Inti Martnez Ethical Theory Class Book 5/3/06 From Heaven to Earth: Reclaiming Ethics for Human Consumption

Nel Noddings Caring starts off its introduction by stating that [e]thics, the philosophical study of morality, has concentrated for the most part on moral reasoningThis emphasis gives ethics amathematical appearance, but it also moves discussion beyond the sphere of actual human activity1 Noddings wants to veer from such a geometrical and logical approach because empirical evidence suggests that individuals only rarely consult moral principles when making decisions that result in the prevention of harm2 and because ethics has been discussed largely in the language of the father: in principles and propositions, in terms such as justification, fairness, justice. At first, this seems as a very radical proposal, but it becomes more cogent after several pages of reading. Noddings caring theory does not ascribe to rigid laws and ruleswhich are characterized in a masculine/paternal fashion and are usually brokenbut she approaches ethics the way a mother wouldand this is the feminine view. This does not imply that all women will accept it or that men will reject itIt is feminine in the deep classical senserooted in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness.3 Logic, as in traditional philosophy, is still present in this view; however, it is not what Noddings caring theory revolves around. We might observe that man (in contrast to woman) has continually turned away from his inner self and feeling in pursuit of both science and ethics.4 When ethics has been sought in this fashion, the end has been a disaster, Noddings affirms. The father might sacrifice his own child in fulfilling a principle; the mother might

1 2

Nel Noddings, Caring 2nd Edition, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pg. 1. Preface to 2nd Edition, xv 3 Pg. 2 4 Pg. 87

sacrifice any principle to preserve the child.5 If one wants to be moral, if one wants to follow a realistic ethical theory, one needs to stay away from traditional masculine philosophy because it does not realize how prone human beings are to missing the mark. If traditional masculine philosophy actually took into account humans propensity to fail, ethical theory would not be based on rules. Following rigorous rules and dogmas does not produce human beings with fully developed and stable emotions. If one wants to be moral towards someone, one needs to, first, care for the other. Far from being romantic, an ethic of caring is practical, made for this earth. Its toughness is disclosed in a variety of features6 Noddings defines caring as a relationship that contains another, the cared-for, and we have already suggested that the one-caring and the cared-for are reciprocally dependent.7 The cared-for is overseen by the one-caring, and always reciprocates to the one-caringeven when its in a subtle and imperceptible way. If the demands of the cared-for become too great or if they are delivered ungraciously, the one-caring may become resentfuland withdraw her caring, Noddings says about how the one-caring could react to an abusive or irresponsible cared-for.8 In order to maintain balance and avoid confusion, Noddings has consistently associated the generic one-caring with the universal feminine, she, and cared-for with the masculine, he.9 From the get-go, Noddings system of ethical theory strikes as ambitious and inspiring. Her analysis of traditional (masculine) philosophy seems fair and accurate. Her outright exclusive language, while correct, could irk many readersmostly those traditional side with the male gender. Noddings straightforward division between masculine and feminine ways of carrying out affairs, of caring, should not be expected to be taken favorably by all readers. The

5 6

Pg. 37 Pg. 99 7 Pg. 58 8 Pg. 48 9 Pg. 4

authors proposal of veering away from a rule-based ethical system would fascinate someone with libertarian or anarchist sympathies. Most ethical and legal systems around the global today are based on rules, sourced from a leader, a legislative body, judicial decisions, or from a participatory democratic process. At first, realistically speaking, it would seem implausible to think of a world where our moral basis for decisions would be caring ethics. Noddings would respond by saying that this is due to the historical pervasiveness of the male figure in virtually every society and in every way; the world needs to be reeducated and future generations should be taught differently, she would say. Noddings considers ethics of principle as ambiguous and unstable. She is not very fond of Immanuel Kant, his followers, and their belief that things should be done out of duty. She says that [w]herever there is a principle, there is implied its exception and, too often, principles function to separate us from each other. We may become dangerously self-righteous when we perceive ourselves as holding a precious principle not held by the other. Noddings criticizes philosophers who believe ethical judgment must be universalizable (e.g., if under conditions X you are required to do A, then under sufficiently similar conditions, I too am required to do A). She opposes such universalizability because her attention is not on judgment and not on the particular acts we perform but on how we meet [others] morally and because the feminine view cares more about human encounters and relationships than about rules. This criticism of universalizability, one can presume, is directed to philosophers like R.M. Hare. What Noddings indeed considers universalto escape relativismis the caring attitude itself. 10 Actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, not under rules but in terms of how caring is expressed towards others. Even though Noddings tries to stir away from relativism, it seems like her caring ethics could very well follow this avenue.

