Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory
Identifieur interne : 002968 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002967; suivant : 002969Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory
Auteurs : Alisa L. CarseSource :
- The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy [ 0360-5310 ] ; 1998.
Abstract
This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.
Url:
DOI: 10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Carse, Alisa L" sort="Carse, Alisa L" uniqKey="Carse A" first="Alisa L." last="Carse">Alisa L. Carse</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Georgetown University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2</idno><date when="1998" year="1998">1998</date><idno type="doi">10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002968</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002968</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Carse, Alisa L" sort="Carse, Alisa L" uniqKey="Carse A" first="Alisa L." last="Carse">Alisa L. Carse</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Georgetown University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</title><idno type="ISSN">0360-5310</idno><idno type="eISSN">1744-5019</idno><imprint><publisher>Swets & Zeitlinger</publisher><date type="published" when="1998">1998</date><biblScope unit="volume">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="153">153</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="169">169</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0360-5310</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0360-5310</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>oup</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Alisa L. Carse</name><affiliations><json:string>Georgetown University</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><value>care</value></json:item><json:item><value>impartiality</value></json:item><json:item><value>principlism</value></json:item><json:item><value>moral skill</value></json:item><json:item><value>context</value></json:item><json:item><value>universalism</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>23.2.153</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/HXZ-6R4PBR9W-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>3.262</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>17</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>439 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>101</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>701</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title><pmid><json:string>9638567</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0360-5310</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1744-5019</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>jmp</json:string></publisherId><volume>23</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>153</first><last>169</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Original Articles</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1998</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/HXZ-6R4PBR9W-9</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>social sciences, biomedical</json:string><json:string>ethics</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>philosophy & theology</json:string><json:string>applied ethics</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Philosophy</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - General Medicine</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Nursing</json:string><json:string>3 - Issues, ethics and legal aspects</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>philosophie</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1998</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923</json:string></doi><id>5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Swets & Zeitlinger</publisher><availability><licence><p>© Swets & Zeitlinger</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</p></availability><date>1998</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note><note>1This essay constitutes a development of ideas begun in Carse, 1991. Warmest thanks to Maggie Little for her deft and caring, wise and substantial editorial work on this essay.</note><note>Correspondence: Alisa Carse, Associate professor, Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057, U.S.A.</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Alisa L.</forename><surname>Carse</surname></persName><affiliation>Georgetown University</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/HXZ-6R4PBR9W-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923</idno><idno type="article-id">23.2.153</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</title><idno type="pISSN">0360-5310</idno><idno type="eISSN">1744-5019</idno><idno type="publisher-id">jmp</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">jmp</idno><imprint><publisher>Swets & Zeitlinger</publisher><date type="published" when="1998"></date><biblScope unit="volume">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="153">153</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="169">169</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1998</date></creation><abstract><p>This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>care</term></item><item><term>impartiality</term></item><item><term>principlism</term></item><item><term>moral skill</term></item><item><term>context</term></item><item><term>universalism</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head></head><item><term>Original Articles</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1998">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-10-5">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus oup, element #text not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">jmp</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jmp</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">jmp</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</journal-id>
<journal-title>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="epub">1744-5019</issn>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0360-5310</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Swets & Zeitlinger</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">23.2.153</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group>
<subject>Original Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Carse</surname><given-names>Alisa L.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="au1"></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"></xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="au1"><institution>Georgetown University</institution></aff>
<author-notes>
<corresp id="cor1">Correspondence: Alisa Carse, Associate professor, Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057, U.S.A.</corresp>
<fn id="fn1"><p><sup>1</sup>This essay constitutes a development of ideas begun in Carse, 1991. Warmest thanks to Maggie Little for her deft and caring, wise and substantial editorial work on this essay.</p></fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
<year>1998</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>23</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>153</fpage>
<lpage>169</lpage>
<copyright-statement>© Swets & Zeitlinger</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>1998</copyright-year>
<abstract>
<p>This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>care</kwd>
<kwd>impartiality</kwd>
<kwd>principlism</kwd>
<kwd>moral skill</kwd>
<kwd>context</kwd>
<kwd>universalism</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
</article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory1</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Alisa L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Carse</namePart><affiliation>Georgetown University</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Swets & Zeitlinger</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1998</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1998</copyrightDate></originInfo><abstract>This essay critically assesses two strategies of accommodation used by defenders of impartialism in ethics to argue that the care orientation represents no genuine challenge to impartialist theoretical paradigms. One strategy focuses on impartiality as a constraint on moral deliberation, the other as a constraint on moral justification. While highlighting respects in which the commitment to impartiality is more consonant with the care orientation than many advocates of care have acknowledged, this essay attemps to clarify crucial ways in which each accommodationist strategy fails, thus locating some of the more important contributors and challenges the care orientation offers to moral theory.</abstract><note type="footnotes">1This essay constitutes a development of ideas begun in Carse, 1991. Warmest thanks to Maggie Little for her deft and caring, wise and substantial editorial work on this essay.</note><note type="author-notes">Correspondence: Alisa Carse, Associate professor, Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057, U.S.A.</note><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>care</topic><topic>impartiality</topic><topic>principlism</topic><topic>moral skill</topic><topic>context</topic><topic>universalism</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><topic>Original Articles</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0360-5310</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1744-5019</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">jmp</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">jmp</identifier><part><date>1998</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>23</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>153</start><end>169</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1076/jmep.23.2.153.8923</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">23.2.153</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Swets & Zeitlinger</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>© Swets & Zeitlinger</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002968 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002968 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:5499F547C8C574F3FCEF679AB8B47BECDCE1A2F2
|texte= Impartial Principle and Moral Context: Securing a Place for the Particular in Ethical Theory
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |