Moral Orientation

Gilligan and Friedman are both philosophers and economists who shared different views on ethics of care and justice. Gilligan defined care as the process of maintaining and practicing morals that influence an individual to do right or wrong. In this respect, she came up with the concept of moral development or rather moral orientation. The field of moral direction envelops prosocial conduct, for example, kindness, mindful and helping, alongside characteristics like genuineness, decency, and appreciation.  Gilligan suggests two processes which make morality i.e. morality due to care and the morality due to justice. Morals result from either justice or care. Justice involves set policies and regulations enacted for members of the public to follow while care depends on the individual’s initiative to assist. Though Friedman contrasts Gilligan’s argument that both justice and care can be perceived simultaneously, the distinction between them is evident.

Get a Price Quote

Type of assignment
Writing level
Number of pages
Order total: $ 00.00

Gilligan asserted that on the affirm age and for an assortment of social reasons, women have a tendency to uphold morals of care that burden connections and obligations, though men have a tendency to embrace a moral of justice which anxieties guidelines and rights. Friedman has a controversial reasoning in that both care and fairness have the same impact. She has not determined care consequences on justice in as much detail as she indicates justice impacts on care.

Some principles guide the morality based on care.  It stresses on interconnectedness and all-inclusiveness. It also focuses on acting fairly which implies staying away from savagery and aiding those in need.  Care-based profound quality is thought to be more normal in young ladies on account of their associations with their moms. Since young women stay associated with their moms, they are less disposed to stress over issues of fairness care based on justice, on the other hand, is guided by specific values that are societal. It sees the world as being made out of self-governing people who associate with one another. The Gilligan argument is thought to be more regular in young men on account of their need to separate themselves from their moms.  Justice morality supports acting justly and maintaining a strategic distance from imbalance.

Gilligan has come up with the differences between the ethics of care and ethic of justice. Firstly, the standards of care are time-consuming than the principles of justice. Giving care requires much time in the process of identifying the people who have challenges. An original case may clear up the difference between care and justice and indicate why consideration is additional time-serious. Consider the task of separating up a pie among a gathering of individuals. The use of the ethic of justice would most likely prompt some standard, for example, rise to division, that the members could rapidly concur upon and execute, yet that would presumably neglect to consider the particular needs of those included. Applying the ethic of care here, then again, would require additional time-serious correspondence among the members so as to uncover unique needs and tailor the portion to address those issues.

Additionally, the morals of justice constitute an ethical point of view as far as which moral choices are made on the premise of general standards and rules, and in an unbiased and undeniable way with a perspective to guaranteeing the reasonable and impartial treatment to all people. The morals of ethics, on the other hand, constitutes a sound methodology as far as which inclusion, harmonious relations and the necessities of others have an essential impact on fundamental moral leadership in each right circumstance. In identifying a method for maintaining a strategic distance from struggle and advancing a universal comprehension about moral choices, there is the need to analyse the morals of equity and morals of consideration. It is evident that Engster has the same reasoning of morals issues like the philosopher Gilligan.

It is contended that the morals of justice and the morals of ethics speak to inversely related. If for instance, individuals from the health group were to utilize one and only of the two that is justice and ethics, of view in their primary moral leadership, particular moral difficulties would remain unsolved. Both ethic and care and fairness cannot be used simultaneously as the ethics of justice usually use set guideline and procedures. Besides, standards of care require an individual to engage the victim in identifying their need and coming up with rigid solution help them and ensure their satisfaction.

Contrary, Friedman has a different observation about ethics of care and ethics of justice. Marilyn Friedman contends that Gilligan commits an error in tolerating the consideration. For Friedman, care and fairness are the same things. They are not communicating different good points of view, but rather they both demonstrate a profound responsibility to various people. While they may now and again be expressed in different vocabularies and styles, they speak to the same good point of view.  Additionally, Friedman contends that we require a more conceivable record of self-determination. She argues that to women’s activists as ladies frequently have been denied self-determination and urged to differentiate sincerely with the requirements of others. Consequently, the origination of profound quality as self-administration has never been connected as entirely to ladies as it has been to men. Moral logic did not simply prompt men being principle recipients of the speculations, but also ignored the common way of understanding.  The reasoning gives weight on Friedman’s writing about care and justice. 

You may be interested in reflective essay writing service. We have the best offers for you! Order custom written paper according to your requirements from and relax!

Gilligan and Friedman have ended having different views about the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Firstly, Gilligan was of the opinion that justice and care are different in the sense that Justice requires a set of rules and regulations to be established by the members of the public. According to Engster, that guideline will help the communities to maintain law and order and hence they will live in harmony. On the hand, she pointed out that care is the process where an individual investigates the challenges other people who are going through to come and give assistance to their satisfaction. Consequently, Friedman has a different view in the sense that he argues that both justice and care are one and the same thing.

The two thinkers could be right in their theories. Gillian contends that justice and care makes morals. On the other had Friedman argues that morals are made from justice that is derived from set regulations to be adhered to by the people.  However, in the modern society, we see young generations being thought the way of life from the elders and hence we cannot conclude by confirming that Friedman was right as she gave no difference between the two ethics.  In this context of the ethic of care, the moral issue emerges from conflicting obligations as opposed to from contending rights and requires for its determination a method of believing that is relevant and story instead of formal and abstract. This conception of profound quality as troubled with the action of care bases moral improvement on the understanding of obligation and connections, just like the origination of morality, the ethics of justice ties moral advancement to the comprehension of rights and standards.

In conclusion, Gilligan has a more compelling argument concerning morals. She elaborates well the question of ethics and fairness values in her theories. For instance, she has care and justice in the sense that concern is based on the individual initiative to find out what could be going on in other people’s life and take a step to help them to their satisfactory. On the other hand, justice is set policies and regulations to be followed by the members of the public.