• サイトトップ
• 検索
• バックナンバー
• 『一橋社会科学』について
• 『一橋社会科学』の沿革
• 寄稿・投稿について
• よくある質問
• おしらせ

第12巻

[ 要旨 ]

　本稿は、ケアの倫理と正義の倫理の関係性に焦点をおいてケアの倫理を論じようとする従来の学問的枠組みを超え、ケアの倫理が本質的に内在する政治性に焦点をあてることを一義的な目的とする。そのために、ケアの倫理が独自の政治哲学にもとづき「正義にかなった」社会を構想すること、つまり政治理論としてのケアの倫理の挑戦とその射程を考察する。
　ケアの倫理の正義の倫理との関係における位置づけについては、様々に異なる主張があるが、これらはケアの倫理の道徳的のみならず政治的な意義を明らかにするという目的において通底するものである。ケアの倫理の最たる特質は、人間の存在の本質を互いの関係性のなかに見出す視点にあり、それはリベラリズムの合理的で自律した人格をもつ者を対等な者とみなす観念への批判の基底を成す。
　とりわけキティは、既存の平等の概念が、心身が自立的に機能し、それができない人をケアする責任を負わない者の基準によって形成されていることを提起し、依存とケアの関係性にもとづく独自の平等の概念を展開させた。この点において、キティの依存による平等批判はケアの倫理と正義の倫理の相反を乗り越え、ケアの倫理の決定的な政治的意義を引き出したと言える。
　本稿は、キティのロールズの正義論の修正の試みには含まれなかった、「自尊の社会的基盤」についてケアの倫理の観点から考察する。自尊が社会的協働に参画することによってもたらされるものであるとするロールズの構想は、それに参画できない者が自尊を享受できないという状況を作り出す。よって、本稿は自尊の「社会的基盤」に支援的なケア関係を含むことを提案する。
　ケアの倫理の抱く人間像にもとづく正義論の発展には更なる学問的構築が必要だが、政治理論としてのケアの倫理の重要性は、ロールズの正義論に代表される従来のリベラリズムにおける平等の概念を争点化させたことにある。

[ Abstract ]

Academic debate is, at present, predominantly focused on the question of how to situate the ethics of care vis-à-vis the ethics of justice. There is an academic necessity to examine the ability of the ethics of care to formulate its own theory of justice.

Hence, this article presents diverse views of care ethicists on the compatibility of the two sets of ethics to indicate that, despite their differences, they share their opposition to the liberal principle of individualism. By examining the extent to which the ethics of care has successfully developed a politics of its own in envisaging the contours of a ‘just’ society, the article aims to highlight the political significance of the ethics of care, per se.

Against the liberal conception of persons as rational and autonomous equals, the ethics of care sees the nature of human beings as ontologically relational. Above all, the dependency critique of equality challenges the conventional liberal conception of equality as measured by the standards of those who are (supposedly) able to function independently and are not responsible for taking care of those who are unable to function on their own. Moreover, it posits the possibility of an alternative conception of equality based on the human vulnerabilities of dependency. It is in this respect that the tension between the ethics of care and ethics of justice is reconciled, and the political significance of the ethics of care, per se, is brought forth.

This article examines E. Kittay’s attempts to remedy defects in Rawls’s theory of justice, especially his principles of justice and list of social primary goods. Indicating the limitations of Kittay’s argument, this article proposes that ‘the social bases’ of self-respect should include a web of supportive ‘care relationships’ between caregivers and their dependents. From the perspective of the ethics of care, such relationships are typically asymmetrical, interdependent, and provide both emotional and physical networks of support for all persons despite their capabilities. Additionally, the idea that social cooperation should not be a single mode of living in society is highlighted. This article argues that Rawls’s vision of society as a form of social cooperation should be broadened to include nonparticipatory forms of social activities, enabling people who are socially withdrawn or suffer from various mental illnesses to choose whether to participate in social cooperation or distance themselves from it for any period of time.

This article concludes that despite there being some leeway for formulating a theory of justice based on the values of the ethics of care, the centrality of the ethics of care as a political theory stems from its challenge to the particular conception of equality prevailing in liberal normative theories of justice.