@article{pierce_2010, title={No More Mrs. Nice Gay}, volume={25}, ISSN={["0887-5367"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01124.x}, abstractNote={I got interested in the question of how the concepts of care ethics were expanding into the larger social domain when a colleague of mine in social work showed me some student papers from a class she taught at a nearby religious college. Many of her students admitted they just didn’t take to so-called ‘‘social work values’’ such as client self-determination, inclusiveness, and concern for social justice. Some said they could never advise a woman to have an abortion no matter what the circumstances, nor could they help a gay couple to adopt. Some said they would step aside and let another social worker handle these types of cases. Some said they would engage in preaching because they wouldn’t be able to keep their views to themselves. My colleague thinks this school should not be accredited in social work. I think the expansion of the ethics of care into the realm of social and political policies and institutions has a problem. Since 1982 when Carol Gilligan published In a Different Voice, many feminists have engaged with her argument that relationships actually do and should matter in how a person makes ethical decisions. The discussion of care ethics expanded from its early roots in personal relationships and today is seen by some philosophers as appropriately applied in three different realms: (1) relationships between intimates, that is, family and friends, (2) social and political policies and institutions, and (3) global issues. The subtitle of Virginia Held’s 2006 book The Ethics of Care points to these three domains: Personal, Political, and Global. My concern is with the second extension—what some have called ‘‘socializing care.’’ In this domain, at least according to Held, people ought to care about whether the rights of all persons are respected. Presumably this means that people should care about whether the rights of lesbians and gays are respected. But caring in this instance has not worked very well. Moreover, large numbers of Americans do not, cannot, and never will care about the rights of gay people. A theory like Held’s that promotes care as a more fundamental and realistic notion than rights seems counterintuitive in the face of the empirical}, number={3}, journal={HYPATIA-A JOURNAL OF FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY}, author={Pierce, Christine}, year={2010}, pages={714–720} }
 @book{van de veer_pierce_2003, title={The environmental ethics and policy book: Philosophy, ecology, economics (3rd ed.)}, ISBN={0534561888}, publisher={Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.}, author={Van De Veer, D. and Pierce, C.}, year={2003} }
 @book{pierce_2000, title={Immovable laws, irresistible rights: Natural law, moral rights, and feminist ethics}, ISBN={0700610707}, publisher={Lawrence: University Press of Kansas}, author={Pierce, C.}, year={2000} }
 @book{van de veer_pierce_1998, title={The environmental ethics and policy book: Philosophy, ecology, economics (2nd rev. ed.)}, ISBN={0534525245}, publisher={Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub.}, author={Van De Veer, D. and Pierce, C.}, year={1998} }
 @inbook{pierce_1997, title={Gay marriage}, booktitle={Same-sex marriage: The moral and legal debate}, publisher={Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books}, author={Pierce, C. M.}, editor={R. M. Baird and Rosenbaum, S. E.Editors}, year={1997} }
 @book{donald vandeveer_1994, title={The environmental ethics and policy book: philosophy, ecology, economics}, publisher={Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub Co}, author={Donald VanDeVeer, Christine Pierce.}, year={1994} }