2.10 Care as complement to meritocracy Flashcards
(15 cards)
How do we know what is morally right or wrong?
Based on moral epistemologies
Describe Kantian and care-ethical moral epistemologies
Kantian and consequentialist moral epistemology:
Emphasis on Rationality
Rules and principles: created and then applied to situations
Principle of impartiality: the general other
Abstract idea of the other => justifies responsibility we hold
Care-ethical moral epistemology:
Emotions (e.g., empathy, sympathy, compassion, etc.): use emotions as tool to gain moral insight => need to be trained and developed
Considers more:
Context (in which we are included)
Relationships: the particular other
What are the views on moral motivation?
Deontology: rationality, e.g., acting out of respect for the moral law (Immanuel Kant)
Consequentialism: motivation does not matter, what matters are the consequences
Care-ethical account of moral motivation
Emotions, e.g., acting out of empathetic concern for the concrete other (Michael Slote)
Sometimes different ethical norms lead to the same results but through different reasonings.
What is the traditional and care-ethical perspective of scope ethics?
Traditional perspective on the scope of ethics
Focus on the public sphere as the sphere of morality and justice
Bracketing the private sphere and the value of care
Care-ethical perspective on the scope of ethics
The family, relationships, friendships, etc. are also subject to moral assessment
Caring values matter in all spheres of life (public, private or organizational) and so does justice
Questioning the distinction between the private and the public sphere
What are the methodologies of ethics (traditional vs care-ethical)?
Traditional methodology
Abstract and universal principles and rules (e.g., the Categorical Imperative): create principle (universal) => apply to everyone
Deduction
Individual reflection or imaginary communication with generalized others (e.g., Rawls)
Idealised version: by imagining the situation you can already know what they think and feel.
Care-ethical methodology
Particular situations
Narratives
Communication with real people
Explain traditional and care-ethical ideas of ethics (in terms of values)
Traditional ethics
Allegedly neutral and universal
Inattentive to experiences of the marginalized and indirectly supporting those in power
Care-ethical commitment to feminist anti-oppressive values
Giving voice to the marginalized
Aiming at overcoming imbalances in power
Why bring care-ethics in dialogue with meritocracy?
Meritocracy as a dominant ideal in education, work, society and Care-ethics exposes some of its hidden assumptions and overlooked costs.
It offers a lens to rethink
The emphasis on the value of justice and complement it with the value of care;
The vision and ideal of human existence as self-reliant and autonomous, instead emphasizing our relational nature and the value of caring relationships
The emphasis on rationality and efficacy, instead emphasizing the role of emotions and empathy for moral understanding and motivation
The ideal and illusion of universality and value neutrality, instead drawing attention to how our social positionality and power interest shape policies and theories
What are critiques of care-ethics against meritocracy?
Narrow understanding of value: One-sided understanding of what counts as a valuable contribution + Tendency to define value in terms of market demands
Myth of self-sufficiency: claims once substantive and formal equality of opportunity are realized, we are responsible for our own success and failure
Vulnerability and dependency framed as an exception rather than the norm
Cultures of competition: Assumes that social goods such as money, opportunities, and recognition are scarce => Creates individualistic cultures of competition + Creates hierarchical, impersonal systems driven by performance metrics
One-sided rationalism: Rationality, calculation, and performance as the core quality of deserving individuals, sidelining the emotional dimensions of moral understanding and decision-making.
Myth of neutrality: Claims to be value-neutral and universal in what counts as talent and how we view talent. Claims to allow every person to freely choose and pursue their vision of a flourishing life
How is care-ethics useful for meritocracy?
