Care Ethics: An Ethical Theory

OVERVIEW
► Care Ethics, also known as Ethics of Care is a normative ethical theory. Remember that normative ethics is the study of behaviour. This ethical theory believes that interpersonal relationships (relationships between people) is the centre - the most important factor when deciding on moral actions. As you can see, this ethical theory avoids "impersonal reasoning" that is usually involved with deontologist, utilitarian or justice ethical theories because it does not focus on the relationships involved.
► To follow care ethics, you must place importance on relationships and what matters to you, as well as what you would naturally respond to in a situation.
► Fun fact: this is one of the cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists! Carol Gilligan is the mother of Care Ethics and established this philosophy because she found the other ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology to be too "masculine" or "male" focused perspectives.
► To summarize, Care ethics emphasizes on the personal response of all individuals through the importance of relationships. The biggest difference to pay attention to is that while Utilitarianism and Deontology focus on "what is right" and are known to be "unemotional", Care Ethics is known to be completely "emotional" as it is based on rational thinking through emotions. Decision-making is based on the relationships we have in the situation.
► Children, you're going to hate me for this but LET'S TAKE US BACK TO THE TROLLEY PROBLEM!
► A care ethicist would not pull the lever or switch or whatever I said in my previous videos to divert the trolley onto the other tracks - they would keep going straight because they do not want to kill the one person on the other tracks… this is because according to Care ethics, you have a natural moral compass within you to preserve and protect, and favor those that have a closer relationship to you. Since the family member has a closer relationship to you than the 5 strangers ahead of you, you wouldn't divert the trolley.
KEY THINKER(S)
► Carol Gilligan
► She believes that "humans are relationally responsive people" which means that we just naturally respond to the relationships and those around us
► She compares this moral thinking to a trampoline… if you and a bunch of friends are on the same trampoline together, and you start moving, it will start to affect a lot of people around you!
► She also believes that even though this is known as a "feminist philosophy", it actually applies to everyone - both men AND women.
► Nel Noddings
► She argues that "caring is the foundation of morality"… she saw the idea of relationships as being "ontologically basic to humanity", which means that our identities are defined by the set of relationships individuals have with other humans.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
► Please keep in mind that this ethical theory is known as "a feminist ethical theory" or "a feminist approach to ethics" only because it was introduced by feminists. This ethical theory applies to every human because everyone has emotional connection and relationships to someone.
► Lawrence Kohlberg is known as the father of moral development and to explain his stages of moral development, he used the Heinz Dilemma.
► A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was only recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the drug store owner was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the drug store owner that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.
RESOURCES
► www.britannica...
► en.wikipedia.o...
► www.britannica...

[@professorjones2902]

I know a lot of people will say "it was right to steal" but it wasn't. At best, #2 applies where the guy does steal but has to accept the consequences of that and be okay with that (or seek to have the law changed). If everyone operated with that mindset, that theft (and perhaps any other crime) is justified in the event that I'm doing it for someone I love, then we'd live in a lawless world where people are stealing (and worse) left and right on the basis of "doing it for my loved ones".

[@JordanFlemming]

Law and ethics are not the same thing. The man broke a property law by stealing from the pharmacist, that doesn't mean he was morally wrong in doing so, only legally. Morally through multiple ethical frameworks, care ethics, utilitarian, social contract theory, this man is morally correct in stealing the drug to save a life. $2000 worth of property will never be worth more than a life from an ethical standpoint. Even from a legal standpoint a judge would hear the moral arguments and then determine a punishment for doing so if they deemed it even necessary to begin with. Likely the judge would tell the man to pay the man back for the drug over time or come up with some other form of legal way to make the pharmacist whole in terms of making sure justice is served or use other case laws to determine the consequences.

[@EmilyBristol-q5z]

Thank you so much for this video! I'm taking an Ethics class online and the book can be a bit wordy and dry. Your explanations and high energy in this video made learning fun! I truly appreciate you!

[@pattyvnyc6056]

Isn't it toxic in itself to characterize human emotions as feminist or masculine? This seems to create further divide between men and woman. Back then philosophers were mostly men because women were suppressed no? And I imagine toxic masculinity was the only form of Masculinity acceptable by other scholars in their respected areas of study. selflessness and focus on inter-independence are characteristics of men and women are they not? ethics and morality abstract but this slide describes certain schools of thought as black and white in my opinion.

