关注程度:成功、认可和完成

IF 1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1017/hyp.2023.57
Pip Seton Bennett
{"title":"关注程度:成功、认可和完成","authors":"Pip Seton Bennett","doi":"10.1017/hyp.2023.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Care ethics has attracted much scholarly attention since its inception in the 1980s. As befits a moral theory, which is how it is frequently perceived, those working in the field have increasingly sought to clarify and make robust elements central to the project. This article hopes to offer a small but important contribution to this iterative process. I make a case for resisting what is characterized as the recognition claim found in the work of Joan Tronto, Nel Noddings, and Eva Feder Kittay. This is the claim that for an action to be caring it is necessarily recognized as such by whomever is being cared for. I explicate the arguments pertaining to this issue in these authors’ writings and conclude that not only do the arguments fall short of showing the necessity for including this aspect in an ethics of care, but I make preliminary arguments as to the implications for resisting the inclusion of the recognition claim. The thrust of these suggestions is that care ethics is a better moral theory when it admits to degrees of care rather than taking a binary view.","PeriodicalId":47921,"journal":{"name":"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Degrees of Care: Success, Recognition, and Completion\",\"authors\":\"Pip Seton Bennett\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/hyp.2023.57\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Care ethics has attracted much scholarly attention since its inception in the 1980s. As befits a moral theory, which is how it is frequently perceived, those working in the field have increasingly sought to clarify and make robust elements central to the project. This article hopes to offer a small but important contribution to this iterative process. I make a case for resisting what is characterized as the recognition claim found in the work of Joan Tronto, Nel Noddings, and Eva Feder Kittay. This is the claim that for an action to be caring it is necessarily recognized as such by whomever is being cared for. I explicate the arguments pertaining to this issue in these authors’ writings and conclude that not only do the arguments fall short of showing the necessity for including this aspect in an ethics of care, but I make preliminary arguments as to the implications for resisting the inclusion of the recognition claim. The thrust of these suggestions is that care ethics is a better moral theory when it admits to degrees of care rather than taking a binary view.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.57\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.57","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要护理伦理学自20世纪80年代兴起以来,引起了学术界的广泛关注。与道德理论相适应,这是人们经常认为的,那些在这个领域工作的人越来越多地寻求澄清并使强大的元素成为这个项目的核心。本文希望对这个迭代过程提供一个小而重要的贡献。在琼·特朗托、内尔·诺丁斯和伊娃·费德·基塔伊的作品中,我提出了一个反对承认主张的理由。这是一种主张,对于一个行为是关心的,它必须被任何被关心的人认可。我在这些作者的著作中解释了与这个问题有关的论点,并得出结论,这些论点不仅没有表明在护理伦理中包括这方面的必要性,而且我对抵制承认要求的含义提出了初步的论点。这些建议的主旨是,当护理伦理学承认护理程度而不是采取二元观点时,它是一种更好的道德理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Degrees of Care: Success, Recognition, and Completion
Abstract Care ethics has attracted much scholarly attention since its inception in the 1980s. As befits a moral theory, which is how it is frequently perceived, those working in the field have increasingly sought to clarify and make robust elements central to the project. This article hopes to offer a small but important contribution to this iterative process. I make a case for resisting what is characterized as the recognition claim found in the work of Joan Tronto, Nel Noddings, and Eva Feder Kittay. This is the claim that for an action to be caring it is necessarily recognized as such by whomever is being cared for. I explicate the arguments pertaining to this issue in these authors’ writings and conclude that not only do the arguments fall short of showing the necessity for including this aspect in an ethics of care, but I make preliminary arguments as to the implications for resisting the inclusion of the recognition claim. The thrust of these suggestions is that care ethics is a better moral theory when it admits to degrees of care rather than taking a binary view.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
“My Soul Hurt, and I Felt as If I Was Going to Die”: Obstetric Violence as Torture “Obstetric Violence,” “Mistreatment,” and “Disrespect and Abuse”: Reflections on the Politics of Naming Violations During Facility-Based Childbirth Animating the Affect–Care–Labor Link in the Wake of “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill”: Care Ethics and Policymaking on Indian Surrogacy Thinking through Vulnerability Me, Not You: The Trouble with Mainstream Feminism. Alison Phipps. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2020 (ISBN: 978-1526147172)
×
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