PHIL DISCUSSION 11
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 349 05/09/17 06:05 PM
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
15.1 THE PRAGMATIST WAY t�%FöOF�pragmatism. t�,OPX�IPX�B�QSBHNBUJTU�NJHIU�FYQMJDBUF�UIF�NFBOJOH�PG�UFSNT�TVDI�BT�hard,
wet,�BOE�sharp. t�6OEFSTUBOE�UIF�NBJO�DPNQMBJOU�UIBU�+BNFT�BOE�1FJSDF�MPEHF�BHBJOTU�USBEJ- UJPOBM�NFUBQIZTJDT�
15.2 PEIRCE t�%FöOF�fallibilism. t�&YQMBJO�1FJSDF�T�UIFPSZ�PG�NFBOJOH� t�&WBMVBUF�1FJSDF�T�OPUJPO�PG�USVUI �B�DPOWFSHJOH�PG�PQJOJPOT�CZ�DPNQFUFOU� JOWFTUJHBUPST�
����� +".&4 t�%FöOF�evidentialism. t�&YQMBJO�XIBU�+BNFT�NFBOT�CZ�IJT�DMBJN�UIBU�UIF�iUSVUI�XPSLT�w t�&WBMVBUF�+BNFT�T�BSHVNFOU�GPS�UIF�WJFX�UIBU�TPNFUJNFT�XF�NBZ�CF�KVTUJöFE�JO� NBLJOH�B�MFBQ�PG�GBJUI�UP�FNCSBDF�B�CFMJFG�UIBU�JT�VOTVQQPSUFE�CZ�FWJEFODF�
t�6OEFSTUBOE�XIBU�+BNFT�NFBOT�CZ�B�iHFOVJOF�PQUJPO�w
!e Pragmatists: Peirce and James
CHAPTER 15
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 350 05/09/17 06:05 PM
350 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
15.1 THE PRAGMATIST WAY
As we’ve seen, philosophy in nineteenth-century Europe was dominated by the sub- versive ideas of four great agents of change: Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. On the Continent, the prevailing view was German idealism, and the preferred philosophical approach was the building of sprawling systems of thought (in Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, for example). In these imposing structures, sustained argumentation mattered less than the sweeping vision of the system. In Britain, German idealism also took root, and various versions of it flourished throughout the century. But British empiricism also spread, with the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill being the most obvious examples. Meanwhile in the United States, a uniquely American kind of philosophy sprang up, developing into a robust strain of empiricist thought that is influential still. !is way of looking at the world is known as pragmatism.
Pragmatism is the doctrine that the meaning or truth of a belief is synonymous with the practical results of accepting it. So to pragmatists the meaning of a term is defined by its consequences in the real world. What does it mean to say that a thing is hard? !e meaning, as a pragmatist might see it, is that the thing cannot be scratched by other materials, or that when the thing is pressed, it will not give easily. !e sum of such e"ects is the full sense of hard.
!e pragmatic take on truth is similar. Is the doctrine of idealism true? What of rationalism or empiricism? !e truth of these views depends on their practical ef- fects. !e view of the pragmatist philosopher William James is that these practical results should a"ect our personal lives:
pragmatism !e doc- trine that the meaning or truth of a belief is synony- mous with the practical results of accepting it.
“It is impossible not to envy the man who can dismiss reason, although we know how it must turn out at last.”
—Charles S. Peirce
8JMMJBN�+BNFT��i1SBHNBUJTNw�
1SBHNBUJTN�������BTLT�JUT�VTVBM�RVFTUJPO��i(SBOU�BO�JEFB�PS�CFMJFG�UP�CF�USVF w�JU�TBZT �iXIBU� DPODSFUF�EJòFSFODF�XJMM�JUT�CFJOH�USVF�NBLF�JO�BOZ�POF�T�BDUVBM�MJGF �)PX�XJMM�UIF�USVUI�CF�SF- BMJ[FE �8IBU�FYQFSJFODFT�XJMM�CF�EJòFSFOU�GSPN�UIPTF�XIJDI�XPVME�PCUBJO�JG�UIF�CFMJFG�XFSF� GBMTF �8IBU �JO�TIPSU �JT�UIF�USVUI�T�DBTI�WBMVF�JO�FYQFSJFOUJBM�UFSNT w
5IF�NPNFOU�QSBHNBUJTN�BTLT�UIJT�RVFTUJPO �JU�TFFT�UIF�BOTXFS�� True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot.1
For James and Charles S. Peirce, the two most important nineteenth-century pragmatists, pragmatism was in part a reaction to the ethereal metaphysics of past philosophizing. !ey were repelled by the otherworldly belief systems, the theories of the Absolute, the a priori musings, and the unsupported speculations. To them, these were philosophical castles in the sky—both meaningless and worthless. Phi- losophy should be useful, an instrument for better living. !ey asked: What do any of these abstractions have to do with our lives? How do they help us cope with day- to-day, life-and-death reality? James says it best:
“Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foun- dation of the practical side of logic.”
—Charles S. Peirce
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 351 05/09/17 06:05 PM
1FJSDF� 351
15.2 PEIRCE
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), America’s most original philosopher and the founder of pragmatism, demonstrated by his work that historically significant phi- losophy in the United States had finally arrived. Before he came along, philosophy in the West was almost exclusively a European and British a"air.
He was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to a highly re- garded professor of mathematics at Harvard, where in 1863 he earned a degree in chemistry, summa cum laude. From 1861 to 1891 he worked o" and on for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey while sometimes teaching logic and the history of science at Harvard and lecturing in logic at Johns Hopkins University. He published no books in philosophy (his only published book is about astronomy), but he wrote several journal articles that set out his views on his notion of fallibilism (the idea that our claims to knowledge may turn out to be false), the “principle of pragma- tism,” metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. He wrote much more than this, but most of his papers went unpublished in his lifetime and appeared in print only in the twentieth century.
Although Peirce laid the groundwork for pragmatism, the world paid little heed to him, reserving its attention for James, who wrote in a more popular vein about the doctrine. James admired Peirce, befriended him, and tried to help him out of his financial woes. Nevertheless Peirce died of cancer in 1914, impoverished, generally unappreciated, and almost unknown.
Peirce was the first to articulate pragmatism’s classic theory of meaning. !e meaning of a concept equals its real-world e"ects:
fallibilism !e view that our claims to knowledge may turn out to be false.