[@fishchiatrist]

Your thought process here is completely valid and I think I understand where you are coming from! It is quite toxic to characterize human emotions as either feminist or masculine and my apologies if I did seem to portray that fact in any way. I did not intend to describe utilitarianism, deontology and other justice-minded schools of thought as black and white, but now that you mention it, it certainly seems as though I did!!! The main reason why I described these ethical theories as "masculine-minded" is because this is what Carol Gilligan described she felt/observed when she came up with Care Ethics as her own ethical theory - she found that men and woman tended to have different perspectives when pondering about morality... she claimed that women were more likely to feel compassion and empathy, while men were more likely to look at situations in a more "logical" and "dutiful" way... HOWEVER - since many men in philosophy back in the day (way way way back!) kept suggesting "dutiful" moral theories (or that it was very common for them to do so), it is quite possible that other men felt as though they needed to think and feel the same way in the same situations! You are right in that we cannot assume that since a few men brought up "dutiful" ethical theories, that this defines the morality of *man*. While Gilligan observed that more men endorsed these "dutiful" ethical theories (Kohlberg's Model), it was probably inaccurate to describe Care Ethics as a "Feminist" theory. While the "feminist" and "masculine" concepts in my video were not prioritized as the main content and has content that appears outdated and questionable, thank you so so so much for pointing this out and giving me a completely different perspective!! I really appreciate it. :))) 😄😊

[@aprilong1947]

I agree with Heinz because practically the drug store owner shouldn't be selling the drugs for 10 times the price. By stealing the drug, he shows his love and care for his for wife, and if he didn't, all his wife's relatives would be sad, and therefore the more happiness in the world the better it is.

[@fishchiatrist]

Aprilllll - where is the rest?? XD This is a great response so far though! You're absolutely right that he has a stronger emotional connection to his wife than he has for the drug store owner. You did tend to delve into utilitarian ethics though, which is completely valid, but just remember, isn't a reason to why Heinz would steal the drug. :))

[@xanderbn_6787]

Awesome video it made me understand this concept for class very clearly thankyou 🙏🏼

[@fishchiatrist]

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. :)) I really recommend reading some material published by more reliable authors on care ethics, because I can only do so much as an amateur philosopher. This will help you see if my material has some mistakes, or if there is something I didn't cover that should've been covered too!

[@JasmineSharma-t3w]

👍👍👍

[@sifat.a.j]

I think Heinz should steal the drug for his wife and then accept his punishment for it. But, he mustn't be punished severely considering his circumstances. Additionally, a new law should be issued that limits the ratio of the price of a product to its production cost, so that no one can exploit others and more people gets benefited. By doing these, I can ensure that the pharmacist (prick) gets compensated, Heinz gets punished for his actions (not severely), his wife is saved AND in any similar situation in the future, this does not occur again, thus solving this problem from the society. :))

[@brandonpropterhoc]

So for the trolley situation its better to save the few instead of the many. So as long as you have a close relationship to someone its better to pick them instead of the other person simply because you have a close relationship to them..... that means i would have to save my family member over someone who has the ability to cure cancer, or end world hunger, etc etc... makes total sense..... remember emotions and connections can be manipulated and played with.... making a decision off emotion as the old saying goes is never a good idea. And this also provides many many many inconsistencies. This makes no sense at all due in part to the inconsistencies this theory creates, also in part to the irrational decision-making it causes while also due in part to the hidden manipulative nature this theory holds. It fails to take into consideration other aspects, perspectives, conditions etc. (Cant think of any more synonymous) that would help make the best possible ethical decision that can be made. It utilizes the reductionist ideology boiling a decision down to one thing. Its ridiculous.

[@fishchiatrist]

You're totally right in a sense that there are many factors to consider when making "the best possible ethical decision"! I'm a bit of an amateur here in terms of ethics so your insight means a lot to me. There is a lot of useful information out there that can explain the more complicated aspects of how care ethics is applied in societal contexts, and information that can better explain care ethics (like in this link: plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/), which might hopefully answer some of your questions... Thank you again for your insight and I hope you can find some answers! :))

[@aldcclipps4496]

we are watching this on the day of the olympiad :) we are unprepared

[@fishchiatrist]

aw darling, sweet sweet child you chaotic little rascal I love you guys so much 😂😂 as long as you tried your best on the day that's all anyone could ever ask for... well done regardless of how you did!!

