoning when deciding the morality of an action.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
1D discuss principles of justice as they relate to maintaining a relationship.
2C explain the purpose of ethics in relation to the social contract theory.
define the veil of ignorance and discuss how it relates to the social contract
3B
theory.
6D describe the care theory.
Module 4 Reading Assignment
Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 7 and 9.
Supplemental Reading Assignments (Required):
Edwards, S. D. (March 2011). Is there a distinctive care ethics? Nursing Ethics, 18(2),
184-191.
Course Login Instructions
If you are a first time user:
Please register your Pearson Online Solutions Student Access Code. You can find your
Student Access Code in the AAU Course Registration e-mail that came with your text.
If you are a returning user:
Please visit the Access Code Registration page to log in. You must log in every time you
access this course. If you are not logged in, you will not be able to access the premium
resources.
NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources you access with the link
above, is not recommended.
Please view Part 1 of the Online Presentation for Module 4.
Please view Part 2 of the Online Presentation for Module 4.
Social Contract Ethics and Care Ethics
Chapter 7 Lecture Notes: Social Contract Ethics
Framing the Social Contract
Although they are different, the various ethical theories that have been presented all share
the notion that ethical truth is something to be found. Constructivists take a different
approach: ethical principles are made, not found. Constructivists, typified by the contract
theorists, hold that a statement becomes ethical when endorsed by a particular group, or
when recognized and affirmed from some special perspective. This last point is particularly
important since most contract theorists hold that not all social contract constructions are
valid.
Thomas Hobbes’s contract theory is based on the view that the state of nature—a pre-social
state—is best described as a “war of all against all.” For Hobbes, the state of nature is such
a miserable place that its inhabitants would agree to almost any arrangement that improves
their lot in life. The fundamental purpose of the social contract is to establish order and
provide security. So long as a social system achieves that end, Hobbes believes that it is at
least a decent bargain.
Social contract theories such as those of Hobbes and others have had broad appeal. Social
contracts generally do not rely on dubious metaphysical or religious claims. They base
ethics not on faith, but on agreements. Contract theorists place ethics squarely within the
natural world. Social contract theory does not depend on any profound rational powers or
special intuitions. It also tends to acknowledge the darker side of human nature, but still
maintains humanity's ability to construct an ethical system.
Contract theorists have often been criticized for offering a theory based on a fiction;
namely, the fiction that people sat down in a state of nature and drew up a contract. This
criticism is unfair since it takes the contract far too literally. The contract is mainly used as a
means of examining the justice and fairness of social and ethical systems. The agreement is
not what you have agreed to, but what you would have agreed to if you had been given the
chance.
Fairness and Social Contract Theory: John Rawls
A somewhat more elaborate system of social contract ethics was developed by John Rawls.
Rawls proposed that we consider what sort of ethical system or rules we would favor for a
society if we knew nothing about our own circumstances in that society, i.e. we had no idea
what social, ethical, racial, or economic group we would end up in. By choosing rule from
behind a “veil of ignorance,” the system we would adopt from this unbiased perspective
would count as fair. By placing his contractors behind the veil, Rawls is able filter out bias
and justify his preferred distribution of goods. Under these circumstances, one is unlikely to
agree to a society in which men make more than women or one in which one religion takes
precedence over everything else. Similarly, everyone would want to ensure that they
receive the same basic freedoms as everyone else and that disparities in wealth are not
such that some live in mansions but others are homeless.
Gauthier’s Contractarian Ethics
Another version of social contract theory was developed by David Gauthier who used game
theory to establish the mutual self-interested benefits of group cooperation. Gauthier holds
that we do not need to strip people of their biases and desires to come up with our basic
moral rules and institutions. In fact, we can rely on an individual’s rational self-interest as a
justification for a minimal set of principles. Gauthier’s approach, which he terms “morals by
agreement,” is especially influenced by the “prisoner’s dilemma” in game theory (see
example in reading). Because of the less than optimal outcomes of the prisoner’s dilemma,
Gauthier argued that it is rational for people to cooperate in order to do better than they
would had they looked out only for their own interests.
The Social Contract Myth and Its Underlying Assumptions
Social contract theory employs a number of important assumptions in its theoretical model,
many of which are a source of contention for the theory’s detractors. First is the radical
individualism that protects individual rights but seems to ignore the inherently social nature
of individuals. Secondly, the narrowness of obligations implied by the contract seems to only
recognize voluntary obligation and not those obligations that we may have necessarily, e.g.
being part of a family. Third is the assumption that ethics is a matter of choice, and
anything that falls outside of the contract is not part of the ethical system. Finally, there is
the assumption that only those partaking in the contract are part of the moral community.
