Margaret Urban Walker’s Moral Understandings is most certainly a feminist study in ethics. The main purpose of her writings is to “account for the gender inequality in the socially constructed relationship between power—the political—on the one hand and the knowledge of truth and reality—the epistemological—on the other" (Walker 1998, 20). However, her approach is quite different than some of the feminist theorists that have come before her. Instead of taking what I call a “care-focused” approach where the primary task is to rehabilitate culturally associated “feminine” values, Walker takes “power-focus” approach in which she expresses an acute sensitivity to the fact that moral life and social life are intertwined. This power-focused perspective insists that our moral responsibilities flow from our social position, which as Walker notes, depends on our "gender, age, economic status, race, and other factors that distribute powers and forms of recognition differentially and hierarchically" (1998, 22). She explores the ways in which our power, or lack thereof, shapes our moral understandings and determines whose ethical vision is privileged as authoritative. To date, the economically and socially powerful have been largely responsible for setting the moral agenda for everyone. Walker regards this state of affairs as inequitable; as moral understanding is not the exclusive property of the privileged few, but the home turf of everyone.
In outlining the difference between feminist and nonfeminist approaches to ethics, Walker contrasts the "expressive-collaborative model" (1998, 60) of most feminist ethics with the theoretical-juridical model of most nonfeminist ethics. She argues that the reigning non-feminist moral theories, such as ...
... middle of paper ...
...e should act or what they should be motivated by. This effort is inspired by the idea that there exists a universally applicable or even divine moral code that we are all bound by. Walker’s position is that there is no such thing, and that philosophers labor in vain by creating specific guidelines and calculus’s in order to define it. I completely agree with Walker, I believe that her theory is the most insightful and lucid moral proposal I have ever read. The intersectionality of power and privilege in our lives is a crucial element to any social theory, and it is often disregarded as irrelevant happenstance. Her position beautifully leaves room for the varieties and vagaries of people’s lives: “ I do not think these is a principled way of ordering for everyone in advance the numbers, kinds, combinations and weightings of things that matter morally” (Walker, 112).
The overriding right to bodily autonomy is considered characteristically male by many feminists. Females in contrasts seem to be assumed to be
The Feminist Legal Theory closely looks at women and their position as legal subjects throughout history, and how these aspects have changed in regards to women as legal persons and the coorelating laws on gender themselves. The p...
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
Ingram, David, and Jennifer A. Parks. "Using the ‘F’ Word: Feminist Ethics." The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. N. pag. Print.Relman, Arnold. "On Breaking One’s Neck." The New York Review of Books. N.p., 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
Society has long since considered women the lessor gender and one of the most highly debated topics in society through the years has been that of women’s equality. The debates began over the meaning between a man and woman’s morality and a woman’s rights and obligations in society. After the 19th Amendment was sanctioned around 1920, the ball started rolling on women’s suffrage. Modern times have brought about the union of these causes, but due to the differences between the genetic makeup and socio demographics, the battle over women’s equality issue still continues to exist. While men have always held the covenant role of the dominant sex, it was only since the end of the 19th century that the movement for women’s equality and the entitlement of women have become more prevalent. “The general consensus at the time was that men were more capable of dealing with the competitive work world they now found themselves thrust into. Women, it was assumed, were unable to handle the pressures outside of the home. They couldn’t vote, were discourages from working, and were excluded from politics. Their duty to society was raising moral children, passing on the values that were unjustly thrust upon them as society began to modernize” (America’s Job Exchange, 2013). Although there have been many improvements in the changes of women’s equality towards the lives of women’s freedom and rights in society, some liberals believe that women have a journey to go before they receive total equality. After WWII, women continued to progress in there crusade towards receiving equality in many areas such as pay and education, discrimination in employment, reproductive rights and later was followed by not only white women but women from other nationalities ...
Monique Wittig, a radical feminist, illuminates, “For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we call servitude”. The concept of justifying the female inferior image based on biology and the ‘w...
A possible objection to my critique could be that “Although human beings may reserve the right to care about themselves it is egocentric, and not in the best interest for humanity.” The objection to my criticism could extend to even say that “By putting yourself interest ahead of others, you are indeed implying that you are the center of the universe or at least your own universe.” Yes, it is indeed the humane thing to do to put the best interest of others ahead of your own. But humans are not, and should not, forced to put the greater good ahead of their own life. This question is raised commonly in contemporary politics. In my opinion it is the individual’s choice if they so choose to donate time, money or any other resources to those in need. This decision should not be inflicted upon them. This ties back to Wolf’s original statement that “If you care about yourself you’re living as if you’re the center of the universe, which is false.” It is incongruous to believe that if you care about yourself you’re automatically implying that you are the center of the universe. Everyone who functions in society and is a normal human being, to a certain extent, cares about them self, which in my personal opinion is a good
Contemporary feminists have a big problem with traditional ethical theories because of their basis that women can never be fully moral. Traditional ethical theories suggest that an excess of emotion indicates a deficiency of reason. This could not be farther from the truth for lack of emotion is not a requirement for rational reasoning. Traditional ethical theories do not accept the morality of reasoning. For example, the Kantian categorical imperative asks us to reject reason and be completely impartial while calculating morality. In conclusion contemporary feminists have made much progress in transforming the gender hierarchy of traditional ethical theories a...