[@nicolenobre3342]

1. What is your approach to this thought experiment? I would definitely steal the medicine because it's to save a loved one whose last hope is this medicine. The seller of thedrug is not showing a human approach to the problem and more like a business approach. If I was in the husband I would steal the medicine because if I knew that I could do something that would save someone who I care deeply about then you'd know I definitely would do anything in my power to do so. If I was the seller I would sell the drug for the amount I paid for to create it to this husband because I don't want to be at a financial loss but also I never want to be in a situation where if I had done something more or that my response was the reason why someone died. 2. Do you think Heinz should steal the drug? Yes. I believe that he should because he needs the drug to save his wife. His intentions are not to buy it and sell it for a higher price, it's a life and death situation. He knows that this is his wife, the love of his life's last chance. This is for him is last resort and I believe that it is both ethically and lawfully right for him to steal this drug because it means that not only will his wife will not suffer physically any longer but he will not suffer emotionally, watching someone he deeply loves go through something he can't control. 3 & 4. Should he be punished? Why or why not? He shouldn't be punished. Unlike normal thievery, the intention is not to hurt the pharmicst or person who is being stolen from but to save a life of a loved one. The husband shouldn't be punished for not having the money to save someone so important to him. It's not the case of stealing but the idea of being put in that position where stealing was in last resort. In that case, he shouldn't be punished for being left in that position where he had to steal to save someone he loves. 5. What is a Care Ethic's Approach to the Thought Experiment? A Care Ethic's approach to steal the drug. Care Ethics involves taking decisions and actions in order to ensure the happiness and safety of our loved ones. In this case, stealing the drug would ensure that the wife will live and have a much longer and happier life with the husband. So in this case as a person who follows Care Ethics, they would find stealing aceptable because the intentions is to protect a loved one. 6. What is a Deontologist's Approach to the Thought Experiment? A Deontologist's approach would be to not steal the drugs. Deontology involves making decisions that are right according to a clear set of rules and avoiding decisions that are wrong, no matter the intention. A Deontologist would consider stealing to be a complete 'no,no' and wrong, even if the intention is to save someone important to him. According to Deontolgy, the husband shouldn't have stolen and is considered morally wrong. 7. What is the difference between care ethics and deontological ethics? Deontolgical ethics is diplomatic and has no emotion or human ties to decisions being made. It's decisions are based on a set of acceptable rules and that no matter the intention, any decision that defies such rules are deemed wrong and unjustifiable. Care Ethics on the other hand, focuses on interpersonal relationships and the decisions being made involve your feeling or emotion towards the situation. If there is someone involved in that situation, a person who follows Care Ethics would take certain actions and decisions in order to protect a loved one in that scenario. Deontology is diplomatic and unemotional decision-taking whilst Care Ethics is emotional and relationship-based decision-taking. 8. One thing I have learnt... Care Ethics is there in order to protect loved ones in situations and by following Care Ethics, it's not so diplomatic but involves more of heart and emotion towards the situations than the other ethical theories. I found it interesting that it was created by feminists because of the olden day view that women are allowed to be more emotional whilst men have to be so tough and 'macho'. I'm happy that though feminists created Care Ethics, itcan be applied to both genders which is a change of society that women can be more than 'baby-makers' and that men don't have to be tough and the 'bread-winners'. Thanks for making and teaching us Anna. I really learnt alot from all the videos who wrote and shot for us. Sorry I'm late Anna but I finally did it and I hope my answers are satisfactory.

[@hiranyafernando2239]

I probably wouldn’t steal the drug from the drug owner, but I suppose if I was desperate and it was someone I really loved, then I would steal it. I don’t think Heinz should steal the drug because that is against the law, and is in general, wrong. But then again, the drug dealer was being unfair about the price amount, and was clearly intent on only earning money, so I feel like the drug dealer needs to be punished. Since he did steal the drug, I would say he should be punished, but not severely. He should be punished because that is not fair for him to just walk away and not face consequences, because when you do something wrong, you have to face the consequences. A care ethics approach to this thought experiment would be to steal the drug because he is stealing that drug for his wife on her deathbed. They also wouldn’t have him punished because he was acting with an emotional response, and so in care ethics, it would be seen as morally right. A deontological approach to this thought experiment would be to not steal the drug because that is wrong. They would also have Heinz punished, because he did a wrong thing, and the consequences of his wife dying do not matter. The difference between care ethics and deontological ethics is that care ethics is looking at the personal relationships between people, and the action is due to the strongest emotional response you have with another person. For care ethics, as long as it is rational it can be morally right, because you are caring about someone you love. Deontological ethics is when deontologists will view things as right or wrong, and not worry about the consequences. They will do the right thing, simply because it is right, and they will not do the wrong thing, simply because it is wrong.

