Assess the moral solutions arrived at through "care" (care-based ethics) and "rights" ethics to soci

Principle of Ethics In week three, we were looking at rights ethics with regards to Locke. As a reminder, Locke said we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. It is immoral to violate them. Many think we have more rights than those listed by Locke. Some even think we have a right to health care. That means it is the duty of the state to provide each citizen with their medical needs. Rights theory says to respect the entitlements we have. If a right is inalienable (unable to be taken away from or given away), it cannot truly be violated ethically even with our consent. We have basic needs. Rights are something beyond needs. They are what we should be authorized to have. We are due what we have a right to. That is not always the case with need. For example, we need food, but people often go hungry. A need refers to something we need physically to exist. A right is a moral entitlement to something. Asking if we have a right to food is a moral question. Needs are determined by the requirements of the body and of material existence. Rights are determined by moral reflection, inquiry, an argument We have a right to own property. We do not need it to live. We could imaginably be allowed to use another's. We have a right to own a home. We can rent. DISCUSSION: Assess the moral solutions arrived at through "care" (care-based ethics) and "rights" ethics to social issues of ethical import such as poverty, drug use, and/or lack of health care, That is, note any ethical problems that arise related to those particular issues. Then, say how both care-based and rights theory of ethics would solve those problems. Are those solutions correct? Why or why not? What is your own approach there?

"To care is, therefore, to maintain life by ensuring the satisfaction of a set of needs that are indispensable for life, but which are diverse in their manifestation". To care is to "take care of the protection, the well-being or the maintenance of something or someone". On the other hand, ethical care implies the interaction and moral contact between two people, in which there is a request, in which there is union between people, as part of the human relationship. From the above, it follows that the ethics of care is the discipline that deals with responsible actions and moral relationships between people, motivated by a request, and that have as their ultimate goal to achieve the care of their fellow man or their own. In contrast, a dilemma in rights is seen in the appreciation of the differences between men and women, which are well established practically since creation. From there we can already see that women and men think and act morally differently, we can see how in ancient cultures men are symbols of power, violence, force, death, while women symbolize piety, care, sensitivity to pain. As far as health care is concerned, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, men paid attention to fair judgment, and women's vision to care for the sick. In other words, the role of the physician and his morality, channeled to the curative function, was opposed to the task of care, proper to nurses, and justified these professional roles in the conception of the masculine and feminine genders, in which women were assigned the tasks of feeding, dressing and caring. In post-modernity, the proposal of the ethics of care has aroused great interest, and many theorists insist that instead of radically rethinking moral theory, contemporary ethical theory should try to establish a balance between principle-oriented approaches and the ethics of care. The ethical system of care has been able to solve the problem since, in the relevant moral issues, men rely on tradition and reason, the decisions being ultimately more impersonal; women's decisions seem to be more related to affections and relationships. In particular, women seem to be much more sensitive to others and do not believe in fixed rules; they do not judge as much, but see conflicts in general as a matter of responsibility, giving importance to the consequences of those judgments or of their own actions, and their morality is based on caring for others. On the other hand, men in general tend to make judgments based on universal rules or norms, with clearer and less transcendental and individualized judgments, and their morality is based on rights. Hence, the author related the ethics of justice to men, and what she called the ethics of responsibility or care to women. But both visions of the same reality could be perfectly accepted; the most impersonal resolutions or views of men would be justified by an ethics of rights or justice. In the case of women, their expanded perception, which includes social relations, would be supported by the ethics of care. It could be considered that both points of view seek a fair way to solve problems: the ethics of rights does so on the basis of equality and fairness, while the ethics of care is based on equality, but in the light of a responsibility towards others, which discovers and takes into account the uniqueness not only of the person who suffers the problem, but of the others involved. Therefore, it would be honest to say that, even with its good intentions, the ethics of rights or justice abandons - or at least leaves in the background - dimensions of ethics, substantial elements of reality, such as human relations, feelings, will, affectivity, etc. These components are part of a whole, of a reality that we cannot "fragment" in order to make decisions that affect the whole. And in return, it is impossible for us to add such elements in a model of "rational foundation", deductive, thought for universal and objective resolutions. The ethics of care, even if it is a less "practical" model, recovers such dimensions, while warning against the imperfection of traditional models.