“In all the works on peda- gogy that ever I read— and they have been many, big, and heavy—I don’t remember that any one has advocated a system of teaching by practical jokes, mostly cruel. !at, however, describes the method of our great teacher, Experience.”
—Charles S. Peirce
5IF�QSBHNBUJD�NFUIPE�JT�QSJNBSJMZ�B�NFUIPE�PG�TFUUMJOH�NFUBQIZTJDBM�EJTQVUFT�UIBU�PUI- FSXJTF� NJHIU� CF� JOUFSNJOBCMF�� *T� UIF� XPSME� POF� PS� NBOZ �GBUFE� PS� GSFF �NBUFSJBM� PS� TQJSJUVBM �IFSF�BSF�OPUJPOT�FJUIFS�PG�XIJDI�NBZ�PS�NBZ�OPU�IPME�HPPE�PG�UIF�XPSME��BOE� EJTQVUFT�PWFS�TVDI�OPUJPOT�BSF�VOFOEJOH��5IF�QSBHNBUJD�NFUIPE�JO�TVDI�DBTFT�JT�UP�USZ�UP�JO- UFSQSFU�FBDI�OPUJPO�CZ�USBDJOH�JUT�SFTQFDUJWF�QSBDUJDBM�DPOTFRVFODFT��8IBU�EJòFSFODF�XPVME� JU�QSBDUJDBMMZ�NBLF�UP�BOZ�POF�JG�UIJT�OPUJPO�SBUIFS�UIBO�UIBU�OPUJPO�XFSF�USVF �*G�OP�QSBDUJDBM� EJòFSFODF�XIBUFWFS�DBO�CF�USBDFE �UIF�BMUFSOBUJWFT�NFBO�QSBDUJDBMMZ�UIF�TBNF�UIJOH �BOE�BMM� EJTQVUF�JT�JEMF��8IFOFWFS�B�EJTQVUF�JT�TFSJPVT �XF�PVHIU�UP�CF�BCMF�UP�TIPX�TPNF�QSBDUJDBM� EJòFSFODF�UIBU�NVTU�GPMMPX�GSPN�POF�TJEF�PS�UIF�PUIFS�T�CFJOH�SJHIU�2
8JMMJBN�+BNFT�� i1SBHNBUJTNw
Figure 15.1 $IBSMFT�4BOEFST�1FJSDF� ����o���� �
$IBSMFT�4BOEFST�1FJSDF��i)PX�UP�.BLF�0VS�*EFBT�$MFBSw�
<$>POTJEFS�XIBU�FòFDUT �XIJDI�NJHIU�DPODFJWBCMZ�IBWF�QSBDUJDBM�CFBSJOHT �XF�DPODFJWF�UIF� PCKFDU�PG�PVS�DPODFQUJPO�UP�IBWF��5IFO �PVS�DPODFQUJPO�PG�UIFTF�FòFDUT�JT�UIF�XIPMF�PG�PVS� DPODFQUJPO�PG�UIF�PCKFDU�������
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 352 05/09/17 06:05 PM
352 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
Four Ways to Fix Belief Peirce asserts that doubt “causes a struggle to attain a state of belief,” and this struggle is an inquiry whose goal is to substitute a set- tled belief for doubt. But not every method of inquiry is useful. He mentions four meth- ods, only one of which (the fourth one) is satisfactory: 1. In the method of tenacity, we accept
any available answer and hold onto it against all reason and all alternatives. But, says Peirce, this approach doesn’t work. It “will be unable to hold its ground in practice. . . . !e man who adopts it will find that other men think di"erently from him, and it will be apt to occur to him, in some saner moment, that their opinions are quite as good as his own, and this will shake his confidence in his belief.”
2. In the method of authority, we defer to powerful persons or institutions and let them dictate our beliefs and prevent contrary opinions. But this procedure can lead to the realization that the sanctioning of some beliefs and not others is arbitrary—which again will lead to doubts about the “correct” beliefs.
3. In the a priori method, we base our beliefs not on any experience or observed facts but on our ungrounded inclinations toward particular opinions. But this scheme too is arbitrary and subjective.
4. In the method of science, we judge beliefs by a standard outside ourselves. It says, “!ere are Real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals a"ect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as di"erent as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are.”
DETAILS
8IBU�T�XSPOH�XJUI�UIF�NFUIPE�PG�UFOBDJUZ �UIF�NFUIPE�PG�BVUIPSJUZ �)PX�EPFT�UIF� NFUIPE�PG�TDJFODF�EJòFS�GSPN�PUIFS�NFUIPET�PG�öYJOH�CFMJFG
Charles Sanders Peirce, “!e Fixation of Belief,” Popular Science Monthly, 1877.