[@fishchiatrist]

This was a very insightful and interesting response, Hiranya! Thank you so much for your hard work, I'm very proud of you!!

[@ellanie8785]

What is my approach on the thought experiment? I would steal the drug if it was the only way to save someone I love. Do you think Heinz should steal the drug? From care ethics point of view it was the right thing to do in order to save Heinz's wife and their relationship, but maybe there was a more rational and legal way to get the drug from the drug store owner. He should be punished because stealing is illegal but he should still be able to save his wife. But maybe the drug store owner should be punished as well since selling the drug ten times more than it cost probably isn't legal either. What is a care ethics approach? That it is right to steal the drug because relationships are important and Heinz's rational emotions of love for his wife would be considered morally right. What is a deontological approach? That it is illegal to steal the drug and that Heinz should be severely punished. As deontology is all about following the rules and laws stealing is against the law and therefore Heinz shouldn't have stolen the drug, even if it meant that his wife would die. What's the difference? Care ethics is more about your interpersonal feelings and emotions while deontological is more 'emotionless' and more about whether the action is legally right. One thing I learned about care ethics is that even though the theory was developed by feminist, it applies to everyone, not just females. Relationships and emotions are important to everyone.

[@fishchiatrist]

Hey Ella! This is amazing! Thank you so so so much for your hard work and I can see that you're integrating and using the information you learnt from this video into your responses. It was done in a concise, yet insightful way, good job! Just one interesting thought you can think about: Do you think there may have been a reason as to why the drug store owner raised the price? Maybe there is also another loved one that he needs the money for... or do you think the drug store owner is raising money for himself?

[@sophiekim7862]

