Introduction
This paper will give a comprehensive analysis of how feminist ethical theorists have argued that traditional ethical theories have ignored the interests of women, firstly through their presentation as universal and secondly through their reluctance to take the work of female ethicists into consideration. I shall begin by discussing the different conceptions of feminist ethics, focusing on descriptions provided by Alison Jaggar and Marilyn Friedman. In §2.0, I will evaluate the argument that women are ignored in ethics due to its conception of universal theories, as addressed by Sabrina Lovibond and Alison Jaggar, and examine their solutions to this issue. In §3.0, will attend to the theory that women are ignored as ethicists, again utilising the work of Sabrina Lovibond and Alison Jaggar, as well as the work of Virginia Held. Finally, §4.0 will explore the claim provided by Dopplet and Serba that traditional ethical theories can redraw their boundaries and thus accommodate female needs and female ethicists. Finally, I will examine the problems that arise in relation to the development of feminist ethical theories and conclude by addressing the thesis of the paper- whether traditional ethical theories do ignore female interests in favour of those of men.
§1.0 What is Feminist Ethics?
Alison Jaggar states that there is no unitary definition of feminist ethics but she suggests that most conceptions are dedicated to correcting the ‘male biases they perceive in traditional ethics’ (Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 2013, p. 528) as many traditional ethical theories fail to acknowledge female ethical experience as relevant, instead addressing women as subordinate and of less moral or ethical value. Jaggar acknowledges the necessity for a development of novel ideas that combat these biases, stating that feminist ethics aim to fulfil three practical goals (Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 2013, p. 528):
1) The creation of a focus on moral actions and practices that continue to impose female subordination
2) The development of systems that aid the resistance of such oppressive actions and practices
3) The establishment of alternatives practices that encourage female freedom
Opposition to the practices of female subordination has been prevalent throughout history with numerous cases arising from the late 18th Century and early 19th Century. The most notable example is that of Mary Wollstonecraft and the publication of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792 (Wollstonecraft, 1792) which highlighted the importance of social and educational equality for women, stating that the female education system encouraged frivolity and passivity while the male education system taught practical and academic subjects. In addition, the development of the Women’s Suffrage Movement after the First World War resulted in one of the first changes to legislation in favour of women, where British women over the age of 30 gained the right to vote in 1918 and women over 21 in 1928. However, the contemporary feminist movement came with a resurgence of feminist ethical debate in the 1960s, which influenced countless developments in the female social position, for example the British legalisation of abortion in 1969 and the American legalisation of abortion in 1971- a change that emphasised the control women did not have over their own bodies and person before this. Feminist ethical theory has developed significantly over the past two centuries, enacting more significant change that highlights the increasing prominence of the female role in society. Jaggar offers a concise definition of feminist ethics that expresses the importance of understanding the historical development of the female position in addressing the subordinated role of women.
Similarly, to Jaggar, Marilyn Friedman states that the foundations of feminist ethics have arisen from the requirement to end female oppression and subordination. Friedman, like Jaggar, addresses the historical context of feminist ethics, stating how second-wave feminists attempted to apply the resources of traditional theories to the issues highlighted by female theorists, including economic discrimination and restrictive sex roles (Friedman, 2006, p. 205). Male biases had arisen through the neglect of women’s issues and the failure to acknowledge female moral perspectives, therefore feminist ethics sought to address such issues. However, in contrast to Jaggar, Friedman develops a critique of feminist ethics, with a focus on Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice, which I will examine in §3.0.
§2.0 Traditional Ethical Theories that Ignore the Interests of Women
Jaggar examines the feminist challenges to traditional ethical theories and the ways in which women have been excluded from such theories, summarising them in five key points (Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 2013, pp. 529-530):
1) A lack of concern for women’s interests
2) Neglect of women’s issues
3) Denial of women’s moral agency
4) Depreciation of ‘feminine’ values
5) Devaluation of women’s moral experience
Feminist theorists have had to address the issue of their prescribed stereotypes that lead to their subordination in society, with their portrayal as morally and intellectually inferior preventing their consideration in the development of ethical theories. It must be acknowledged that criticisms (4) and (5) are not widely agreed upon by feminist critics due to their similarities with some Enlightenment ethics, including virtue ethics and postmodernism (Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 2013, p. 530), therefore this paper will focus on the first three criticisms presented by Jaggar, where traditional theories are presented as universal and how they fail to acknowledge women’s moral agency.