Figure 15.2 *SBOJBOT�JO�5FIFSBO�XBML�QBTU�B�CJMMCPBSE�TIPX- JOH�BO�JNBHF�PG�*SBO�T�TVQSFNF�MFBEFS��8IFO�EFDJEJOH�XIBU� UP̓CFMJFWF �IPX�PGUFO�EP�XF�EFGFS�UP�QPMJUJDBM�PS�SFMJHJPVT�BV- UIPSJUZ �4IPVME�XF�ever�EFGFS
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 353 05/09/17 06:05 PM
+BNFT� 353
Peirce’s idea of truth also appeals to practical consequences, but he gives it an in- teresting twist. A true belief is one that is destined to be converged on by competent investigators if they have an unlimited amount of time to reach their conclusion. Peirce explains:
-FU�VT�OFYU�TFFL�B�DMFBS�JEFB�PG�8FJHIU��5IJT�JT�BOPUIFS�WFSZ�FBTZ�DBTF��5P�TBZ�UIBU�B� CPEZ�JT�IFBWZ�NFBOT�TJNQMZ�UIBU �JO�UIF�BCTFODF�PG�PQQPTJOH�GPSDF �JU�XJMM�GBMM��5IJT� OFHMFDU- JOH�DFSUBJO�TQFDJöDBUJPOT�PG�IPX�JU�XJMM�GBMM �FUD� �XIJDI�FYJTU�JO�UIF�NJOE�PG�UIF�QIZTJDJTU�XIP� VTFT�UIF�XPSE �JT�FWJEFOUMZ�UIF�XIPMF�DPODFQU�PG�XFJHIU�3
$IBSMFT�4BOEFST�1FJSDF�� i)PX�UP�.BLF�0VS� *EFBT�$MFBSw
%JòFSFOU�NJOET�NBZ�TFU�PVU�XJUI�UIF�NPTU�BOUBHPOJTUJD�WJFXT �CVU�UIF�QSPHSFTT�PG�JOWFTUJHB- UJPO�DBSSJFT�UIFN�CZ�GPSDF�PVUTJEF�PG�UIFNTFMWFT�UP�POF�BOE�UIF�TBNF�DPODMVTJPO��5IJT�BDUJW- JUZ�PG�UIPVHIU�CZ�XIJDI�XF�BSF�DBSSJFE �OPU�XIFSF�XF�XJTI �CVU�UP�B�GPSFPSEBJOFE�HPBM �JT�MJLF� UIF�PQFSBUJPO�PG�EFTUJOZ��/P�NPEJöDBUJPO�PG�UIF�QPJOU�PG�WJFX�UBLFO �OP�TFMFDUJPO�PG�PUIFS� GBDUT�GPS�TUVEZ �OP�OBUVSBM�CFOU�PG�NJOE�FWFO �DBO�FOBCMF�B�NBO�UP�FTDBQF�UIF�QSFEFTUJOBUF� PQJOJPO��5IJT�HSFBU�MBX�JT�FNCPEJFE�JO�UIF�DPODFQUJPO�PG�USVUI�BOE�SFBMJUZ��5IF�PQJOJPO�XIJDI� JT�GBUFE�UP�CF�VMUJNBUFMZ�BHSFFE�UP�CZ�BMM�XIP�JOWFTUJHBUF�JT�XIBU�XF�NFBO�CZ�UIF�USVUI �BOE� UIF�PCKFDU�QSFTFOUFE�JO�UIJT�PQJOJPO�JT�UIF�SFBM��5IBU�JT�UIF�XBZ�*�XPVME�FYQMBJO�SFBMJUZ��
$IBSMFT�4BOEFST�1FJSDF�� i)PX�UP�.BLF�0VS� *EFBT�$MFBSw
So for Peirce, if a proposition is true, careful research conducted through mul- tiple investigators over a long enough time would eventually lead to that truth. Truth is a matter of reasonable consensus, a fallible enterprise in which opinions may be true or false yet are becoming better approximations of reality. Truth, then, is some- thing we must work to achieve, something we must aspire to.
Peirce’s critics take issue with his view of truth. For one thing, they think his as- sumption that competent investigators will come to accept one and the same belief at the conclusion of inquiry is dubious. It’s possible to devise many di"erent hypotheses to account for the same evidence, so isn’t it possible for investigators to ultimately converge on two conflicting beliefs about the same facts? If so, that would mean two conflicting beliefs could both be true—which is absurd.
15.3 JAMES
For William James (1842–1910), truth is not a matter of interpersonal consensus; it is about practical consequences for individuals. A belief is true if it is beneficial to our lives—that is, if it is useful or satisfying. !e truth is “what works,” and what works may mean either success in predicting events or promotion of beneficial feel- ings and actions:
1.�"SF�UIFSF�DPODFQUT� PS�JEFBT�UIBU�JOWPMWF�OP� QSBDUJDBM�FòFDUT�ZFU�BSF� NFBOJOHGVM �*G�UIFSF�BSF� TVDI�JEFBT �XPVME�UIBU� GBDU�VOEFSDVU�1FJSDF�T� UIFPSZ�PG�NFBOJOH �
“In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should con- sider what practical conse- quences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that concep- tion; and the sum of these consequences will consti- tute the entire meaning of the conception.”
—Charles S. Peirce
8JMMJBN�+BNFT��i1SBHNBUJTNw�
5IF�USVF�JT�UIF�OBNF�PG�XIBUFWFS�QSPWFT�JUTFMG�UP�CF�HPPE�JO�UIF�XBZ�PG�CFMJFG �BOE�HPPE �UPP � GPS�EFöOJUF �BTTJHOBCMF�SFBTPOT�5
2.�*T�JU�QPTTJCMF�GPS� JOWFTUJHBUPST�UP�SFBDI�BO� VMUJNBUF�DPOTFOTVT�PO�B� QSPQPTJUJPO�UIBU�JT�BDUVBMMZ� GBMTF �*G�TP �XIBU�BSF�UIF� JNQMJDBUJPOT�GPS�1FJSDF�T� UIFPSZ�PG�USVUI �
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 354 05/09/17 06:05 PM
354 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
!is principle applies to the workaday world, to science, and even to religion:
Contrary to his scientifically minded colleagues, James argues that sometimes we may be justified in making a leap of faith to embrace a belief—a belief that works—that is entirely unsup- ported by evidence. In the absence of any evidence that could help us decide an issue, and when we are presented with a true choice between opposing beliefs (a “genuine option”), believing on faith may be the rational thing to do. To James, a genuine option is one that is live, forced, and momentous. A live option presents some- one with alternatives that he believes could possibly be actualized. A forced option is unavoidable because the two possibilities are mutually exclusive, and not deciding is the same as choosing one of the alternatives. (An example from James is “either accept this truth or go without it.”) A momentous option is one that really matters, because the stakes are high, the decision is irreversible, or the choice o"ers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. When we are confronted with a genuine option with no evidence to go by, James says, we have the right to let our “passional nature”—our feelings and desires—decide.
James thus repudiates evidentialism, the view that we are jus- tified in believing something only if it is supported by su#cient evidence. In James’s day, the foremost champion of evidentialism was W. K. Cli"ord, who declared, “It is wrong always, everywhere,
and for anyone, to believe anything upon insu#cient evidence.”7 In other words, it is morally wrong to believe beyond the evidence. Against this position James asserts, “Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds.”8
To James, the decision to believe or not to believe in a divine reality (the “reli- gious hypothesis”) is a genuine option that the intellect cannot help us decide. It is indeed momentous: “We are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our nonbelief, a certain vital good.”9 !e skeptic, out of fear of being wrong, would have us refrain from believing and wait until evidence tilts one way or the other. But James insists that the wiser choice—and the more advantageous—is to believe the religious hypothesis, to refuse to forfeit your “sole chance in life of get- ting upon the winning side.” Moreover, to discover whether a divine being exists, we may first have to have faith that it does. Unless we first believe, we may not be able to confirm the truth through our own experience. One who insists on evidence before belief “might cut himself o" forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance.”