What is my Approach to this Thought Experiment? My approach is that taking all the ethical theories into view, what Heinz did was ethically wrong Deontologically but, going back to Care Ethics, it's obvious he loved his wife and only wanted the best for her which proves that although he committed a crime, it was done with good intentions and was not meant to cause harm to anyone. From a Utilitarianist's point of view, what Heinz did was the only thing he had left to do and that it was right of him to do it because the drug store owner is the only person with a decrease in happiness while the husband, doctors and wife's friends and family would get an increase of happiness which is more happiness for the world in all and the drug store owner had been selfish and greedy so he did actually deserve it. Heinz had already tried other ways to get the drug instead of going straight to the worst-case scenario which was stealing. He had attempted to negotiate with the drug store owner and had borrowed money from relatives yet it was the drug store owner's stubbornness that was the root of the trouble. Do I think Heinz should steal the drug? No, I agree with Deontologist's views because no matter what, stealing is stealing and the three most important things that a Deontologist's mindset goes by is no stealing, killing or cheating unless the situation is 100% unavoidable. Therefore, Heinz should have accepted that he could not steal the drug nor could he get it in any other way. However, Care Ethics seems important in this case because it was done with good intentions meaning to only save his wife despite the unhappiness it would cause the drug store owner. So my answer stays a solid no but if Heinz really loved his wife that much, yes he can steal the drug but he must be ready to face the consequences and accept any punishment he receives. Also, I think that it is fair that in some way, he has to repay the drug store owner of how much the drug would cost whether it is in money or his service to the drug store owner. Should Heinz be punished? Why or why not? Yes, Care Ethics, Utilitarianism or Deontological Ethics, he did something wrong and rightly deserves the punishment. Deep down, Heinz himself will know that he did something wrong and might even be awaiting punishment, and until it gets decided or until people discover that it was Heinz who stole from the drug store owner, he will be living in anxiety, watching for police coming to arrest him with a guilty conscience. Since Heinz was stealing with good intentions, his punishment shouldn't be as harsh as it would've been for plain stealing but it will still be a fair punishment all the same. A believer of Care Ethics would completely forgive Heinz but that wouldn't be enough to avoid a punishment because no one in their right mind would simply let a thief go free and Heinz should be ready to accept his punishment. What is a Care Ethics Approach to this Thought Experiment? A believer of Care Ethics would forgive Heinz because his actions were performed with good intentions and the benefits had outweighed the drawbacks, Forgiving someone is not the same as letting them off punishment. The believer of Care Ethics would still give Heinz a punishment because it was wrong of him but he would get a lighter punishment than a believer of the other ethical theories might have done because Care Ethics is focused on the people you love and care about and Heinz's actions were all done because of his wife dying. He did not mean to cause unhappiness and had already tried ways to avoid stealing yet he showed that he would do anything for his wife and truly loved and cared about her. What is a Deontological Approach to this Thought Experiment? A Deontologist would go perfectly to the facts which is that Heinz stole the drug. Yes, he tried other ways first and then resulted to the stealing but it is still stealing which is a crime. Having been performed with good intentions, the Deontologist should understand why Heinz had wanted to go to such desperate measures to get the drug. No matter what or who is at risk, a Deontologist must keep to their no stealing, killing or cheating mindset and this is how they would judge Heinz and he did break one of the most important rules here and there is no other way to describe it in a good way. Heinz will get a punishment and it may not be very light because the Deontologist will not completely take the "good intentions" part to sway their decision. They do not mix with the Care Ethics theory and simply abide their own rules. A Deontologist will not forgive as easily as a Care Ethics believer would have and Heinz would still result in having punishment. What's the difference between Care Ethics and Deontological Ethics? Care Ethics takes the action and interpret whether it is performed with good intentions and if the action was done to benefit someone the culprit loved or cared for, whereas Deontological Ethics center on right or wrong. Even if it was done with good intentions, if someone performed a wrongdoing, they will be punished and you must never kill, cheat or steal, the basic rules of a Deontologist. One fact about CARE ETHICS that I have taken away with me today... Care Ethics holds that moral actions center on interpersonal relationships and care as a virtue. *EXTRA* : Anna, it got erased once when the computer restarted and then just as I finished the second time, I must've accidently clicked another video, it got erased AGAIN so this is my third set of paragraphs.... :( Also, I hope you enjoy reading, I might have written literally an essay.

[@fishchiatrist]

Hey Sophie! This is absolutely beautiful. I love this response, and I had a wild time reading it - you really did write an essay. Amazing job though! Just a few points/comments to keep in mind: - I love how you mentioned the fact that he didn't mean to harm anyone. This can be used as evidence to argue on Heinz's side because he didn't want to harm anyone and he didn't. He didn't even steal the other drugs as well; he stole the drug purely out of the love for his wife! - I like your response to how even though he did steal the drug, he might try to make-up for it by paying for the drug he stole and maybe even paying for the damage caused? - You mentioned that "no one in their right mind would simply let a thief go free" and while I may completely agree with you... Maybe provide a clear reason as to why you think this. What would happen to society if you let a thief? Would this encourage poor people to steal because they "have no other choice" as well? - I love love love this comment!!: "No matter what or who is at risk, a Deontologist must keep to their no stealing, killing or cheating mindset and this is how they would judge Heinz and he did break one of the most important rules here and there is no other way to describe it in a good way." - "Care Ethics takes the action and interpret whether it is performed with good intentions": while you are not wrong here, you should remember that the main idea behind Care Ethics is relationships and natural compass of emotion, which means that it focusses on how much you care for someone, and that you'd do whatever it takes and believe it is right, as long as it is for the person you care for the most! This is amazing, Sophie! Thank you so much for your hard hard work, and I am so so so proud of you! I know you lost this essay so many times but good job for not giving it up and submitting it anyway :)))!!!

