Sarah Miller

The Ethics of Need: Agency, Dignity, and Obligation argues for the philosophical importance of the notion of need and for an ethical framework through which we can determine which needs have moral significance. In the volume, Sarah Clark Miller synthesizes insights from Kantian and feminist care ethics to establish that our mutual and inevitable interdependence gives rise to a duty to care for the needs of others. Further, she argues that we are obligated not merely to meet others’ needs but to do so in a manner that expresses "dignifying care," a concept that captures how human interactions can grant or deny equal moral standing and inclusion in a moral community. She illuminates these theoretical developments by examining two cases where urgent needs require a caring and dignifying response: the needs of the elderly and the needs of global strangers. Those working in the areas of feminist theory, women’s studies, aging studies, bioethics, and global studies should find this volume of interest.

I develop the foundation for cosmopolitan care, an underexplored variety of moral cosmopolitanism. I begin by offering a characterization of contemporary cosmopolitanism from the justice tradition. Rather than discussing the political, economic or cultural aspects of cosmopolitanism, I instead address its moral dimensions. I then employ a feminist philosophical perspective to provide a critical evaluation of the moral foundations of cosmopolitan justice, with an eye toward demonstrating the need for an alternative account of moral cosmopolitanism as cosmopolitan care. After providing an explanation of how care ethics in connection with Kantian ethics generates a duty to care, I consider one main feature of cosmopolitan care, namely the theory of obligation it endorses. In developing this account, I place special emphasis on the practical ramifications of the theory by using it to analyze gender violence in conflict zones

In this article, I seek to address an aspect of the general inattention to miscarriage by examining a pressing topic: the moral meanings of pregnancy loss. I focus primarily on the import of such meanings for women in their ethical relationship with themselves, while also finding significant the meaning of miscarriage in community, that is, for our shared moral lives. Exploring miscarriage as a moral phenomenon is critical for figuring out miscarriage’s impact on our ethical self-conception—on how we understand ourselves as moral agents—and in forming and deforming how we understand one another in the broader context of our moral communities—in intimate realms, in public realms, and in various realms in between. I begin by articulating the need for a dedicated perinatal ethics, then developing an overview of this approach. It is against this backdrop that miscarriage’s complex moral meaning can best emerge. I then consider a few promising yet problematic concepts for comprehending the moral meanings of miscarriage, including moral agency, reactive attitudes (in this case, betrayal and guilt), moral responsibility, and moral standing.

In this essay, I develop the duty to care. I argue that certain needs do require a moral response. Under the duty to care, moral individuals must act so as to bolster and safeguard the agency of those in need. Substantively, the duty to care features five qualities. It endorses a wide variety of forms of care. It does not demand that caretakers feel certain emotions for their charges. It places limits on the extent of self-sacrifice involved in meeting others’’ needs. It is action oriented. Finally, it is nonpaternalistic. I take a unique approach to develop the duty to care, bringing Kantian ethics and feminist care ethics into conversation with one another in order to highlight the exciting contributions that both have to offer this account. I propose that building on the Kantian duty of beneficence, one can articulate a duty that explains why we are obligated to respond to certain needs found in others. Although the Kantian duty of beneficence provides some resources to use in developing this explanation, I also employ a care ethics perspective to offer an important angle of critique through which one can see both moments when Kant’s account fails (which I consider in a series of four objections) and why care ethics must be incorporated into any worthwhile discussion of meeting needs. Thus the duty to care, while drawing upon the duty of beneficence for its foundation, moves beyond it. Demonstrated through the duty to care’s responsiveness to perceptive objections that care ethicists might raise, the duty to care emerges as a distinctive duty in its own right, one sensitive to the moral concerns of agency, need, and care.