Broadening understanding of what are valuable contributions to the social good that should be recognized and/or rewarded
Social value of informal and formal care work
Dismantling myth of self-sufficiency: Role of relationships and interdependence throughout our entire life rather than only during childhood, youth, and old age. Vulnerability and dependency as an inherent part of human existence . We are all vulnerable and dependent on other people
rejecting cultures of competition: Our well-being and flourishing is entangled with that of those we are connected to and care about
Advocates caring cultures of cooperation
Calls for relationally attuned institutions working together on the common good
criticizing one-sided rationalism: Emotions like empathy, compassion, and concern as sources of (moral) understanding
Emotions as motives for moral action (prompting care and solidarity beyond duty or calculation)
Valuing care work and affective labor
dismantling the myth of neutrality: Dismantles this belief as a myth, uncovering the hidden normative assumptions of meritocracy
Criticizes the meritocratic idealization of the competitive, self-disciplined, high performing individual and dismantles it as gendered, classed, and exclusionary
Advocates an openly normative stance, valuing caring relationships, defending those in need, and empowering the oppressed
What are the critiques of care ethics against exclusive talent management
myth of self-sufficiency: Operates with the assumption that our success (performance, talents, skills, ambition) is the result of our own doing – or at least a moral basis of desert
cultures of competition: Operates with the assumption that people are self-interested
Fosters cultures of competition
Questionable formal procedures: Formal, allegedly neutral measures of talent
Focus on fair procedures
myth of neutrality: Pretends to be value-neutral + Pretends to be interest-neutral
How does care-ethics overcome issues with exclusive talent management
dismantling the myth of self-sufficiency: Emphasizes that success (performance, talent, skills, ambition) is dependent on external social factors
rejecting cultures of competition: Operates with the assumption that we are always already invested into the well-being and flourishing of other people + Fosters cultures of cooperation
Who is talented: from focus on individuals to focus on groups
Idea of who the group is, is up to debate
questioning formal procedures: Emphasizing the role of emotions in understanding who needs and should get what
Emphasizing the value of care and solidarity as moral motives
Appreciating and acknowledging affective labor and care work (values affective labour + foster affective development)
Emphasizing the importance of communication
dismantling the myth of neutrality: Emphasizing that all conceptualizations and measures of merit, performance, talent, and ambition are value-laden
Uncovers how talent management schemes serve specific power interests
Advocates talent management programs that empower those who are disempowered
Makes its value commitments explicit and transparent
What is care-ethical response to exclusive talent management?
from exclusive to inclusive:
From external perspective (e.g., to organizational needs) to internal perspective (needs of individual people)
Start from individual needs rather than organizational needs
Individual strength rather than interpersonal comparison
What are the care-ethical responses to exclusive talent management?
Care as a complement
Care-ethical critique of exclusive talent management as a practice guided by meritocratic beliefs and values
Problematizing consequences of these practices
Advocating mixed strategies that value exceptional talent while mitigating negative effects with care-ethical interventions
Care as an alternative
Care-ethical critique of exclusive talent management as a practice guided by meritocratic beliefs and values
Rejecting underlying core understandings and values
Advocating alternative, more inclusive talent management practices
What negative effects does care as compliment mitigate? How?
Hubris and self-doubt by teaching moral humility
Moral humility: Seeing one’s performance, talents, skills, and capacity to work hard (at least in part) as a gift
Acknowledging the contingency of
Having talent
Being able to work hard
What counts as a valuable, rare talent in a given context
By teaching epistemic humility
Epistemic humility and respect:
Acknowledging the limitations of one’s perspective
Acknowledging the necessity to
Take other people’s perspective
Engage in real conversation
Open-mindedness regarding others’ Desires/Beliefs/Emotions
Willingness to learn from others
By teaching empathy
Empathy: taking the other’s perspective and perceiving the world through their eyes
Not hurting other people’s feelings
Not parading superiority
Treating others with moral respect
Summarize how different perspectives (justice and care) decrease the downsides of meritocracy
The perspective of justice:
Allowing for merit-based distribution as long as all, and especially the worst off, profit from it
Alternative forms of justice, e.g., contributive justice, speaking to the desire to be needed
The perspective of care:
Allowing for valuing, recognizing, and rewarding (rare) talent and merit as long as it does not harm individual well-being and relationships
Re-conceptualizing talent and the way it is measured and fostered