In the analysis of the issue in question, I have considered Mary Wollstonecraft’s Text, Vindication of the Rights of Woman. As an equivocal for liberties for humanity, Wollstonecraft was a feminist who championed for women rights of her time. Having witnessed devastating results or men’s improvidence, Wollstonecraft embraced an independent life, educated herself, and ultimately earned a living as a writer, teacher, and governess. In her book, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” she created a scandal perhaps to her unconventional lifestyle. The book is a manifesto of women rights arguing passionately for educating women. Sensualist and tyrants appear right in their endeavor to hold women in darkness to serve as slaves and their plaything. Anyone with a keen interest in women rights movement will surely welcome her inexpensive edition, a landmark documen...
Sandoval theory is influential within second wave feminism. The reasoning behind this article is to provide a framework for theorizing about oppositional activity and consciousness in the United States in the post-modern world (Sandoval, 1991). Primarily, interested in race, class, and culture third world feminist expand on the male/female division. Sandoval credits Louis Althusser for the use of his theory of ideology. Much of her article incorporates influential authors that we have previous discussed in our discussion including Sojourner Truth, bell hooks, and Barbara Christian. She first introduces the concept of hegemonic feminism by discussing the different periods in history: 1. Liberal: women are “as fully human as men” 2. Marxist: “women are different from men” 3. Cultural/radical: “women are superior” (Sandoval, 2001). She later argues that oppositional consciousness is topographical rather than typological. According to Sandoval, there are four cateofries that fit well into the hegemonic frame: equal rights, revolutionary, supremacist, separatist. Yet they add, differential to act as “the mechanism that permits the driver to select, engage, and disengage gears in a system for the transmission of power (Sandoval,
As women, those of us who identify as feminists have rebelled against the status quo and redefined what it means to be a strong and powerful woman. But at what cost do these advances come with?... ... middle of paper ... ... Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/whatisfem.htm Bidgood, J. 2014, April 8 -.
Among the many subjects covered in this book are the three classes of oppression: gender, race and class in addition to the ways in which they intersect. As well as the importance of the movement being all-inclusive, advocating the idea that feminism is in fact for everybody. The author also touches upon education, parenting and violence. She begins her book with her key argument, stating that feminist theory and the movement are mainly led by high class white women who disregarded the circumstances of underprivileged non-white women.
Throughout history, women have remained subordinate to men. Subjected to the patriarchal system that favored male perspectives, women struggled against having considerably less freedom, rights, and having the burdens society placed on them that had so ingrained the culture. This is the standpoint the feminists took, and for almost 160 years they have been challenging the “unjust distribution of power in all human relations” starting with the struggle for equality between men and women, and linking that to “struggles for social, racial, political, environmental, and economic justice”(Besel 530 and 531). Feminism, as a complex movement with many different branches, has and will continue to be incredibly influential in changing lives. Feminist political ideology focuses on understanding and changing political philosophies for the betterment of women.
Women have always been essential to society. Fifty to seventy years ago, a woman was no more than a house wife, caregiver, and at their husbands beck and call. Women had no personal opinion, no voice, and no freedom. They were suppressed by the sociable beliefs of man. A woman’s respectable place was always behind the masculine frame of a man. In the past a woman’s inferiority was not voluntary but instilled by elder women, and/or force. Many, would like to know why? Why was a woman such a threat to a man? Was it just about man’s ability to control, and overpower a woman, or was there a serious threat? Well, everyone has there own opinion about the cause of the past oppression of woman, it is currently still a popular argument today.
Michael Levin, a professor of philosophy and author of the book Feminism and Freedom, faults feminism for trying to impose an inappropriate equality on men and women that conflicts basic biological differences between the sexes (Levin, Taking Sides, 42). Women are not the same as men, neither physically nor psychologically. In the past, men tended to be the stronger more powerful gender, while women have traditionally been viewed as the weaker, more feeble one. The untrue assumption that men and women are the same in their ways of thinking and physical capabilities leads to the failure of the feminist message. Their agenda of eliminating all observable differences between men and women is doomed to fail and will inflict more pain than gain in the process. Recognizing the differences between the sexes and allowing each to do what they are strongest at will in the long run make society stronger, more efficient, and more effective.