§2.1 Criticism of the Conception that Traditional Ethical Theories are Universal
Sabrina Lovibond addresses universality in the context of Enlightenment postmodernism, where she focused on ‘quiet pluralism’, the concentration on post-modern “re-discovery”, and Nietzsche’s ‘radical renunciation of the “Socratic” way of life’ (Lovibond, Feminism and Postmodernism, 2015, p. 34). Enlightenment philosophy prescribed universal doctrines that gave the impression of a common human dedication to moral and intellectual autonomy where humankind shared a common rationality, consequently neglecting the needs of women under the premise that their needs were the same as those of men. However, postmodernist philosophers reject this concept of a unitary human experience, arguing that individual rationality is vital to humanity, therefore it can be seen to resonate with modern feminist ethics. (Lovibond, Feminism and Postmodernism, 2015, p. 19). Lovibond states that postmodernism fails to give an explanation of how societal practices can be improved, and this is intrinsic to feminist theory. In order to establish a concept of sexual equality, there are countless methods that are immediately necessary for such change, for example a global redistribution of resources and the prevention of human destructions of societies and environments (Lovibond, Feminism and Postmodernism, 2015, p. 36). Rorty concedes that society as a whole needs a new political system that includes both male and female theorists who can create novel approaches to global issues, and would replace the platonic system of male dominated politics that assigned women the subordinate role (Lovibond, Feminism and Postmodernism, 2015, p. 36). In her discussion of universality and the response to post-modernism, Lovibond fails to specifically identify the problems faced by women in the conception of universal theories, nevertheless the theory that there is a need for a new formulation of societal rule that incorporates both men and women is very convincing in the context of feminism.
In Feminism in Ethics, Moral Justification, Alison Jaggar gives examples of four traditional ethical theories that ignore the needs of women (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006):
1) Intuitionism: Elizabeth Anderson on G. E. Moore
2) Universal Prescriptivism: Lynne S. Arnault on Richard M. Hare
3) Hypothetical contractarianism: Susan Okin on John Rawls
4) Domination-free Discourse: Seyla Benhabib on Jürgen Habermas
I will explore these traditional ethical theories and the ways in which they fail to take the issues and concerns of women into account when formulating their doctrines. I will then evaluate the feminist responses, presented by Jaggar, on how to combat the issues highlighted by feminist ethical theorists. However, I will not address Domination-free Discourse as this is not a traditional ethical theory.
§2.2 Intuitionism: Elizabeth Anderson on G. E. Moore
G. E. Moore’s Intuitionism has been credited as the starting point of Analytic Ethics, with the publication of Principa Ethica in 1905. Moore analyses the concept of “good”, questioning whether it is intrinsic or instrumental, and stating that the only reliable way to discover “good” is through internal contemplation (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006, p. 226). Moore’s Intuitionism faced much feminist criticism, with Elizabeth Anderson focusing on the small, unrepresentative sample utilised by Moore when developing this theory. Moore documented the intuitions of his close friends, meaning that his sample was removed from the wider world and consulted a narrow introspection by the same class of men; from this he established a conclusion of universal morality, however this only addressed the morality of those with the most social power. Anderson emphasised how the individual intuitionism that arose from Moore’s theory reflected a ‘tendency epidemic’ where an individual believed their moral belief to be superior based on their privilege by class, race, gender and empire (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006, p. 227). In my opinion, Anderson provides a clear evaluation of Moore’s theory that shows the problems of an upper-class, male-dominated society where their prescription of morality is assigned as unanimous throughout society, regardless of gender, class or race.
§2.3 Universal Prescriptivism: Lynne S. Arnault on Richard M. Hare
Similarly, to Moore, R. M. Hare attempts to define morality based on investigations of moral concepts, as seen in his work The Language of Morals. Hare concludes that moral terms are characterised by their function and states that they must take the form of an argument in order to be prescribed universally and he states that universability is inherent to the formulation of moral rationality (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006, p. 227). Hare establishes a number of conclusions that he believes to be the guiding factors of moral justification, namely that people are fundamentally similar, and their principal desire is to accomplish their own needs before those of others; Hare assumes that all humans are fundamentally similar, and this is what encourages feminist criticism. Arnault argues that Hare’s assumptions are problematic and do not reflect the intricacies of human motivation; many people put the interests of others above themselves for non-instrumental reasons, for example most parents selflessly and consistently put the needs of their children above their own. Therefore, Arnault concludes that Hare’s conception of universal morality has arisen through the observation of an ‘instrumentally rational, self-interested, fundamentally isolated individual’ who has an egotistical sense of self-entitlement where their interests are of more value than those of others (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006, p. 228). Arnault further addresses this point through the example of sexual harassment in relation to the epistemological differences between individuals; an individual may attempt to understand the experience of another, but their understanding will still be affected by their own perceptions and understandings. For example, a white person cannot fully understand the implications of racial discrimination or bias in the same way that those of colour can, as they have only been indirectly impacted by it. I think that Arnault’s criticism of Hare is incredibly convincing as she assesses Hare’s conception of a morality and the ways in which it fails to comprehend the intricacies and individualities associated with being human.