[@anon9612]

Taking this case in isolation, Heinz is, in my view, perfectly justified in stealing the drug. The owner is being greedy and his right to profit shouldn't override another's right to life and right to care. Furthermore, Heinz' wife is fundamentally more important to him that the drug is to its owner. However, taken within a wider societal context this sets a dangerous precedent for people to justify morally questionable actions such as theft on emotional grounds. In cases like this it would be justified absolutely, but many people would not doubt abuse it for trivial pursuits, like some clothing they like. ("It's more important/beautiful to me than it is to the store owner"). This creates a problem, as sorting between justified and unjustified cases becomes and highly subjective and ultimately impossible task. If Heinz does choose to steal the drug, it could easily but justified, but perhaps punishment would be necessary to maintain a consistent and fair legal system. Care ethics' approach here would be to allow Heinz to steal the drug as the relationship to his wife is far more important. From a deontological perspective, it may be argued that Heinz has moral duty to society to not steal, to "act unto others as [he] would have others act unto [him]". In this view, he should not steal as this would set a precedent for people to just take whatever they wanted. This is in violation of the third formulation of Kant's categorical imperatives, autonomy. People would not have the right to self-determination if any transgression may be justified on emotional grounds. However, it is also possible to argue the exact opposite. It may be said that in prioritising his profits, the drug store owner has violated the second formulation, humanity, which states that people should always be a meanss not and end. The owner is treating Heinz as a means to an end, that end being profit. Furthermore, one may use Kamm's principle of permissible harm to argue that the harm done to the drug store owner with the theft is far less than the harm done by Heinz's wife not getting the drug. The difference between them is that Deontology is concerned with a far less personal, wider view, where as Care ethics looks at a much close and far more personal view that concerns itself with human impacts and real problems. In this way, it makes care ethics much easier to apply as it focuses in on real world people and situations, instead of general, theoretical, ideal scenarios (as in Deontology).

[@fishchiatrist]

Hey Daniel! I can see you've integrated a lot of the information you learnt while helping me research for this video. While some of this does not overlap with the content I cover for the kids, you have done an exceptional job to argue the intricacy of arguments Kant presents - as well as the arguments other deontologists have offered - and have continued to display a lot of external thinking within the concepts you have discussed. For this, I formally thank you for this insightful response and that I'm very proud of you. :)) Just a few interesting points to think about: > In the 1st paragraph of your response, you mentioned that the drug store owner's "right to profit shouldn't override another's right to life and right to care". However, although it has been explicitly mentioned that he is interested in the financial profit he stands to gain, it was never fully mentioned as to why he is interested in using Heinz as a financial means to an end. Perhaps the drug store owner intends on gaining profit for a particular reason - possibly even the same reason as Heinz's - for a loved one. > I especially loved your 4th paragraph in which you presented an interestingly neutral argument overall, possible suggesting that no matter what angle or lens this thought experiment was viewed in, there would be a some form of contradictory or problematic flaw to any system applied to it. One point to note though: Frances Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm would only apply to when we are backed into a corner and that any possible action would be inducing harm no matter what. Although in this situation, you indeed applied it correctly, but there is a possible chance that it cannot be applied in the first place, as it is used in a situation filled with inescapable wrong-doing. In comparison, Heinz can escape harm by not taking action at all and letting his wife die instead. This is indeed a seemingly heartless conclusion, but since he wouldn't be breaking any moral law by doing nothing, it can be argued that the best option is to not steal at all and accept his or his wife's "fate" - in a deontological lens. > Why exactly is Deontology a "far less personal, wider view", while Care Ethics is a "far more personal view that concerns itself with human impacts and real problems"? Is it perhaps that deontology encourages us to look to logic and his moral laws alone? Is it perhaps that care ethics places emphasis on our human emotions and behaviour? Just remember to justify with a little more detail so that it's just a little more clear. Again, this was a very interesting response. I admittedly learnt a lot from it, so thank you. :)) But also you suucccckkkk! (jk ilyyyy

[@anon9612]

@@fishchiatrist Thank you for your insightful and well-considered response! You offered many excellent, and valid critiques, however there is just one i would like to address. "Frances Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm would only apply to when we are backed into a corner and that any possible action would be inducing harm no matter what... Heinz can escape harm by not taking action at all and letting his wife die instead." It may be argued that the man is backed into a corner, and that any possible action will, in fact, induce harm, even inaction. Through inaction, harm is brought to his wife. Thus, it may be argued that as there is no recourse for the man that does not involve some description of harm befalling another, the principle of permissible harm permits him to steal the drug. Giving it to his wife preserves life and thus he is justified in doing so. Thank you again for the insightful response, it was most helpful and I learned quite a bit! But also you suck more! (jk ilyttttt

[@fishchiatrist]

@@anon9612 ur so very wrong

[@anon9612]

