Clockwise from far left: Marilyn Katz and Harold Washington (seated); at Project Vote; with Bettylu Saltzman; Tony Rezko; Michelle Obama and Marty Nesbitt. Clockwise from top: Susan Lapidus / Polaris; Charles Rex Arbogast / AP; M. Spencer Green / AP; Courtesy Obama for America; Abel Uribe / MCT / Landov; Nam Y. Huh / AP; Jessica Kourkounis / Redux; Marc Pokempner; Marc Pokempner; Seth Perlman / AP
See, that really wasn’t that hard? Mrs. Patmore would be proud of your efforts in the kitchen!
Care work is both difficult and low-paid, yet the ‘psychic income’ of doing something worthwhile offers workers alternative compensations, according to Nancy Folbre, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Such work, after all, is the kind we’ve traditionally expected women to do for free – out of joyful beneficence. And, as much as we should recognise the deep harm that expectation has caused, it doesn’t mean the joy isn’t real. For men and women, paid and unpaid, waking at 3am to care for a crying baby or bathing a distressed Alzheimer’s patient can be gruelling and transcendentally life-affirming all at once.
INSTRUCTIONS. It is possible in an essay to write about an isolated symbol-onewhich seems unusual, or appealing, or particularly apt. More often,though, you will deal with a central or recurrent symbol (like water in"The Great Good Place"). If you write about an isolated symbol, your thesis should be a strong statement of the existence of the symbol in the work,and, the body of your essay should be composed of statements that actuallyconstitute evidence of the existence of the symbol. As you develop paragraphs in the body of the essay, make clear your reasons for ascribing the symbolic significance you do, show the function of the symbol in the work, and above all, prove that awareness of the symbol enriches understanding or appreciation of the work.
However, Hume finds now that he is at risk of having undercut ethics by giving to sympathy such a central role in creating community. Experience shows that sympathy is diminished by distance of time and proximity and relatedness (“acquaintance”). We are much less affected by the pleasures and pains of those at a great distance than by those in our immediate physical vicinity or (say) close family relations. So an earthquake in China creates less sympathetic distress in me than an earthquake in Los Angeles (in my own country), even if I am perfectly safe in either case. According to Hume, my ethical approbation of (and obligations to) those at a great distance from me are no less strong than to those close at hand. The balance of impartiality needs to be restored by appealing to an unbiased ideal observer. In turn, this sets up a tension between the sympathetic observer of the moral agent and the ideal, unbiased one. “Unbiased” does not mean “unsympathetic”; yet it does not mean “wholly sympathetic” either. This is an issue. The ideal observer and the sympathetic one are complementary at best, and possibly even contrary. Being sympathetic reduces distance between individuals; being an ideal observer creates distance. Let us now look at two possible ways of resolving the tension between the ideal observer and sympathy as the basis for moral approbation and disapproval. (Slote will have a third approach considered in detail further below.)