10

Pg. 5

Chapter 1 of Caring analyzes what caring entails. Just like the traditional logical approach to ethical problems stems out of the masculine experience, Noddings caring theory emerges from the experience of womenspecifically of the experience and attitude of a nurturing mother. If we care for someone we feel a stir of desire or inclination toward him. In a related sense, I care for someone if I have regard for his views and interests. I cannot claim, however, to care for a friend or a relative if my caretaking is perfunctory or grudging. If I am in charge of paying for my elderly mothers nursing home bills, if I dont visit her, or write to her, or call her uponly pay her billsNoddings would accuse me of not actually caring for my motherand that is a valid reprimand.11 Noddings discusses several other topics regarding her caring ethics. So far, she has not given much detail on what is moral and what is not moral. Judging an action as right or wrong, Noddings writes, is not in the chief interest of caring ethics. She, however, decides to use these terms for simplicity. At the end, something is right or wrong, depending on whether it is done in a caring attitude, or notwhether it will make someone suffer, or not. 12 A caring attitude is what determines whether an action is right or wrong. For Noddings, it is not specific actions that make a person moral or immoral; it is their attitude, their caring attitude, in point of fact, which makes them moral or immoral. A critic could respond to this by doubting the plausibility, however important, of giving priority to motives and attitudes over results and consequences. How would an attitude or inclination for caring be measured in an effective and efficient manner in the real world, assuming Noddings caring ethics could be put to work in a given society? Engrossment, Noddings says, is fundamental when the one-caring is expressing her care towards the cared-for. Engrossment need not be intense or pervasive in the life of the one-

11 12

Pgs. 9,10 Pgs. 92, 93

caring, but it must be present, nonetheless. The level of engrossment should be high enough to care for someone in an effective manner, but not high enough as to deprive the one-caring of sleep and sanity; the level of engrossment should be judged according to the circumstances of each relationship and the personal attributes of the involved parties. Noddings rejects the concept of universal caringthat is, caring for everyone and everythingsince it is impossible to put into practice. Instead of caring for all the people in the world, we can (and should) care about all the people in the world. Caring about is an internal state of readiness to try to care for whoever crosses our path. Although Noddings recognizes the possibility of caring about people around the globe, she does not mention how you would be able to express ones caring towards someone you dont know who reportedly is suffering starvation or grave illness. The one-caring is always attuned to the cared-fors feelings, thoughts, and desires. There are times when the cared-fors demands are not the same as the one-carings suggestions; in such cases the one-caring may feel guiltwhich is always a risk when practicing caring, especially when sustained over time.13 This is a very positive aspect of Noddings ethical theory. She tends to be very optimistic of how humans can flourish and become even better persons under her feminine ethics. Caring can be expressed even when the one-caring is not physically present.14 Noddings tries to be very clear on the extent of caring by saying that it involves stepping out of ones own personal frame of reference into the others [frame of reference]. When we care, we consider the others point of view, his objective needs, and what he expects of us. Our attention, our mental attention, is on the cared-for, not on ourselves.15 To ascertain that an ethical theory based on caring is possible, Noddings believes there is a form of caring natural and accessible to all human beingsand this is her caring ethics, which mines the potential that
13 14

Pgs. 17, 18, 39 Pg. 19 15 Pg. 24

ever human has for caring. Noddings does not believe, however, that her caring theory is some sort of situation ethics or agapism. Since there is no commandment to love, nor a God to make such a commandment, then it is not possible for her caring ethics to be a form of agapism, the authors suggests.16 However, agapism, as I understand it, is offering and giving unconditional love (agape) to someone; it is guiding ones actions by the rule of love. Thus, if we substitute the word caring for the word loving in Noddings work, we would find that her ethics is a form of agapism. Of the few, yet incisive, remarks that Noddings makes about religion (particularly Christianity) throughout the book, she makes it clear that her caring ethics does not need the help of any religious institution to work well for humans. She probably does not want to associate herself with one religious view since her academic readership might dislike her religious references. Furthermore, it might be the case that her caring ethics has major and irreconcilable differences17 with Christianity. She argues that [h]uman love, human caring, will be quite enough on which to found an ethic. As a first reaction, I notice a clear skepticism of religion in Noddings work. Some irrational aspects of Christianity do not work very well with her framework (e.g., belief in the supernatural beings or events). It is very clear that she does not give any credit to the benefit religious activity in society. Chapter 2 studies the one-caring in great detail. The one-caring feels empathy whenever a caring relationship with the cared-for is established; she feels with the other, and for the other. When caring, the one-caring enters in a feeling modewhich need not be a deeply emotional mode. When in this mode, the one-caring accurately understands what the cared-for is facing. Whenever there is a caring relationship, conflicts arise. When such conflicts take place, a relationship should not be considered in bankruptcy, but opportunities to develop and