Figure 15.3 8JMMJBN�+BNFT� ����o���� �
3.�$BO�B�GBMTF�CFMJFG�IBWF� HPPE�DPOTFRVFODFT �*G�B� SBDJTU�HFUT�FNPUJPOBM�TBU- JTGBDUJPO�GSPN�CFMJFWJOH� UIBU�OPO�XIJUF�QFPQMF�BSF� JOGFSJPS �EPFT�UIBU�NFBO� IJT�CFMJFG�JT�USVF �
evidentialism !e view that we are justified in believing something only if it is supported by suf- ficient evidence.
“Peirce wrote as a logician and James as a humanist.”
—John Dewey
*G�UIFPMPHJDBM�JEFBT�QSPWF�UP�IBWF�B�WBMVF�GPS�DPODSFUF�MJGF �UIFZ�XJMM�CF�USVF �GPS�QSBHNBUJTN � JO�UIF�TFOTF�PG�CFJOH�HPPE�GPS�TP�NVDI��'PS�IPX�NVDI�UIFZ�BSF�USVF �XJMM�EFQFOE�FOUJSFMZ�PO� UIFJS�SFMBUJPOT�UP�UIF�PUIFS�USVUIT�UIBU�BMTP�IBWF�UP�CF�BDLOPXMFEHFE�6
8JMMJBN�+BNFT�� i1SBHNBUJTNw
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 355 05/09/17 06:05 PM
+BNFT� 355
!is is how James makes his case:
8JMMJBN�+BNFT��i5IF�8JMM�UP�#FMJFWFw�
IV
5IF�UIFTJT�*�EFGFOE�JT �CSJFøZ�TUBUFE �UIJT��Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, “Do not decide, but leave the question open,” is itself a passional decision just like deciding yes or no,—and is at- tended with the same risk of losing the truth. . . .
VII
5IFSF�BSF�UXP�XBZT�PG�MPPLJOH�BU�PVS�EVUZ�JO�UIF�NBUUFS�PG�PQJOJPO �XBZT�FOUJSFMZ�EJòFS- FOU �BOE�ZFU�XBZT�BCPVU�XIPTF�EJòFSFODF�UIF�UIFPSZ�PG�LOPXMFEHF�TFFNT�IJUIFSUP�UP�IBWF� TIPXO�WFSZ�MJUUMF�DPODFSO��We must know the truth;�BOE�we must avoid error,�UIFTF�BSF�PVS� öSTU�BOE�HSFBU�DPNNBOENFOUT�BT�XPVME�CF�LOPXFST��CVU�UIFZ�BSF�OPU�UXP�XBZT�PG�TUBUJOH� BO�JEFOUJDBM�DPNNBOENFOU �UIFZ�BSF�UXP�TFQBSBCMF�MBXT��"MUIPVHI�JU�NBZ�JOEFFE�IBQQFO� UIBU�XIFO�XF�CFMJFWF�UIF�USVUI�" �XF�FTDBQF�BT�BO�JODJEFOUBM�DPOTFRVFODF�GSPN�CFMJFWJOH� UIF�GBMTFIPPE�# �JU�IBSEMZ�FWFS�IBQQFOT�UIBU�CZ�NFSFMZ�EJTCFMJFWJOH�#�XF�OFDFTTBSJMZ�CFMJFWF� "��8F�NBZ�JO�FTDBQJOH�#�GBMM�JOUP�CFMJFWJOH�PUIFS�GBMTFIPPET �$�PS�% �KVTU�BT�CBE�BT�#��PS�XF� NBZ�FTDBQF�#�CZ�OPU�CFMJFWJOH�BOZUIJOH�BU�BMM �OPU�FWFO�"�
#FMJFWF�USVUI��4IVO�FSSPS��UIFTF �XF�TFF �BSF�UXP�NBUFSJBMMZ�EJòFSFOU�MBXT��BOE�CZ� DIPPTJOH� CFUXFFO� UIFN� XF� NBZ� FOE� CZ� DPMPVSJOH� EJòFSFOUMZ� PVS� XIPMF� JOUFMMFDUVBM� MJGF��8F�NBZ�SFHBSE�UIF�DIBTF�GPS�USVUI�BT�QBSBNPVOU �BOE�UIF�BWPJEBODF�PG�FSSPS�BT�TFD- POEBSZ��PS�XF�NBZ �PO�UIF�PUIFS�IBOE �USFBU�UIF�BWPJEBODF�PG�FSSPS�BT�NPSF�JNQFSBUJWF � BOE�MFU�USVUI�UBLF�JUT�DIBODF��$MJòPSE �JO�UIF�JOTUSVDUJWF�QBTTBHF�XIJDI�*�IBWF�RVPUFE � FYIPSUT�VT�UP�UIF�MBUUFS�DPVSTF��#FMJFWF�OPUIJOH �IF�UFMMT�VT �LFFQ�ZPVS�NJOE�JO�TVTQFOTF� GPSFWFS �SBUIFS�UIBO�CZ�DMPTJOH�JU�PO�JOTVóDJFOU�FWJEFODF�JODVS�UIF�BXGVM�SJTL�PG�CFMJFW- JOH�MJFT��:PV �PO�UIF�PUIFS�IBOE �NBZ�UIJOL�UIBU�UIF�SJTL�PG�CFJOH�JO�FSSPS�JT�B�WFSZ�TNBMM� NBUUFS�XIFO�DPNQBSFE�XJUI�UIF�CMFTTJOHT�PG�SFBM�LOPXMFEHF �BOE�CF�SFBEZ�UP�CF�EVQFE� NBOZ�UJNFT�JO�ZPVS�JOWFTUJHBUJPO�SBUIFS�UIBO�QPTUQPOF�JOEFöOJUFMZ�UIF�DIBODF�PG�HVFTT- JOH�USVF��*�NZTFMG�öOE�JU�JNQPTTJCMF�UP�HP�XJUI�$MJòPSE��8F�NVTU�SFNFNCFS�UIBU�UIFTF� GFFMJOHT�PG�PVS�EVUZ�BCPVU�FJUIFS�USVUI�PS�FSSPS�BSF�JO�BOZ�DBTF�POMZ�FYQSFTTJPOT�PG�PVS� QBTTJPOBM�MJGF��#JPMPHJDBMMZ�DPOTJEFSFE �PVS�NJOET�BSF�BT�SFBEZ�UP�HSJOE�PVU�GBMTFIPPE�BT� WFSBDJUZ �BOE�IF�XIP�TBZT�i#FUUFS�HP�XJUIPVU�CFMJFG�GPSFWFS�UIBO�CFMJFWF�B�MJF�w�NFSFMZ� TIPXT�IJT�PXO�QSFQPOEFSBOU�QSJWBUF�IPSSPS�PG�CFDPNJOH�B�EVQF��)F�NBZ�CF�DSJUJDBM�PG� NBOZ�PG�IJT�EFTJSFT�BOE�GFBST �CVU�UIJT�GFBS�IF�TMBWJTIMZ�PCFZT��)F�DBOOPU�JNBHJOF�BOZPOF� RVFTUJPOJOH�JUT�CJOEJOH�GPSDF��'PS�NZ�PXO�QBSU �*�IBWF�BMTP�B�IPSSPS�PG�CFJOH�EVQFE��CVU� *�DBO�CFMJFWF�UIBU�XPSTF�UIJOHT�UIBO�CFJOH�EVQFE�NBZ�IBQQFO�UP�B�NBO�JO�UIJT�XPSME�� TP�$MJòPSE�T�FYIPSUBUJPO�IBT�UP�NZ�FBST�B�UIPSPVHIMZ�GBOUBTUJD�TPVOE��*U�JT�MJLF�B�HFOFSBM� JOGPSNJOH�IJT�TPMEJFST�UIBU�JU�JT�CFUUFS�UP�LFFQ�PVU�PG�CBUUMF�GPSFWFS�UIBO�UP�SJTL�B�TJOHMF�
“Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact.”
—William James
4.�*T�JU�FWFS�SBUJPOBM�UP� CFMJFWF�TPNFUIJOH�XJUI- PVU�FWJEFODF �+BNFT�TBZT� ZFT��$MJòPSE�TBZT�OP��8IP� JT�SJHIU �
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 356 05/09/17 06:05 PM
356 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
XPVOE��/PU�TP�BSF�WJDUPSJFT�FJUIFS�PWFS�FOFNJFT�PS�PWFS�OBUVSF�HBJOFE��0VS�FSSPST�BSF� TVSFMZ�OPU�TVDI�BXGVMMZ�TPMFNO�UIJOHT��*O�B�XPSME�XIFSF�XF�BSF�TP�DFSUBJO�UP�JODVS�UIFN� JO�TQJUF�PG�BMM�PVS�DBVUJPO �B�DFSUBJO�MJHIUOFTT�PG�IFBSU�TFFNT�IFBMUIJFS�UIBO�UIJT�FYDFT- TJWF�OFSWPVTOFTT�PO�UIFJS�CFIBMG��"U�BOZ�SBUF �JU�TFFNT�UIF�öUUFTU�UIJOH�GPS�UIF�FNQJSJDJTU� QIJMPTPQIFS�
VIII
8IFSFWFS�UIF�PQUJPO�CFUXFFO�MPTJOH�USVUI�BOE�HBJOJOH�JU�JT�OPU�NPNFOUPVT �XF�DBO�UISPX� UIF�DIBODF�PG�gaining truth�BXBZ �BOE�BU�BOZ�SBUF�TBWF�PVSTFMWFT�GSPN�BOZ�DIBODF�PG�believing falsehood,�CZ�OPU�NBLJOH�VQ�PVS�NJOET�BU�BMM�UJMM�PCKFDUJWF�FWJEFODF�IBT�DPNF��*O�TDJFOUJöD� RVFTUJPOT �UIJT�JT�BMNPTU�BMXBZT�UIF�DBTF��BOE�FWFO�JO�IVNBO�BòBJST�JO�HFOFSBM �UIF�OFFE� PG�BDUJOH�JT�TFMEPN�TP�VSHFOU�UIBU�B�GBMTF�CFMJFG�UP�BDU�PO�JT�CFUUFS�UIBO�OP�CFMJFG�BU�BMM��-BX� DPVSUT �JOEFFE �IBWF�UP�EFDJEF�PO�UIF�CFTU�FWJEFODF�BUUBJOBCMF�GPS�UIF�NPNFOU �CFDBVTF�B� KVEHF�T�EVUZ�JT�UP�NBLF�MBX�BT�XFMM�BT�UP�BTDFSUBJO�JU �BOE� BT�B�MFBSOFE�KVEHF�PODF�TBJE�UP�NF � GFX�DBTFT�BSF�XPSUI�TQFOEJOH�NVDI�UJNF�PWFS��UIF�HSFBU�UIJOH�JT�UP�IBWF�UIFN�EFDJEFE�PO�
8JMMJBN�+BNFT�� i5IF̓8JMM�UP�#FMJFWFw
William James William James (1842–1910) is one of America’s most influential philosophers, leaving a lasting impression on debates in epis- temology, philosophy of religion, ethics, and free will. He was born in New York City and grew up in an intellectually stimu- lating family. His father was a philosopher of religion, and his brother Henry was the famous novelist. He studied abroad, earned a Harvard degree in medicine, and spent most of his career lec- turing and writing in psychology and philosophy.
His reputation as the greatest psychologist of America and Europe was assured by the publication of his voluminous work !e Principles of Psychology (1890). After that came numerous philosophical essays and books, including !e Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (1897); !e Varieties of Reli- gious Experience (1902); Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of !inking (1907); and !e Meaning of Truth (1909).
!rough pragmatism, James came to the conclusion that re- ligion was a legitimate and important aspect of life, because we can plausibly accept religious claims on grounds of their utility, regardless of their lack of evidence.
Ironically, James, the famous psychologist, was given to psychosomatic illness and clini- cal depression. Once while wrestling with the problem of free will, he fell into a devastatingly dark mood and did not recover until he had found a solution. He concluded that despite determinism, we can have free will because chance events make room for free actions.
