Nel Noddings: A Philosophical Analysis

Peter Albert David Singer is a moral philosopher who strives to end world poverty by donating to charities and convincing others to do the same. Nel Noddings is a philosopher who focuses on differentiating and understanding the difference between natural and ethical caring. In this essay, I will explain and elaborate the fundamentals of each philosopher’s ethical views, how they differ and conflict, and my own opinion on the matter. Singer’s main argument is that “It is indefensible for affluent people to spend money on luxuries while the less fortunate are starving” (Bernard 138). He essentially means that anybody with disposable income should donate money that is not used for the bare necessities to survive, to charities in order to help …show more content…
Natural care occurs when the innate feeling of “I must” coincides with the actual caring for. It is universal and is a prerequisite for ethical caring. The structure of a caring relationship is as follows: there is a caring-one: the person who is giving care, and the cared-for: the person who is receiving the care. The caring-one starts the process by providing natural care to the cared-for, and the cared-for creates completion by providing feedback. Feedback is the taking in and response to care of the cared-for, and is necessary to know that your caring is actually helping and is desired. “Receptivity” is characterized by feedback, which allows for a sense of “completion”: the feeling of satisfaction that the caring-one gets after caring for someone. The process of natural care consists of “engrossment” which is in Nodding’s words: to “… have received him and feel his pain and happiness” (Noddings 83) which appears to mean empathy. Nodding gives an example of natural care distinguished from ethical care: “A mother’s caretaking efforts in behalf of her child are not usually considered ethical but natural. Even maternal animals take care of their offspring, and we do not credit them with ethical behavior” (Noddings 79). In contrast, Noddings defines the ethical ideal as “…our best picture of ourselves caring and being cared for”. In other words, if we were …show more content…
As a result, there are many objections to his argument. The first objection is that there are many other people who are able to donate. Singer responds by saying that no matter how many people are able to help, the gravity of the situation does not change, and our obligation is undiminished. The second argument is that everybody should pay their fair share instead of the burden being on one person. Singer responds by saying that this idea works in theory, but not in reality. The third argument is that we are too far to be able to help and know that our money is actually getting where we want it to go. The response is that distance is irrelevant, and that the obligation to donate still remains. The final argument is that humans are not evolved to be altruistic, meaning we are not evolved to be generous, giving animals. That we do things that are necessary to the survival and benefit of ourselves and those we care for. Singer responds by saying that we are obligated to transcend human instinct and help those in need. In contrast to Singer, Nodding’s takes a feminine approach to ethics, which focuses more on familial and social caring aspects that is more flexible in terms of principles. Because of this, Noddings feels that we do not have an obligation to donate our money to people in countries far away, that instead, we have an obligation to those proximate around us including family, friends, community, and even

Show More

Related Documents: Nel Noddings: A Philosophical Analysis

Sources of Ethics Essay