This last assumption seems to leave out those that may not be able to live up to the
demands of the contract, such as the young, infirm, elderly, and even those from other
cultures or societies that did not sign our social contract.
Chapter 9 Lecture Notes: Care Ethics
Neglect of Women’s Ethical Views
Historically, women’s ethical views have taken a backseat to those of their male
counterparts. Until recently, most ethical theories were written by men, and even those
written by women often relied on a male-dominated outlook. Care ethics marks a departure
from traditional approaches and takes into account the experiences of women. Although the
emphasis is on female experiences, we want to avoid the silly attempt at “the woman’s
perspective.” To avoid supposing there is a single “female ethical theory,” we talk about
care ethics rather than feminist ethics. Care ethics emphasizes the value of fostering
relationships, paying as much attention to personal details as to abstract principles, and
recognizing the ethical importance of affection and care for others.
Care ethics developed from the “extra-ethical” scientific research of Lawrence Kohlberg and
Carol Gilligan. It was Gilligan that noted that the apparent moral deficiency found in the
study of children’s moral development. According to Kohlberg, women seemed to
demonstrate lower levels of moral development compared to their male counterparts. When
faced with a moral dilemma, women often wanted additional information, such the nature of
the relationship between the characters in the case. What Gilligan noted in her book In a
Different Voice was not a developmental deficiency, but a different way of framing moral
issues. Women were simply viewing the moral problems in a different way, which was
impossible to see because of Kohlberg’s own bias.
The Care Perspective on Ethics
The care perspective is not just a desire for the details of the relationships between moral
agents, but something more fundamental. Care ethics is a rejection of the primacy of
reason in all moral decision making. Although reason, rules, and principles may be
important, sympathy is the basic moral capacity, not law-discerning or consequencecalculating reason.
Care ethicists want to emphasize the importance of feelings in ethics, but there are several
cases in which we still want there to be rules that may check even the best intentions.
Feelings can often be a valuable source of moral motivation, but they can also be unreliable
when our own biases and prejudices come out, e.g. the revulsion that some might have to
skin color, or the “feeling” that women shouldn’t participate in political life. However, we
also do not want to posit a false dilemma. We do not have to think of ethics as being either
pure principle or pure feeling; the two can serve to check and correct each other.
The care perspective does not ignore or disparage reason, but it does emphasize the
importance of empathy, affection, friendship, and relationships in general—something often
ignored in both utilitarian and Kantian thought. In the case of the former, the utility
calculations that count everyone’s well-being equally also entails that we must not give any
additional consideration to those who are closest to us. To the care ethicist, the bonds of
affection, friendship, and family must be recognized as an important and distinct ethical
element, not just one pleasure calculation among others. Similarly, the Kantian approach
requires that one does one’s duties, and these duties tend to be impersonal. Even in cases
where a duty is owed to someone close to us, this duty is not based on caring, feeling, or
reciprocity. In fact, counter intuitively, helping a family member out of love or sympathy
would be less morally praiseworthy than had one done so out of duty.
Women and Ethics
Although female perspectives in ethics have traditionally been ignored, we want to be
careful about how we view care ethics. There is a danger of labeling something a “feminine
ethic” based on a distinctly “feminine character.” This distinction has been used as a
justification for treating women in ways that are considered condescending or outright
unjust. This less than desirable treatment has also been found in theoretical approaches,
such as virtue ethics. Historically, a virtuous woman was demure, quiet, modest, and
chaste. Although dangers do exist in viewing ethics as feminine or masculine, it cannot be
denied that there is a genuine and profoundly valuable feminine consciousness that is
rooted in women’s social development, a consciousness that must be valued and
appreciated.
Required Audio:
Media Index. Please listen to the Audio to Go (located under Course) listed below.


Alternative Moral Theories
Evaluating An Ethical System
NOTE: If you are having difficulty accessing the above material, please click on the
PHI 107 Pearson Instructions.
Required Web Resources:
Please take this time to read this article about Social Contract Theory.
While reading, think about the historical development of contract theory
from ancient times to the modern versions we have read thus far.
While reading the following articles on care ethics, consider the special
emphasis placed on relationships.
Care Ethics
Ethics of Care
Required Presentations:
Chapter 7
Chapter 9