@@fishchiatrist ur just jelus

[@fishchiatrist]

​@@anon9612 Your counter to my critiques, I find, is eminently cogent; however, I would beg to differ with it being irrefutable. A possible counter to your counter argument utilizes the "killing vs letting die" argument, which is also brought up by honorary Frances Myrna Kamm. She argues that while in some cases, the act of 'killing' and 'letting die' are on par with one another, but has insisted the fallacy of it being on par in all possible cases. A theory of "moral inequivalence" is in play here, which she suggests that it may be "less bad" for someone to be killed if they are dependent upon any aid from the killer than it is to be killed from an individual in which they receive no aid from. Given, Heinz will not be killing the drug store owner, so this may not counter your argument as effectively. This can be explained with the belief in which the "physical imposition upon the benefactor deprives the beneficiary of any moral claim to the benefit". If Heinz is physically unable to steal the drug for his wife, then it may be justified that his wife may die. However, he is not, as we find that he was able to steal the drug to give to his wife. Then what could stop him? External factors we may consider instead are that of close relatives, and children. If Heinz were to have a family or any close relatives that he must also look after, it is by his self-sacrifice that he is putting more individuals in harm's way. Therefore, while giving the drug to his wife is absolutely justified, it is how he does it that may not be in the end. Looking forward to hearing your idiotic counter to this, biattccchhh~ (jk, that's me... I LOVE YOU MORE.)

[@DoctorGames101a]

What in god's name is this crap? Economic laws are not based on "free love." It's based on logic, consensus, and consequences. Go back to Starbucks and stay there until you read decent economics. How about searching Peter Schiff and Marc Farber is a start.

[@fishchiatrist]

Thank you for watching and commenting! I have yet to learn what economic laws are, but your take on how it closely relates to the ethical theory of care ethics is interesting.

[@amykim4253]

1) What is your approach to this thought experiment? I would steal the drug because you are in need to save your loved one, which in all cases this is the only medicine/ drug that can save her. Although it does use the Care ethics because using the "Trolley Experiment" the first thing that usually comes to our mind would be to save your family member, well I mean unless if you have a terrible bond with them but 99% of the time it would be to save them and kill the others. Even though I do think the drug dealer had absolutely no feelings or common sense but I mean you would want to sell something expensive especially if its something new, but to be honest x10 is way to much. 2) Do you think Heinz should steal the drug? I think that Heinz should steal the drug but if you use Deontology ethics you should NEVER STEAL, its almost the same as murdering someone, I mean for this Deontology Ethics you shouldn't steal to save someone, I mean you would want to because its your last hope but that doesn't mean you should sin, Even though Heinz could've borrowed money from the bank or even used a different method, I totally feel his pain and what would be going on inside his head but to be honest he took it a bit too far for stealing in the first place so this time I think no. 3 & 4) Should he be punished. Why or Why not? At times I think yes and sometimes no, but to be honest yes because using Deontology again he shouldn't have stolen, I sure there are similar cases where other people have broken into pharmacies and taken medicine due to there lack of money but I sure all these people were punished too, and I mean it would be very unfair if Heinz got some sort of special treatment and didn't get punished, that's like not fair at all! So I think he should be punished I know how much he wants his wife alive but Heinz can't just steal like that. 5) What is a Care Ethics approach to the thought experiment? In a Care Ethics approach it is to make sure that your loved ones are safe and happier, so in this case it would be that Heinz should steal the drug just to ensure the safety and happiness of his loved one, so I think for this Ethic, yes. 6) What is a Deontological approach to this thought experiment? I kind of already wrote this in Q2 but eh I'll write it again :p. So in a Deontological Ethic you shouldn't steal even if was to ensure the safety and happiness of his loved person, even though his wife is suffering in there the Deontological Ethic wants us to be able to find other options instead of doing something bad, if it was a worst case scenario Heinz should've left his wife to die peacefully as everyone dies once in a while so even though Heinz would be upset he should know that his wife would be much happier in the afterlife instead of being the hospital suffering all the pain, I think its important to know what it feels like in other peoples shoes, so Heinz should feel how his wife feels as well as her opinions, because if you think about it Heinz is also a bit selfish for thinking about himself, he wants his wife to live so he and her can be happy but for the wife she would most likely want to end the suffering and just be in peace instead of suffering all the time. Either way if Heinz had got his wife recovered in the end they'll die eventually and all this would do is just keep her alive for a few more years. 7) What is the difference between Care Ethics and Deontological Ethics? Care Ethics is morally towards emotions whilst Deontology and Utilitarianism is less emotion, for Care Ethics you would want to help others especially for people who are close to you or people that you love. In the other hand for Deontology you would want to save more people if you had the Trolley Problem, you would save more people than just one, so I guess its quite different but the thing that really separates it is the emotions and no emotions. 8) One thing that I learnt I thought it was quite cool how the person that discovered this was a feminist and how Carol didn't just talk about women's voices but different voices, I think its quite obvious that girls are way nicer than boys :p. I've enjoyed this so far :) Thanks Anna 😍 PS: Sorry for the late reply 😅