16 17

Pg. 28 Pg. 29

strengthen the relationship should be profited from. Noddings description of the one-caring appears to be very altruistic. As human beings, I believe it is imperative to keep an optimistic outlook of life. However, a touch of realism is needed to avoid being deceived by others ill intentions and dispositions. The one-caring is depicted as some benevolent and incredibly wise being that is attuned with her emotions and knows what to do every single time she faces a dilemma. In chapter 3, the author analyzes the role of the cared-for. Under the perceived attitude of the one-caring, the cared-for grows and glows. Reciprocity in a caring relationship need not entail the cared-for becoming the one-caringyet he must respond to her somehow. If the cared-for is not responsive to the one-carings empathy, the one-caring might be tempted to retreat and thus harm the cared-for (and herself, as well). The cared-for, in a caring relationship, should always seek to be a responsive participant. Without this responsiveness, the one-caring might face frustration and disappointment for the cared-for and the relationship itself. While I find Noddings description of the one-caring very positive, the whole caring relationship seems too unrealizable when not initiated and developed in a spontaneous fashion. Noddings does not give much of a description of how to handle a major problem between the cared-for and the one-caring. Today, most friendships that involve extremely passionate and caring individuals usually lose their momentum, partially or completely, after some time. As human beings, we tend to be very conflictive, and Noddings does not present a method or set of guidelines for the one-caring and the cared-for to follow when facing a conflictive situation. It is very common, and natural, to find that in most friendships there is always one person who feeds the relationship more than the other. In many cases, there might be abuses from part of the caredfor demanding too much from the one-caringand Noddings does not give suggestions as to how to work out big problems.

Chapter 4 spends time detailing and solving several puzzles for the ethics of caring. As expressed before, Noddings believes caring is embedded in our human nature and all we have to do is, first, discover it, and then put this potential for caring to work. She examines the fact that [t]here are moments for all of us when we care quite naturally. We just do care; no ethical effort is required.18 With this in mind, she strengthens her theory that humans have the natural potential to care. However, there are cases when, as frank humans, we do not care naturally, [and in this case] we must call upon our capacity for ethical caring. 19 This sounds very much like R.M. Hares conception of the intuitive level and the critical level. The way these two levels work in Hares ethical theory is comparable to Noddings suggestion that we should resort to ethical caring when our natural caring does not work in fueling an appropriate caring relationship. Leaving the cared-for in desolation would not be a moral thing to do, Noddings says. As ones-caring, we should always be willing to care for those who need our caring. If we ever encounter a human being who does not feel any motivation to care for another human being, he should be reeducated or sent to exile, Noddings unyieldingly states.20 Another drawback in Noddings caring ethics is the lack of distinction between types of caring relationships. She does not talk about more than one general type of caring relationship, which is somewhat unrealistic, considering how human relationships work. For example, the relationship that I have with my next-door neighbor cannot be compared with the relationship a mother has with her two-month-old infant. The level of reciprocity and conscious interaction between my neighbor and me far exceeds that of any relationship between a mother and her infant. The ethical ideal, its nurture, and maintenance, are discussed in chapter 5. The ethical ideal springs fromthe natural sympathy human beings feel for each other and the longing to
18 19

Pg. 81 Pg. 86 20 Pg. 92

maintain, recapture, or enhance our most caring and tender moments. 21 The ethical ideal strives to maintain and enhance caringit is the perfect model which motivates those in a caring relationship to yearn for and sustain this relationship. Men and women are different in the way they approach ethical problems, because of the way society has traditionally shaped their statuses and roles. Noddings does not believe men and women have naturally-implanted roles to be performed in society. Feeling joy, chapter 6 explains, enhances both the ethical ideal and our commitment to it. Noddings does not see joy as emotion, per se. Joymust be reflective.22 Joy can sometimes be an emotionbut a different type of emotion: one that contributes to the enhancement of the ethical ideal. Noddings says that the type of joy she is talking about is not the one we experience in relation to things and ideas. She believes that [o]ur relation to things and ideas is not an ethical relation.23 To be clear of the kind of joy she believes is necessary in her caring ethics, the author asserts that this joy is the kind that makes us aware of our existence and the reality of our surroundings; it is the type of joy that gives us a sense of belonging or relatedness to others.24 Noddings joy is an enhancer of the ethical ideal. While joy might be a great condition to include in a caring relationship, Noddings does not include other conceptions or emotions like love, faithfulness, admiration, and loyalty, into her caring ethics. Noddings abruptly moves into her next chapter and analyzes how caring for animals, plants, things, and ideas is essential for developing adequate ethics. She does not believe in a hierarchy in nature and does not think humans were given dominion over the beasts of the land. Caring for animalsfor most animalsis analogous to caring for humans. Dogs, for example, wag their tail when they see the one-caring and continue reciprocating by playing tricks and
21 22