§2.4 Hypothetical Contractarianism: Susan Okin on John Rawls
Rawls’ account of moral justice draws inspiration from hypothetical contractarianism in political philosophy, arguing that there are numerous principles that correlate with one’s morality, identified as the “original position”, but this position is located behind a “veil of ignorance” meaning no-one can know their true place in society. Rawls attempted to establish a doctrine of justice that promoted equality and impartiality, fulfilling the goal of a “reflective equilibrium”- a state of mind that everyone should aspire to achieve (Jaggar, Feminist Ethics, 2013, p. 230). Despite Rawls’ desire to develop a theory of equality, many feminists critiqued him for creating a bias against women, identifying the man as head of the family and prescribing women a domestic role where they are deprived of equal economic and political treatment in the public sphere. Okin addresses this bias stating that it should be combatted through a modification of Rawls’ understandings of sex and gender, where sex should be identified as a characteristic that’s hidden behind the “veil of ignorance” and gender should be identified within the domain of justice (Jaggar, Feminism in Ethics, 2006, p. 231). Okin states that these re-evaluations would allow for a greater representation of equality for women where their sex was not a key component of their identification. However, Jaggar highlights that Okin fails to address the issue of how an individual’s limited knowledge can prevent them from reaching moral justification or autonomy. I agree with Jaggar’s commentary as this implies that discrimination can still arise if one is considered as less than the perceived “original position”.
§3.0 Criticism of the Conception that Traditional Ethical Theories fail to take Female Ethicists into Account
Held argues that traditional ethical and moral theories have lacked a female perspective, she states that the concepts that have become fundamental to the conception of society are far from gender-neutral, therefore it is necessary to re-examine these concepts and evaluate ways in which feminist ethicists can develop gender-neutral theories (Held, Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, 1990, p. 321). The main focus of Held’s work is to explore what she identifies as the three key aspects of traditional ethical theories that exclude women ethicists and promote a male gendered-bias (Held, Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, 1990, p. 328):
1) The distinction between reason and emotion
2) The distinction between the public and private spheres
3) The concept of a constructed male-dominated point of view
§3.1 The Distinction between the Reason and Emotion
Rationality has consistently been attributed as a solely masculine characteristic, where women are deemed as too emotional to process rational thought. Held utilises the case of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Held, Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, 1990, p. 329), where reason is seen as the prevailing principle for all moral or ethical thought, however as women are seen as incapable of possessing rationality, any ethical doctrines that have been established, following the Categorical Imperative, would not have been utilised. Similarly, traditional Utilitarianism follow a reason based doctrine that utilises Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus (Bentham, 2000), although it acknowledges the importance of emotion as a factor for how we make decisions it suggests that rationality must override emotion when establishing an ethical conclusion (Held, Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, 1990, p. 329). Consequently, feminine opinions on moral and ethical theory is ignored; in a conventional understanding female thought is dominated by emotion therefore a woman cannot think rationally due to the overriding nature of her emotions. Both Kantian Theory and Utilitarianism is presented as Universal doctrines that encompass both male and female rational thought, however they are governed by the patriarchal tradition that deems women incapable of rational thought. Thus, with the redundancy imposed on feminine theories, Utilitarianism and Kantian Theory cannot be regarded as universal or gender-neutral theories. I agree with Held’s evaluation of how reason and emotion has divided male and female perspectives, ultimately suggesting that only men are capable of possessing rationality and therefore hold the responsibility for creating ethical theories. Held does not address the ways in which modern women can combat the stereotype of emotion and passivity that has prevented their impact on ethics and morality throughout history. Instead, she explains how emotion can be used to benefit ethical theories and states that emotion should be respected not dismissed (Held, Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory, 1990, p. 331).
§3.2 The Distinction Between the Public and Private Spheres
In relation to the stereotypical portrayal of women as too-emotional, they are simultaneously assigned roles that do not extend beyond the private sphere of domesticity and child-bearing.
§3.3 The Concept of a Constructed Male-Dominated Point of View
§4.0 Problems with New Feminist Ethical Theories
§4.1 The Argument that Traditional Ethical Theories Can Accommodate for Women