Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:11:51.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsibility Ethics, Shared Understandings, and Moral Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Claudia Card
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Margaret Walker's Moral Understandings offers an “expressive-collaborative,” culturally situated, practice—based picture of morality, critical of a “theoretical-juridical” picture in most prefeminist moral philosophy since Henry Sidgwick. This essay compares her approach to ethics with that of John Rawls, another exemplar of the “theoretical-juridical” model, and asks how Walker's approach would apply to several ethical issues, including interaction with (other) animals, social reform and revolution, and basic human rights.

Type
Symposium On Margaret Walker's Moral Understandings
Information
Hypatia , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Winter 2002 , pp. 141 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Card, Claudia. 1990. Caring and evil. Hypatia 5 (2): 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, Claudia. 1999. Groping through gray zones. In On feminist dthics and politics, ed. Card, . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Card, Claudia. 2000. Women, evil, and gray zones. Metaphilosophy 31 (October): 509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, John. 2000. Unspeakable acts, ordinary people: The dynamics of torture. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gutman, Roy, and Rieff, David, ed. 1999. Crimes of war: What the public should know. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1955. Are there any natural rights? The Philosophical Review 54 (April): 175–91.Google Scholar
Hoagland, Sarah. 1988. Lesbian ethics: Toward new value. Palo Alto, Calif.: Institute for Lesbian Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. Trans. Paton, H. J.New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lifton, Betty Jean. 1988. The kind of children: A biography of Janusz Korczak. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroue.Google Scholar
Midgley, Mary. 1984. Animals and why they matter. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1957. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs‐Merrill.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1998. On the genealogy of morality. Trans. Clark, Maudemarie and Swensen, Alan J.Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Regan, Tom. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. [1907] 1981. The methods of ethics. 7th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal liberation. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1990. Animal liberation, Rev. ed. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Taylor, Paul. 1989. Respect for nature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Unger, Peter. 1996. Living high and letting die: Our illusion of innocence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Margaret Urban. 1998. Moral understandings: A feminist study in ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiesenthal, Simon. 1997. The sunflower: On the possibilities and limits of forgiveness. Rev. and expanded ed Trans. Pichler, H. A., with a symposium ed. James Cargas, Harry and Fetterman, Bonny V.New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1993. Shame and necessity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar