This document discusses different perspectives on gender and ethics. It describes how traditional male-centered ethics have ignored the female perspective and marginalized women. It also examines key debates around whether men and women differ psychologically and morally, including views that women are naturally subordinate, that they exist to please men, or that basic human capacities are gender-neutral. More recent approaches emphasize an ethics of care that values relationships and context over impartial rules.

1. Chapter Ten: Gender and Ethics The female perspective of moral issues has been ignored in favor of a male perspective Female Genital Mutilation Example

2. Alison Jaggar: Five Harms with the Male Bias in Ethics Relegates to women subservient obligations (obedience, silence, and faithfulness) Confines women to a socially isolated domestic realm of society with little legitimate political regulation Denies the moral agency of women, claiming they lack the capacity for moral reasoning

3. Alison Jaggar: Five Harms with the Male Bias in Ethics Preference for masculine values over female ones (e.g., independence, autonomy, intellect vs. interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion) Prefers male notions of moral rules, judgments about particular actions, impartial moral assessments, contractual agreements.

4. Two Key Questions How do men and women psychologically differ from each other (if at all)? Based on those psychological differences, how do men and women differ from each other (if at all)?

5. Classic Views Aristotle: Women and Natural Subservience Rousseau: Women as Objects of Sexual Desire Wollstonecraft: Gender-Neutral Morality Instinct vs. Social Construction

6. Aristotle: Women and Natural Subservience Psychological question: men are designed to command, and women to obey Different capacities of the soul Slave: no deliberative faculty at all Women: the deliberative faculty without authority Child: an immature deliberative faculty

7. Aristotle: Women and Natural Subservience Moral question: women have subservient virtues Different virtues for different capacities of the soul Man: temperance and courage in commanding Women: temperance and courage in obeying

8. Aristotle: Women and Natural Subservience Criticism: based on the roles of women in ancient patriarchal societies

9. Rousseau: Women as Objects of Sexual Desire Psychological question: women are designed to sexually please men “ It is his strength that attracts her to him, and it is her allurement that attracts him to her.”

10. Rousseau: Women as Objects of Sexual Desire Moral question: women should learn to entice men He depends on her cooperation to satisfy his sexual desires, and she submits to his superior strength when she gets what she wants from him

11. Wollstonecraft: Gender-Neutral Morality Psychological question: men and women are fundamentally the same The apparent differences are the result of sexist education

12. Wollstonecraft: Gender-Neutral Morality Moral question: Three features of personhood(what separates humans from animals): reason, the exercise of virtue, and the passion for knowledge

13. Wollstonecraft: Gender-Neutral Morality Moral question: All moral duties are human duties and there are no special female virtues or obligations Child rearing: women are not necessarily good at it No special moral obligation to be subservient and sexually alluring

14. Instinct vs. Social Construction Criticism of Wollstonecraft: her basis for denying psychological gender differences was based on her own experience as a woman

15. Instinct vs. Social Construction Nature-nurture issue regarding psychological gender differences Today we are still unclear, and unsubstantiated stereotypes still abound Toy study with rhesus monkeys: boys preferred wheeled toys over dolls, girls preferred both

16. Instinct vs. Social Construction Best to postpone answering the nature-nurture question for now But some psychological differences are so strong that they may form foundations for gender differences in ethics

17. Female Care Ethics Kohlberg and Gilligan: Justice vs. Care Care and Particularism Care and Virtues

18. Kohlberg and Gilligan: Justice vs. Care Kohlberg's theory Six stages of moral development, which move from selfishness to impartial justice

19. Kohlberg and Gilligan: Justice vs. Care Gilligan's theory Criticism of Kohlberg: his study used only males, and his justice view of morality was male-oriented

20. Kohlberg and Gilligan: Justice vs. Care Gilligan's theory A woman's moral point of view is different from a man's Men typically emphasize rights and principles of justice Women typically focus on particular relationships

21. Kohlberg and Gilligan: Justice vs. Care Gilligan's theory Care-ethics: attitudes like caring and sensitivity to context is an important aspect of the moral life

22. Care and Particularism Moral particularism : morality always involves particular relations with people, not lifeless abstractions Classical moral theory incorporates some particularism by recognizing obligations to family, friends, and local community

23. Care and Particularism Criticism: this is not a dominant feature of traditional ethics, and it may not go far enough

24. Care and Virtues Nel Noddings: Care should be seen as a component of virtue theory, where care is a nurturing character trait that we personally internalize, as we do other virtues

25. Four options regarding gender and ethics Male-Only Option Female-Only Option Separate-but-Equal Option Mutually-Inclusive Option