Section I, Question 1
For Nell Noddings, the completion in a relationship comes through reciprocity between
the care-giver and the one cared for. To be in either of these positions of the relationship
one must be a person, or a potential person (ie. Fetus, or vegetative folks). The notion of
a person or potential person is needed for an agent to be a responsible moral agent worthy
of equal participation in a relationship. Ordinarily the notion of care is tied to
womanhood, either viz. femininization in occupations or in maternal relationships. For
completion in a relationship to occur the care-giver must receive care as will as the one
being cared for. This is an important feature that is often lacking in the general
conception of moral relationships, which so often do not place value on the female. The
act of caring becomes complete when both parties give what is needed. The idea of what
is needed allows for flexibility in relationships, where what is needed for one may be as
simple as a smile or as challenging as a donating a kidney.
Word count: 182
Section I, Question 3
The care and justice perspective are very differing perspectives of a positive relationship
and interaction between people. The justice perspective is the general conception held by
most philosophers, outside of many women philosophers including Carol Gilligan, about
how a moral relationship between people should be. The justice perspective states that a
moral action is one that is based on doing what is right according to social mores or laws.
For example, a moral act from this perspective would be something like: Mary did not
steal the apple because she knew that it was not hers and that would be an illegal act,
condemned by society.
The care perspective, which Gilligan advocates, includes more of a conception of
responsibility and sacrifice to make a relationship moral. For Gilligan morality goes
beyond an interaction based on what is right according to law or social mores, it extends
to what is deemed maternal, loving, and giving of one’s being. But there are problems
with her conception of morality, namely a woman’s probability of getting lost in the
shuffle of her action of giving, without giving to herself.
Word count: 184
Section II, Question 5
Metaphors about womanhood attached to the conception of nature can be both beneficial
and detrimental to women. The beneficial end of the idea of womanhood being tied to
nature is the idea of nature as a care-giver, a mother who gives fertile ground and
resources to her children. The nature model tied to being a woman provides the space for
a woman to think of herself as a productive giver, this is beneficial because it connotes a
positive idea of giving and caring, which is often lacking in general conceptions of
meaningful interactions or relations. The beneficial side should tell us as residents on the
Earth to love and respect our mother, to only use the resources that are necessary to
sustain our existences, but this often does not hold true. The detrimental side of nature
being tied to womanhood is tied to the idea that we as humans continue to ‘rape and
pillage’ our land, as though that is what a woman can be seen to be used for as well. To
see land as a vessel that merely gives, without asking for anything in return, be it in the
form of conservation or sustainable living, is exactly how we should not view nature or
women, but so often do. The problem with the nature model of motherhood is quite
flagrant and dates back to some of the earliest philosophers, including Francis Bacon.
Word count: 232
Section II, Question 7
The feminist are interested in various forms of equality, including social equality,
economic equality, moral equality, mental equality, and legal equality. All of these areas
are needed for the traditional conception of equality to come to fruition, as it is currently
not a part of our society in its full form. Equality is needed in various realms including
equal access to institutions that are pervasive in our society, such as education, medical
care, etc. For equality to exist it must exist not only in legal realms, which are often
insufficient and non-protective as well is in social realms. To shift the social realm to be
place that is conducive to equality is going to be challenging, if not slightly impossible
with the current patriarchal system that rewards those who are of the same manifestation
as those in power (ie. White, male, ablest, etc.) For the Feminist, while equality should
be pushed legally that is not the whole solution, we must change the system at its roots.
Allowances should be made legally for women to promote their social roles in society as
mother and care-giver. Monetary resources should be made available for such women as
they are the bringers of life to our society as well as the people who contribute to the
moral development of the people who make up our future.
Word count: 222
Section II, Question 8
The ideas of the intersection of race and gender are valid additions to the ideas of
affirmative action. The necessary understanding of the intersection of race and gender
are essential to develop a complete model of affirmative action. As it stands, affirmative
action acknowledges one facet of one’s existence, be that race or gender but does not
intersect the two to conceptualize a whole person. The intersection is needed to truly
give affirmative action to people, of all races, genders, body abilities, etc. Without the
idea of intersection many people are marginalized or lost in the shuffle of judicial actions.
The idea of the intersection of race and gender suggests that people not only be seen as
one component but all their components that make up their existence, this understanding
should extend to court’s understanding of identity because it currently is lacking. For
affirmative action to work as a method of attempting to level the playing field of life,
work, etc all of a person’s being must be acknowledged with no one type of person put in
a person in position of privilege.
Word count: 183
Section III, Question 9
Annette Bair discussed at length ideas of trust and vulnerability in her various articles
discussed in the class. For her trust is often problematic because of the institutions that
are currently in place in our society. Ideas of marital trust are often fraught with
problems because of the intrinsic social role of male being that of privilege and power.
