The ethics of care

From the wiki page (yes, the depths of my research will quite possibly leave you in awe):

The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory; that is, a theory about what makes actions right or wrong. It is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of relationships.

The basic beliefs of the theory are:

1. All individuals are interdependent for achieving their interests
2. Those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to
   1. the level of their vulnerability to one’s choices
   2. the level of their affectedness by one’s choices and no one else’s
3. It is necessary to attend to the contextual details of the situation in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved

I’ve been reading Maria Lugones’ theories on gender and colonialism lately. I am starting to fall in love with her work because of several personal reasons, and I guess our common ethnic/birth/cultural/social background plays a big role here. Anyway, one thing led to the other and I found myself pondering on what an “ethics of feminism” would look like, which is what eventually led me to find the “ethics of care” quoted above. Now, I haven’t read much on the subject so this is going to be a very superficial and partial list of mostly disconnected thoughts.

So, in the context of an “ethics of feminism”, and the quote above about “ethics of care”, I realized how this would be a flawed approach for the praxis of my kind of feminism. Because invariably, without fail, we have to deal with tribalism in this context. When these ethics postulate that “all individuals are interdependent”, I necessarily have to ask “Who is the “all” we are referring to here?”. Because obviously in a situation like the Schwyzer-gate, there is absolutely no inclusion of “all”, moreover, purposefully, this “all” is defined as a narrow, exclusionary group that indeed, works together (or remains silent together, as is the case) to help the group achieve their interests. And the same tribalist dynamics actively exclude “some” who will never be able to achieve their interests.

For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you.  Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.