Pg. 104 Pg. 134 23 Pg. 147 24 Ibid.

being affectionate. Killing and eating animals appear to be fine for Noddings since letting them live would be, in fact, their destructionand our destruction, too.25 Since humans and animals are alive, thanks to plants, plants should be highly regardedbut not to the level of a caring relationship, since it would be a unilateral one, and thus not a caring relationship. Plants can serve the one-caring, but they cannot consciously care for her; we, as ones-caring, can care about plants, but not for them. Caring for things and ideas is beyond the ethical; it is intellectual caring. This type of caring may contribute to ethicality by giving rise to receptive joy and that joy, in turn, may increase our personal vigor and thus help to sustain us in our quest for ethicality.26 Expressing care towards animals and plants seems to me a very laudable activity. Noddings belief that humans and non-human animals are on the same plane in nature could be done away withand her caring for animals would still be cogent and plausible. Noddings last chapter, titled Moral Education, presents a loose educational system where people learn to be ethical. Moral education is, then, a community-wide enterprise and not a task exclusively reserved for home, church, or school.27 This educational system does away with the traditional model of coerced hierarchies and formal rules. A school is administered by teachers, on a rotational basis; classes are not taught, per se, but students work together in the process of learning with the guidance of one member of the school.28 The teacher acts as the one-caring all the time and should spend at least three years with a fixed group of students in order for them to know each other better, and for the teacher to be able to establish a caring relationship with her students. Teachers are only present in the classroom to influence students, but not to give orders or coerce.29 Parents and visitors are always welcomed to collaborate in class discussion and group projects. The grading system would not

25 26

Pg. 154 Pg. 170 27 Pg. 171 28 What we would call a teacher 29 Pg. 177

10

be a race to be the best. Rules in school are not rules, they are, in reality, guidelines or expectations; expectations to further caring relationships. All students should take different types of classes, even if they clash with their natural gifts and abilitiesthis helps them become more knowledgeable; Noddings opposes specialization in education. Moral education should also be carried out in the home and the church. Noddings conception of an educational system based on caring might seem very appealing to students, since this system gives them a lot of options to choose from. The idea of not having a formal teacher, as we know it today, might seem outrageous to many parents. Noddings system sounds very ambitious and I believe it might be possible to realize; after all, there are many schools around the world which follow a free and democratic schooling model. The problem of not having an official authority figure in the classroom would be that, in cultures that authority is praised and rarely defied, this concept would assuredly lead to anarchy. In Afro-American, Hispanic, and many East Asian cultures, authority figures are role models. Teachers, as authority figures, give a sense of assurance to most students from these backgrounds. I dont think it would be possible to have an effective education where selfdetermination, freedom, and laxness permeate the systemall this would lead to chaos. Noddings would probably respond by saying that some tweaks must be made in these cultures and in her system, in order for caring ethics in education to work properly in these situations. Noddings continues in her moral education system by saying that all the religions represented in a given community should be taught to children, so that they are informed of their options. Values, beliefs, and opinions of all kinds, can and should be critically analyzed by students. Relationships should be always fostered in this community, because they are the basis of the ethics of caring. This last chapter gives a general overview of how a school based on caring ethics would operate. Her description appears to be very similar to the Sudbury modelwhere schooling is completely free and democraticbut a little bit more structured. 11

Noddings last few comments on religion and community involvement seem to not fit too well with her caring ethics. In conclusion, Nel Noddings Caring is very intriguing and visionary. I would endorse this type of ethical theory much more than I would endorse most ethical theorists of the Kantian tradition, thats for sure. Noddings, after almost two decades between the first and second editions of her book, did not make any changes to her second edition. She, however, did include an introduction to her original work that explicitly stated that she holds what she originally wrote as true, and necessary for her society. As I have tried to point out, there are several places in which Noddings could be more cogent. She believes that human beings can, in fact, be more altruistic towards others and, with the help of reason, humans can become better persons. This is a praiseworthy aim, yet one should not lose sight of reality. It would be interesting to see Noddings describing her caring ethics being espoused in drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, and even prisons. Would caring ethics improve the success rate of these centersas measured by their capability to rehabilitate an individual? Overall, however, Noddings caring ethics is well developed and current educational systems need more of it. The embedded capacity of every human being to care for themselves and especially for others would make Noddings system work very well in our violence-prone and increasingly individualistic societies.

12