Noddings prefers "ethical ideal" to "principles" because principles are too abstract, context-insensitive, and potentially manipulative.
How is that so?
According to Nel Noddings, an "ethical ideal" is preferable as a guide to moral action than universal "principles" because:
1. Principles are too abstract and impersonal: Noddings argues that universal principles often fail to capture the nuances of real-life situations and can lead to rigid and inflexible judgments. They prioritize abstract concepts like justice and fairness over the specific needs and feelings of individuals involved in a situation.
2. Principles do not account for context: Noddings emphasizes the importance of considering the specific context of a situation when making moral decisions. She argues that relying solely on abstract principles can lead to overlooking the unique needs and perspectives of those involved.
3. Principles can be manipulative: Noddings argues that universal principles can be used to justify actions that are ultimately self-serving or manipulative. When individuals focus solely on upholding principles, they may lose sight of the needs and feelings of others and potentially exploit them for personal gain.