Values in Good Caring Relations

Thomas E. Randall
{"title":"Values in Good Caring Relations","authors":"Thomas E. Randall","doi":"10.5206/FPQ/2018.3.5781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Ethics of Care, Virginia Held (2006) explores what values of care might fulfil normative criteria for evaluating the moral worth of relations. Held identifies seven potential values: attentiveness, empathy, mutual concern, sensitivity, responsiveness, taking responsibility, and trustworthiness. Though Held’s work is helpful as a starting point for conceptualizing some normative criteria, two problems need addressing. First, Held does not provide sufficient justification for why these potential values ought to be considered genuine values in the care ethical framework. Second, Held overlooks two other potential values cited in the care literature: competence (Tronto 1993) and respect (Engster 2007). This paper builds upon Held’s work to offer a more coherent understanding of the values of care. It does so by scrutinizing and conceptually organizing the above nine potential values. Of these nine, only four are considered genuine values: attentiveness, mutual concern, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. It is concluded that good caring relations are those that exemplify the four values of care in their deliverance of caring practices.","PeriodicalId":387473,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/FPQ/2018.3.5781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In The Ethics of Care, Virginia Held (2006) explores what values of care might fulfil normative criteria for evaluating the moral worth of relations. Held identifies seven potential values: attentiveness, empathy, mutual concern, sensitivity, responsiveness, taking responsibility, and trustworthiness. Though Held’s work is helpful as a starting point for conceptualizing some normative criteria, two problems need addressing. First, Held does not provide sufficient justification for why these potential values ought to be considered genuine values in the care ethical framework. Second, Held overlooks two other potential values cited in the care literature: competence (Tronto 1993) and respect (Engster 2007). This paper builds upon Held’s work to offer a more coherent understanding of the values of care. It does so by scrutinizing and conceptually organizing the above nine potential values. Of these nine, only four are considered genuine values: attentiveness, mutual concern, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. It is concluded that good caring relations are those that exemplify the four values of care in their deliverance of caring practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
良好关怀关系的价值
在《关怀的伦理》一书中,Virginia Held(2006)探讨了关怀的哪些价值可能满足评估关系道德价值的规范性标准。赫尔德确定了七种潜在的价值观:专注、同理心、相互关心、敏感、回应、承担责任和值得信赖。虽然赫尔德的工作作为概念化一些规范标准的起点是有帮助的,但有两个问题需要解决。首先,赫尔德没有提供足够的理由来说明为什么这些潜在的价值应该在护理伦理框架中被视为真正的价值。其次,Held忽略了护理文献中引用的另外两个潜在价值:能力(Tronto 1993)和尊重(Engster 2007)。本文以赫尔德的工作为基础,对护理的价值提供了更连贯的理解。它通过仔细检查和从概念上组织上述九个潜在值来做到这一点。在这九种价值观中,只有四种被认为是真正的价值观:关注、相互关心、回应和值得信赖。结论是,良好的关怀关系是那些在关怀实践中体现了四种关怀价值观的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mary Daly’s Philosophy: Some Bergsonian Themes Hope, Solidarity, and Justice If “Ifs” and “Buts” Were Candy and Nuts Mansplaining as Epistemic Injustice How Not to Watch Feminist Pornography
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1