Women are often placed in the position of being obedient to their spouses and acting in a
passive manner in their relationships, which would clearly prove to be problematic for
women to truly trust such a person of power. When there is in an imbalance of power in
a relationship one party is at the disadvantage and thus the party in the inferior position
should question the positions/thoughts/orders of the person in the superior or controlling
position. Bair sees intrinsic problems to the whole system that our society runs on that of
a Caucasian patriarchal structure which serves to place women at a low position of little
power. The problem with the current system that is ubiquitous in our society extends
beyond that of marital control and works within the realm of motherhood and all
femininized jobs. It is because our society does not value these traditionally female roles
that a significant deficit is made on the part of society to women. Bair suggests that these
positions or social roles be deemed valuable and even acts of monetary compensation be
put in place to not only suggest social importance to the masses but also reward those acts
as indeed valuable. Bair asks the question, “Who can women trust?” and she comes up
with some negative ideas of the notion that women really should not trust many of the
facets of our lives that on the surface should be touched, like our parents, lovers, etc.
Bair suggests a model of trust based on competence morally and emotionally as well as
the ability to share with the person being trusted as well the person trusting. After
reading the article, I came away with a negative conception of trusting relationships and I
really wonder if there really can be trust (as she constructs) in any relationship. Sadly I
thought I was trustworthy.
Word count: 368
Section III, Question 10
Marilyn Friedman agues that moral partiality is not really that different from moral
impartiality in her article “The Social Self and the Partiality Debates.” She begins the
article by delineating commonly held conceptions of impartiality and partiality among
philosophers. Friedman suggests that while most people have believed for quite some
time that some people should be placed on a more valuable emotional plane than others
(partiality), philosophers have just recently began to fully acknowledge and praise this
model. The conception of moral impartiality is intrinsic problems intertwined within it,
specifically it requires emotional omnipotence and an emotional view that is tainted or
biased by nothing. The idea of emotional omnipotence and an objective view is
problematic because it not only is impossible for humanity to truly attain and utilize, but
it also serves to erase the needed understanding of love and compassion in relationships.
The love that I refer to extends beyond an equality of emotion for all people, and it serves
to problematize the relationships held by women where trust, love and compassion are
necessary and contingent factors to their relationships.
Friedman argues that these stances are not that dissimilar and in fact problematic enough
to call for a middle ground. Friedman argues that partiality has its own problems and
cannot be fully trusted, as it places privilege on certain relationships. She argues that the
social self must be allowed a sort of multiplicidous outlook, one that allows for
impartiality and partiality. Both are necessary, she claims, for the facilitation of one’s
own moral being as well as positive interactions with others. Overall her argument for
partialism works, but toward the end when speaking of the multiplicidous outlook I found
myself a little lost. I do not fully understand her conclusion, but rather lean toward a
partialist approach to morality, perhaps because I am a common person not a philosopher.
Word count : 311
Section III, Question 13
Davion argues for moral integrity that is based on the conception that moral development
and change are positive and indeed rather necessary for radical thought to take place.
Davion first delineates two other philosophers’ arguments, and suggests that while
Hoagland and McFall both have their positive attributes, Hoagland allows for more room
for the growth of a person. According to Davion, McFall argues that moral integrity and
moral identity are rooted in unconditional moral commitments that are not allowed any
room to shift or evolve with time. This idea of unconditional moral commitments is
problematic for Davion as it does not allow room for radical thought, such as femisnist
liberation, to take root because the unconditional moral commitments may come from
sources that are not progressive. Davion suggests that by placing unconditional moral
commitments as being tied to moral identity does not do much to foster a person who
desires to evolve. Davion argues that Hoagland’s argument for understanding the
necessity of change and evolution in a person’s character does not detract from the
morality of the person and instead supports the moral identity of the person. According
to Davion, Hoagland suggests that there is a necessity to allowing a person the shift their
moral beliefs because quite often these beliefs can be rooted in institutions that promote
the marginalization of women and other people who are outside the sphere of power in
our society. Davion suggests an understanding of intersection and the multiplicidous
being to facilitate a greater understanding of moral identity. Davion is somewhat
successful in her argument for the multiplicidous being, but I do not think that separation
of one’s being is needed in all occasions. There are people who can live as they are
within the intersection, without giving up one facet of their existence when in one locale
over another. Logically she does put forth a coherent and cohesive argument, however
my personal morality and identity does not share with her conclusion.
Word count: 327
Extra Credit:
The story you told so vivaciously told in our class to illustrate the kinship model of
ecological understanding was from the Tagisn and Tligngit tribes. The story was about a
young girl who is essentially kidnapped, or lead astray by a boy who is actually a bear.
She becomes impregnated by the bear and after losing all conception of time, due to
spells placed on her by the bear, she finally returns to her tribe where she is placed in a
tent that is right outside the main area of living. Toward the end of the story, her co-tribe
people put on bear skin and play around and she attacked these people. Although I have
rendered the story in a much less lucid fashion, the point of the story was to illustrate the
need of understanding the relationship between nature (specifically bears) and people, as
there is to be innate sense of family with these creatures. The story illustrates that it is
not morally right to kill these creatures because they are in fact part of the human family.