Name the specific people a decision makes you responsible to
Before settling on a principle, list the particular people you are responsible to and what each one is counting on from you.
Why it works
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reports that Gilligan contrasts a morality of rights with a morality of responsibility, and argues that Kohlberg’s framework wrongly prioritizes rights over responsibility and intimate relationships with others (citing Gilligan 1982, p. 19). On this page’s reading, making the specific people in a decision concrete keeps it tied to what it actually does to them, instead of letting a general principle stand in for the people it affects.
How to do it
- Name every person the decision will materially affect.
- For each one, write the obligation you have to them, in one sentence.
- Check whether your planned principle would let any of them down, and in what specific way.
- Decide only after you have answered for each person.
Evidence
The distinction between a morality of responsibility and a morality of rights is Gilligan’s (1982), as reported by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The exercise is a reflective application of that distinction and has not been tested. (anecdotal)
Gilligan’s distinction is a theory of moral reasoning. Naming people does not guarantee a fair decision, and the 1982 book body was not read for this page.
Sources
- Norlock, K., & Pascoe, J. (2025). Feminist Ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2025 Edition).
- Gilligan, C. (1982; 1993 printing). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Common mistake
Listing only the people you like or the ones who will complain. The point is every person the decision actually reaches.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, Explained
- Look at one decision through justice and through care
Take one decision you face and ask it twice: what does fairness require, and what do the people involved need from me?
- Judge the reasons someone gave, not the sex they are
Before reading a colleague’s position as “caring” or “principled” because of who they are, check what they actually argued.
- Check who carries the caring load before calling it care
When a decision is framed as caring for others, ask who ends up doing the caring and what it costs them.
- Retell a hard choice as a story of relationships over time
Before stating the rule that settles a hard choice, tell it as a sequence of relationships: who depends on whom, and how that has changed.
- Trace a caring task through noticing, owning, doing and receiving
Follow one act of care through four phases: noticing the need, taking responsibility for it, doing the work, and seeing how it is received.
- Receive the person on their own terms before judging their need
Before deciding what someone needs, take up their situation as they describe it and set aside your own motives for helping.
Related concepts
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- The Construct-Aware and Unitive Stages of Adult Development
Seeing the self and its stories as constructions — what it looks like, how rare it is, and what it does not promise
- Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, Made Practical
Six stages of moral reasoning, how they are scored, and how to work with the reasons you give
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Practitioner experience