Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary philosophical discourse on global responsibility has maintained a nearly unwavering focus on justice. In response, in this article I explore an underrepresented element in global justice discussions: insights from feminist philosophy, and more specifically from the ethics of care. Through the concepts of interdependence, vulnerability, need and care, I develop a feminist global obligation – the global duty to care – and explore the distinctive vision it offers for the ground, scope and content of global responsibility. By analyzing contemporary theories of moral cosmopolitanism through the lens of cosmopolitan care, I reveal four shortcomings of cosmopolitan justice and suggest alternative concepts. Instead of the hyper-individualism of mainstream global responsibility theories, the global duty to care is thoroughly relational in nature. Aware of the difficulties that theories centering on idealized moral agents encounter, the global duty to care grounds itself in human vulnerability, dependence and need. Instead of positing an abstract moral agent, the global duty to care reverses the denial of difference. Finally, rather than endorsing the acontextuality of generic human agents, the global duty to care is fully situated and incorporates a critical function through which analysis of one’s role in global oppression is a moral requirement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".