You are on page 1of 4

Bair made many points about the usefulness of care ethics I was at first every skeptical of, but

after much contemplation its become clear that care ethics has a place in any logical based ethics
system. She gives a very feminine line of reasoning and goes more in depth than I think is necessary, I
think the reasoning for care ethics can be found as a necessity not by looking at the consequences to
society as she does in depth, but simply through analyzing what a system like care ethics would add
western ethical thinking. I modify her two largest examples supporting it to some extent as well as
slightly altering what love and care mean with the goal of through using only logical thinking striving for
the most perfect ethical system we can create

The first major reason we need to incorporate a system of care ethics is as Bair puts it to help
those who truly are not in full power of themselves but this concept has many deeper reasons behind it
as well. Her objection is that the western system is to individualistic, I may be looking at this too cut and
dry but to me this means that our system, at its core is about the individual being able to peruse his own
morality within the confines of our legal system. To put it in less abstract terms. Our legal and social
systems place an importance on the autonomy of the individual and the individuals rational. On top of
this most of our laws are designed to prevent people from taking that ability from you. This notion in
itself is entirely a pure and good one, the issue however, comes from how far we have taken this sense
of personal rights and powers over other people. One small example of this is the crazy lawsuit culture
we live in today. A more ethically relevant example is that people growing up in a western system of
ethics can see children homeless on the streets and still feel like walking by them doing nothing is a
morally just actions. The reason one can do this with any issue that truly calls for moral action from love
and care is because such a left brain system doesnt account for concepts like love and compassion. I
want you to imagine for a minute a world where it is law that you must love everybody else in the world
equally too yourself. Well to put it simply we just couldnt, it would be a nightmare to implement and

thats why as a system we have not implemented any laws like this. But the abstractness of concepts like
love and understanding does not get rid of our obligations to them and it certainly does not warrant
ignoring them completely. I wish to avoid doing any injustice or to seem like I am accusing the western
system and those who created it of evil and neglect. On the contrary, they build a beautiful system that
had a great deal of utility especially at a time when education was scarce compared to what it is today
and frankly lawlessness was commonplace. My criticisms for the entirety of the paper will only be
criticisms of the strict logic behind the decisions they made nothing will be accusations of corruption or
bad intent. In fact I will go as far as to say that those like Kant and other important writers in western
ethical theory would not disagree with some of the points Im making because we have taken a good
system to an extreme. The same can be done with care ethics if we are not careful, we must find
balance and moderation
Another major point in the argument for the implementation of a system of care ethics is that
this strict left brain system of ethics we have created has allowed for many atrocities against the good.
Racism, sexism, ageism, and all sorts of discrimination have been justified using systems that neglect
love at the core of its system. To define love for myself I take the concept to the highest implementable
degree, this being loving all of things as if they were yourself. There is no system in the world that holds
its belief as a core premise that would condone any form of enslavement or discrimination. No western
ethical thinking outside of some extreme forms of consequentialism say that these things are just. This
to me is undeniable logic based truth that love and care need to be a part of any ethical system we come
up with. Love acts as a check and balance for the other systems we create to guide action. If the systems
we create to guide our actions are designed us to ethical goodness and Love can guarantee that our
guidelines keep us within the realm of ethical goodness then we are logically obligated to make love a
part of that system. Im going to argue that it goes even further than that. Love on one level holds the
position of a check and balance. Off all of the ethical checks and balances that end up making guidelines

for actions love is the most supreme ultimate ruling on ethics that exists. It is the final decision and if an
action does not correspond with love it can never be ethical. This may seem like a grandiose statement
about love but I will explain why its not.

Think for a moment how our government is set up. We have three branches all making
ruling decisions about the actions and policies of our nation. They have the illusion of having equal
power but in reality they do exist on slightly different levels of power and control. Because this analogy
is relevant to how we create ethical guidelines I want to focus on our constitution. The Supreme Court is
the one that holds the final power to say whether something is just or unjust in the confines of the
constitution (our ethical guidelines) while the executive and legislative branches change and implement
that document and each have power in saying what goes into it. Even if something makes it past the
executive branch and legislative branch the Supreme Court can over-rule it. Only if they find whatever
the other branches are trying to do unconstitutional. This is the role love needs to play when trying to
create ethical guidelines. It must exist on one level in the constitution (our system of ethical guidelines)
and on another as the hypothetical judicial branch of our ethical rulings. Within this we can begin to
grasp a fully functioning balanced ethical system where we have our hard logic systems creating the
guidelines and deciding how to implement them, we have love fulfilling its role as the final check. I see
this formulation being the only way the human brain can create a system of ethics true to humanities
function and nature. We cannot process concepts like love and care for others within our logical rule
creating systems it would just become a mess, but without love in the system the system itself creates a
disaster in the form of countless injustices against logical reasoning the system was implemented for.
This is both alike and not alike what Bair said. In closing while I did modify some of her terms and only
focus on a small area of her argument I think the core is still here presented in a different light and
rational.

You might also like