[@yeonieee1]

Hi, may I know what's your opinion or answer with your questions? I want it because I'm still confused of it.

[@fishchiatrist]

Hi there! I'm glad to know that you're confused because that means you're thinking hard about this topic! Honestly, these questions are made just to get my fellow students at school thinking about care ethics and what it means to them - is it important? Is it useful? Is it harmful? Is it "stupid"? In the case study where Heinz thinks of stealing the drug for his ill wife, what would you do in his position? Would you steal something for a loved one? Would you feel guilty about it...? The last couple of questions are optional but they ask for a different mindset of thinking (different ethical approaches) for the same Heinz problem. What would you do as someone who values utilitarianism? How about deontology? etc. etc. Hope this cleared things up a bit! All the best with your philosophical curiosities!

[@tacocatzapata2734]

What is my approach to this thought experiment? (- Do I think Heinz should steal the drug? - Should he be punished? - Why or Why not?) I think that Heinz should steal the drug because the drugstore owner is being unreasonable and he kind of deserves it so he's got that coming for him. Although I do think that Heinz should be punished, I also think that he was doing the rightful thing because he needs to care for his wife and the drugstore owner doesn't really care that a life would be lost so I don't think that he should be punished. What is a care ethics approach to this thought experiment? A care ethics approach to this thought experiment would be to steal the drug because of the fact that his wife's life is in danger so you got to think of her first and not care about the laws because of the different ethic views that make them think of the people they care about first (unless he suddenly doesn't care about his wife anymore). What is a deontological approach to this thought experiment? A deontological approach to this thought experiment is to not think about your dying wife and only care about the laws and what is morally right and wrong because deontology is a very unemotional ethic view and only cares about the fact that you're doing the right thing. What's the difference between care ethics and deontological ethics? The difference between care ethics and deontological ethics is the fact that care ethics is a lot about putting the people you care for about a lot emotionally first, focusing more on the relationships that connect you with other people and the "natural moral compass within you to preserve, protect and favour those that have a closer relationship to you" while deontology is not much about emotions as it is a very unemotional ethical theory and only cares about what you do is correct. One fact about care ethics that I have learnt or taken with me today: Care ethics is a family of beliefs about the way values should be manifested in character and behavior.

[@fishchiatrist]

Thank you for your comments, Atea! I really appreciate how hard you've been working and I'm so proud! Just a few things to note: - You mentioned that the drug store owner deserves being stolen from. Maybe explain further as to why he deserves it - how the drug store owner was being reasonable and how you thought that Heinz didn't have a choice? - Why do you think Heinz shouldn't be punished? Is there a reason for this? If you let him go without being punished, what happens to the rest of society? Wouldn't the poor people be encouraged to steal because they "have no other choice"? Or maybe you can come up with a solution that would prevent people from stealing in the first place? - Just make sure to replace "so you got to think of her first" (2nd paragraph) with "Heinz would think of her first". You are very right in a sense that he wouldn't steal the drug if he didn't put her first - from this, you taught me that Care Ethics isn't just an ethical theory that we follow, but an ethical theory that PROVES that we have more care for another person than the other!! - So what would a deontological approach/conclusion be? Should Heinz steal the drug according to deontological ethics (3rd paragraph)? - I love how you integrated the information in the video within your responses (especially in the last paragraph) as it shows that you are applying the knowledge you've learnt so far. Keep up the great work! This is looking good so far. Try to keep these comments in mind though since we don't want to be too personal in our responses- remember, when we're talking about the thought experiment only, we're talking about Heinz, not ourselves!