NDLI: Using Structure to Understand Justice and Care as Different Worlds

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Using Structure to Understand Justice and Care as Different Worlds

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Author	Bradner, Alexandra
Copyright Year	2012
Abstract	When read as a theory that is supposed to mirror, represent or fit some collection of historical data, critics argue that Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift in Structure of Scientific Revolutions fails by cherry-picking and underdetermination. When read as the ground for a socio-epistemological conception of rationality, critics argue that Kuhn’s theory fails by either the naturalistic fallacy or underarticulation. This paper suggests that we need not view Structure as a historian’s attempt to accurately depict scientific theory change or a philosopher’s attempt to suggest, more normatively, the factors we ought to consider in theory choice. Instead, we might use Kuhn’s theory as a metaphilosophical frame through which to better understand the limits of otherwise intractable philosophical debates. We can focus on Kuhn’s theory not as a proposition or model to confirm, but as something we might use as a tool for understanding. Philosophers have discussed the justice and care orientations in ethics as two theories for which there will be some common, constraining set of intuitions to confirm one theory over the other, to demonstrate that protecting rights is fundamentally more valuable that fulfilling needs or that fulfilling needs is fundamentally more valuable that protecting rights. Instead of conceptualizing this conversation as a choice between two theories, this paper looks to Ian Hacking’s interpretation of Kuhn’s paradigm concept to suggest that working in the world of justice is very different than working in the world of care, as each orientation is a paradigm with its own cognitive and contextual standards of theory assessment. To start, after Larry Laudan, each has its own ontology, methodology, aims and values. But moreover, after Ian Hacking, each has an even larger, entrenched collection of projectible predicates. Though Carol Gilligan herself uses the metaphor of gestalt shift in a few places to characterize the move from the justice to the care perspective, the insight—that what many assume to be a standard exercise in theory choice is really more of a paradigm shift—has been under theorized by ethicists and ignored by philosophers of science. This paper brings the full resources of Structure and its secondary literature to this metaethical issue, while making the larger point that Structure has an important pragmatic role to play, when it comes to the understanding philosophical debates, even if we cannot secure the truth of Kuhn’s theory.
Starting Page	111
Ending Page	122
Page Count	12
File Format	PDF
ISSN	01677411
Journal	Topoi
Volume Number	32
Issue Number	1
e-ISSN	15728749
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Netherlands
Publisher Date	2012-10-30
Publisher Place	Dordrecht
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	Care ethics Incommensurability Understanding Entrenchment Philosophy Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Technology
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Philosophy

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Moorean pluralism as a solution to the incommensurability problem

Autonomy and its vulnerability: Ricoeur's view on justice as a contribution to care ethics.

Methodological Incommensurability and Epistemic Relativism

Autonomy and its vulnerability: Ricoeur’s view on justice as a contribution to care ethics

Preface to ‘Economic Models as Credible Worlds or as Isolating Tools?’

Explanation and Understanding: Action as “Historical Structure”

Incommensurability and basic values

Ruth Chang, Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason

What are impossible worlds?

Using Structure to Understand Justice and Care as Different Worlds

Similar Documents

Moorean pluralism as a solution to the incommensurability problem

Autonomy and its vulnerability: Ricoeur's view on justice as a contribution to care ethics.

Methodological Incommensurability and Epistemic Relativism

Autonomy and its vulnerability: Ricoeur’s view on justice as a contribution to care ethics

Preface to ‘Economic Models as Credible Worlds or as Isolating Tools?’

Explanation and Understanding: Action as “Historical Structure”

Incommensurability and basic values

Ruth Chang, Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason

What are impossible worlds?

Using Structure to Understand Justice and Care as Different Worlds