PORTR AIT
Figure 15.4 8JMMJBN� +BNFT� SJHIU � XJUI� IJT� GBNPVT� CSPUIFS� )FOSZ � BVUIPS�PG�The Turn of the Screw, The Portrait of a Lady,� BOE� PUIFS� XPSLT� PG�öDUJPO�
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 357 05/09/17 06:05 PM
+BNFT� 357
any�BDDFQUBCMF�QSJODJQMF �BOE�HPU�PVU�PG�UIF�XBZ��#VU�JO�PVS�EFBMJOHT�XJUI�PCKFDUJWF�OBUVSF� XF�PCWJPVTMZ�BSF�SFDPSEFST �OPU�NBLFST �PG�UIF�USVUI��BOE�EFDJTJPOT�GPS�UIF�NFSF�TBLF�PG�EF- DJEJOH�QSPNQUMZ�BOE�HFUUJOH�PO�UP�UIF�OFYU�CVTJOFTT�XPVME�CF�XIPMMZ�PVU�PG�QMBDF��5ISPVHI- PVU�UIF�CSFBEUI�PG�QIZTJDBM�OBUVSF�GBDUT�BSF�XIBU�UIFZ�BSF�RVJUF�JOEFQFOEFOUMZ�PG�VT �BOE� TFMEPN�JT�UIFSF�BOZ�TVDI�IVSSZ�BCPVU�UIFN�UIBU�UIF�SJTLT�PG�CFJOH�EVQFE�CZ�CFMJFWJOH�B�QSF- NBUVSF�UIFPSZ�OFFE�CF�GBDFE��5IF�RVFTUJPOT�IFSF�BSF�BMXBZT�USJWJBM�PQUJPOT �UIF�IZQPUIFTFT� BSF�IBSEMZ�MJWJOH� BU�BOZ�SBUF�OPU�MJWJOH�GPS�VT�TQFDUBUPST �UIF�DIPJDF�CFUXFFO�CFMJFWJOH�USVUI� PS�GBMTFIPPE�JT�TFMEPN�GPSDFE��5IF�BUUJUVEF�PG�TDFQUJDBM�CBMBODF�JT�UIFSFGPSF�UIF�BCTPMVUFMZ� XJTF�POF�JG�XF�XPVME�FTDBQF�NJTUBLFT�������
5IF�RVFTUJPO�OFYU�BSJTFT��"SF�UIFSF�OPU�TPNFXIFSF�GPSDFE�PQUJPOT�JO�PVS�TQFDVMBUJWF� RVFTUJPOT �BOE�DBO�XF� BT�NFO�XIP�NBZ�CF�JOUFSFTUFE�BU�MFBTU�BT�NVDI�JO�QPTJUJWFMZ�HBJOJOH� USVUI�BT�JO�NFSFMZ�FTDBQJOH�EVQFSZ �BMXBZT�XBJU�XJUI�JNQVOJUZ�UJMM�UIF�DPFSDJWF�FWJEFODF� TIBMM�IBWF�BSSJWFE �*U�TFFNT�a priori�JNQSPCBCMF�UIBU�UIF�USVUI�TIPVME�CF�TP�OJDFMZ�BEKVTUFE� UP�PVS�OFFET�BOE�QPXFST�BT�UIBU��*O�UIF�HSFBU�CPBSEJOHIPVTF�PG�OBUVSF �UIF�DBLFT�BOE�UIF� CVUUFS�BOE�UIF�TZSVQ�TFMEPN�DPNF�PVU�TP�FWFO�BOE�MFBWF�UIF�QMBUFT�TP�DMFBO��*OEFFE �XF� TIPVME�WJFX�UIFN�XJUI�TDJFOUJöD�TVTQJDJPO�JG�UIFZ�EJE�
IX
.PSBM�RVFTUJPOT�JNNFEJBUFMZ�QSFTFOU�UIFNTFMWFT�BT�RVFTUJPOT�XIPTF�TPMVUJPO�DBOOPU�XBJU� GPS�TFOTJCMF�QSPPG��"�NPSBM�RVFTUJPO�JT�B�RVFTUJPO�OPU�PG�XIBU�TFOTJCMZ�FYJTUT �CVU�PG�XIBU�JT� HPPE �PS�XPVME�CF�HPPE�JG�JU�EJE�FYJTU��4DJFODF�DBO�UFMM�VT�XIBU�FYJTUT��CVU�UP�DPNQBSF�UIF� XPSUIT �CPUI�PG�XIBU�FYJTUT�BOE�PG�XIBU�EPFT�OPU�FYJTU �XF�NVTU�DPOTVMU�OPU�TDJFODF �CVU� XIBU�1BTDBM�DBMMT�PVS�IFBSU��4DJFODF�IFSTFMG�DPOTVMUT�IFS�IFBSU�XIFO�TIF�MBZT�JU�EPXO�UIBU� UIF�JOöOJUF�BTDFSUBJONFOU�PG�GBDU�BOE�DPSSFDUJPO�PG�GBMTF�CFMJFG�BSF�UIF�TVQSFNF�HPPET�GPS� NBO��$IBMMFOHF�UIF�TUBUFNFOU�BOE�TDJFODF�DBO�POMZ�SFQFBU�JU�PSBDVMBSMZ �PS�FMTF�QSPWF�JU�CZ� TIPXJOH�UIBU�TVDI�BTDFSUBJONFOU�BOE�DPSSFDUJPO�CSJOH�NBO�BMM�TPSUT�PG�PUIFS�HPPET�XIJDI� NBO�T�IFBSU�JO�UVSO�EFDMBSFT��5IF�RVFTUJPO�PG�IBWJOH�NPSBM�CFMJFGT�BU�BMM�PS�OPU�IBWJOH�UIFN� JT�EFDJEFE�CZ�PVS�XJMM��"SF�PVS�NPSBM�QSFGFSFODFT�USVF�PS�GBMTF �PS�BSF�UIFZ�POMZ�PEE�CJPMPHJDBM� QIFOPNFOB �NBLJOH�UIJOHT�HPPE�PS�CBE�GPS�VT �CVU�JO�UIFNTFMWFT�JOEJòFSFOU �)PX�DBO�ZPVS� QVSF�JOUFMMFDU�EFDJEF �*G�ZPVS�IFBSU�EPFT�OPU�XBOU�B�XPSME�PG�NPSBM�SFBMJUZ �ZPVS�IFBE�XJMM�BT- TVSFEMZ�OFWFS�NBLF�ZPV�CFMJFWF�JO�POF�������
5VSO�OPX�GSPN�UIFTF�XJEF�RVFTUJPOT�PG�HPPE�UP�B�DFSUBJO�DMBTT�PG�RVFTUJPOT�PG�GBDU � RVFTUJPOT�DPODFSOJOH�QFSTPOBM�SFMBUJPOT �TUBUFT�PG�NJOE�CFUXFFO�POF�NBO�BOE�BOPUIFS��Do you like me or not?�GPS�FYBNQMF��8IFUIFS�ZPV�EP�PS�OPU�EFQFOET �JO�DPVOUMFTT�JOTUBODFT � PO�XIFUIFS�*�NFFU�ZPV�IBMGXBZ �BN�XJMMJOH�UP�BTTVNF�UIBU�ZPV�NVTU�MJLF�NF �BOE�TIPX�ZPV� USVTU�BOE�FYQFDUBUJPO��5IF�QSFWJPVT�GBJUI�PO�NZ�QBSU�JO�ZPVS�MJLJOH�T�FYJTUFODF�JT�JO�TVDI� DBTFT�XIBU�NBLFT�ZPVS�MJLJOH�DPNF��#VU�JG�*�TUBOE�BMPPG �BOE�SFGVTF�UP�CVEHF�BO�JODI�VOUJM� *�IBWF�PCKFDUJWF�FWJEFODF �VOUJM�ZPV�TIBMM�IBWF�EPOF�TPNFUIJOH�BQU �BT�UIF�BCTPMVUJTUT�TBZ � ad extorquendum assensum meum,�UFO�UP�POF�ZPVS�MJLJOH�OFWFS�DPNFT��)PX�NBOZ�XPNFO�T� IFBSUT�BSF�WBORVJTIFE�CZ�UIF�NFSF�TBOHVJOF�JOTJTUFODF�PG�TPNF�NBO�UIBU�UIFZ�must�MPWF� IJN��)F�XJMM�OPU�DPOTFOU�UP�UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�UIBU�UIFZ�DBOOPU��5IF�EFTJSF�GPS�B�DFSUBJO�LJOE�PG� USVUI�IFSF�CSJOHT�BCPVU�UIBU�TQFDJBM�USVUI�T�FYJTUFODF��BOE�TP�JU�JT�JO�JOOVNFSBCMF�DBTFT�PG� PUIFS�TPSUT��8IP�HBJOT�QSPNPUJPOT �CPPOT �BQQPJOUNFOUT �CVU�UIF�NBO�JO�XIPTF�MJGF�UIFZ� BSF�TFFO�UP�QMBZ�UIF�QBSU�PG�MJWF�IZQPUIFTFT �XIP�EJTDPVOUT�UIFN �TBDSJöDFT�PUIFS�UIJOHT�GPS� UIFJS�TBLF�CFGPSF�UIFZ�IBWF�DPNF �BOE�UBLFT�SJTLT�GPS�UIFN�JO�BEWBODF �)JT�GBJUI�BDUT�PO�UIF� QPXFST�BCPWF�IJN�BT�B�DMBJN �BOE�DSFBUFT�JUT�PXO�WFSJöDBUJPO�������
5IFSF�BSF �UIFO �DBTFT�XIFSF�B�GBDU�DBOOPU�DPNF�BU�BMM�VOMFTT�B�QSFMJNJOBSZ�GBJUI�FYJTUT� JO�JU�DPNJOH��And where faith in a fact can help create the fact �UIBU�XPVME�CF�BO�JOTBOF�MPHJD�
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. !ird, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 358 05/09/17 06:05 PM
358 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
XIJDI�TIPVME�TBZ�UIBU�GBJUI�SVOOJOH�BIFBE�PG�TDJFOUJöD�FWJEFODF�JT�UIF�iMPXFTU�LJOE�PG�JN- NPSBMJUZw�JOUP�XIJDI�B�UIJOLJOH�CFJOH�DBO�GBMM��:FU�TVDI�JT�UIF�MPHJD�CZ�XIJDI�PVS�TDJFOUJöD� BCTPMVUJTUT�QSFUFOE�UP�SFHVMBUF�PVS�MJWFT�
X
*O�USVUIT�EFQFOEFOU�PO�PVS�QFSTPOBM�BDUJPO �UIFO �GBJUI�CBTFE�PO�EFTJSF�JT�DFSUBJOMZ�B�MBXGVM� BOE�QPTTJCMZ�BO�JOEJTQFOTBCMF�UIJOH�
#VU�OPX �JU�XJMM�CF�TBJE �UIFTF�BSF�BMM�DIJMEJTI�IVNBO�DBTFT �BOE�IBWF�OPUIJOH�UP�EP� XJUI�HSFBU�DPTNJDBM�NBUUFST �MJLF�UIF�RVFTUJPO�PG�SFMJHJPVT�GBJUI��-FU�VT�UIFO�QBTT�PO�UP�UIBU�� 3FMJHJPOT�EJòFS�TP�NVDI�JO�UIFJS�BDDJEFOUT�UIBU�JO�EJTDVTTJOH�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�RVFTUJPO�XF�NVTU� NBLF�JU�WFSZ�HFOFSJD�BOE�CSPBE��8IBU�UIFO�EP�XF�OPX�NFBO�CZ�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�IZQPUIFTJT � 4DJFODF�TBZT�UIJOHT�BSF��NPSBMJUZ�TBZT�TPNF�UIJOHT�BSF�CFUUFS�UIBO�PUIFS�UIJOHT��BOE�SFMJHJPO� TBZT�FTTFOUJBMMZ�UXP�UIJOHT�
'JSTU �TIF�TBZT�UIBU�UIF�CFTU�UIJOHT�BSF�UIF�NPSF�FUFSOBM�UIJOHT �UIF�PWFSMBQQJOH�UIJOHT � UIF�UIJOHT�JO�UIF�VOJWFSTF�UIBU�UISPX�UIF�MBTU�TUPOF �TP�UP�TQFBL �BOE�TBZ�UIF�öOBM�XPSE�� i1FSGFDUJPO�JT�FUFSOBMw�UIJT�QISBTF�PG�$IBSMFT�4FDSÏUBO�TFFNT�B�HPPE�XBZ�PG�QVUUJOH�UIJT� öSTU�BóSNBUJPO�PG�SFMJHJPO �BO�BóSNBUJPO�XIJDI�PCWJPVTMZ�DBOOPU�ZFU�CF�WFSJöFE�TDJFOUJö- DBMMZ�BU�BMM�
5IF�TFDPOE�BóSNBUJPO�PG�SFMJHJPO�JT�UIBU�XF�BSF�CFUUFS�Pò�FWFO�OPX�JG�XF�CFMJFWF�IFS� öSTU�BóSNBUJPO�UP�CF�USVF�
/PX�MFU�VT�DPOTJEFS�XIBU�UIF�MPHJDBM�FMFNFOUT�PG�UIJT�TJUVBUJPO�BSF�in case the religious hypothesis in both its branches be really true.� 0G�DPVSTF �XF�NVTU�BENJU�UIBU�QPTTJCJMJUZ�BU� UIF�PVUTFU��*G�XF�BSF�UP�EJTDVTT�UIF�RVFTUJPO�BU�BMM � JU�NVTU�JOWPMWF�B�MJWJOH�PQUJPO��*G�GPS� BOZ�PG�ZPV�SFMJHJPO�CF�B�IZQPUIFTJT�UIBU�DBOOPU �CZ�BOZ�MJWJOH�QPTTJCJMJUZ�CF�USVF �UIFO�ZPV� OFFE�HP�OP�GBSUIFS��*�TQFBL�UP�UIF�ATBWJOH�SFNOBOU��BMPOF� �4P�QSPDFFEJOH �XF�TFF �öSTU � UIBU�SFMJHJPO�PòFST�JUTFMG�BT�a momentous�PQUJPO��8F�BSF�TVQQPTFE�UP�HBJO �FWFO�OPX �CZ� PVS�CFMJFG �BOE�UP�MPTF�CZ�PVS�OPOCFMJFG �B�DFSUBJO�WJUBM�HPPE��4FDPOEMZ �SFMJHJPO�JT�B�forced PQUJPO�TP�GBS�BT�UIBU�HPPE�HPFT��8F�DBOOPU�FTDBQF�UIF�JTTVF�CZ�SFNBJOJOH�TDFQUJDBM�BOE� XBJUJOH�GPS�NPSF�MJHIU �CFDBVTF �BMUIPVHI�XF�EP�BWPJE�FSSPS�JO�UIBU�XBZ�if religion be untrue, XF�MPTF�UIF�HPPE �if it be true,�KVTU�BT�DFSUBJOMZ�BT�JG�XF�QPTJUJWFMZ�DIPTF�UP�EJTCFMJFWF��*U�JT�BT� JG�B�NBO�TIPVME�IFTJUBUF�JOEFöOJUFMZ�UP�BTL�B�DFSUBJO�XPNBO�UP�NBSSZ�IJN�CFDBVTF�IF�XBT� OPU�QFSGFDUMZ�TVSF�UIBU�TIF�XPVME�QSPWF�BO�BOHFM�BGUFS�IF�CSPVHIU�IFS�IPNF��8PVME�IF�OPU� DVU�IJNTFMG�Pò�GSPN�UIBU�QBSUJDVMBS�BOHFM�QPTTJCJMJUZ�BT�EFDJTJWFMZ�BT�JG�IF�XFOU�BOE�NBSSJFE� TPNFPOF�FMTF �4DFQUJDJTN �UIFO �JT�OPU�BWPJEBODF�PG�PQUJPO��JU�JT�PQUJPO�PG�B�DFSUBJO�QBSUJDV- MBS�LJOE�PG�SJTL��Better risk loss of truth than chance of error,�UIBU�JT�ZPVS�GBJUI�WFUPFS�T�FYBDU� QPTJUJPO��)F�JT�BDUJWFMZ�QMBZJOH�IJT�TUBLF�BT�NVDI�BT�UIF�CFMJFWFS�JT��IF�JT�CBDLJOH�UIF�öFME� BHBJOTU�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�IZQPUIFTJT �KVTU�BT�UIF�CFMJFWFS�JT�CBDLJOH�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�IZQPUIFTJT� BHBJOTU�UIF�öFME��5P�QSFBDI�TDFQUJDJTN�UP�VT�BT�B�EVUZ�VOUJM�ATVóDJFOU�FWJEFODF��GPS�SFMJHJPO� CF�GPVOE �JT�UBOUBNPVOU�UIFSFGPSF�UP�UFMMJOH�VT �XIFO�JO�QSFTFODF�PG�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�IZQPUI- FTJT �UIBU�UP�ZJFME�UP�PVS�GFBS�PG�JUT�CFJOH�FSSPS�JT�XJTFS�BOE�CFUUFS�UIBO�UP�ZJFME�UP�PVS�IPQF� UIBU�JU�NBZ�CF�USVF��*U�JT�OPU�JOUFMMFDU�BHBJOTU�BMM�QBTTJPOT �UIFO��JU�JT�POMZ�JOUFMMFDU�XJUI�POF� QBTTJPO�MBZJOH�EPXO�JUT�MBX��"OE�CZ�XIBU �GPSTPPUI �JT�UIF�TVQSFNF�XJTEPN�PG�UIJT�QBTTJPO� XBSSBOUFE �%VQFSZ�GPS�EVQFSZ �XIBU�QSPPG�JT�UIFSF�UIBU�EVQFSZ�UISPVHI�IPQF�JT�TP�NVDI� XPSTF�UIBO�EVQFSZ�UISPVHI�GFBS �* �GPS�POF �DBO�TFF�OP�QSPPG��BOE�*�TJNQMZ�SFGVTF�PCFEJFODF� UP�UIF�TDJFOUJTU�T�DPNNBOE�UP�JNJUBUF�IJT�LJOE�PG�PQUJPO �JO�B�DBTF�XIFSF�NZ�PXO�TUBLF�JT� JNQPSUBOU�FOPVHI�UP�HJWF�NF�UIF�SJHIU�UP�DIPPTF�NZ�PXO�GPSN�PG�SJTL��*G�SFMJHJPO�CF�USVF� BOE�UIF�FWJEFODF�GPS�JU�CF�TUJMM�JOTVóDJFOU �*�EP�OPU�XJTI �CZ�QVUUJOH�ZPVS�FYUJOHVJTIFS�VQPO� NZ�OBUVSF� XIJDI�GFFMT�UP�NF�BT�JG�JU�IBE�BGUFS�BMM�TPNF�CVTJOFTT�JO�UIJT�NBUUFS �UP�GPSGFJU�NZ�
5.�"SF�UIF�CFMJFGT�JOWPMWFE� JO�+BNFT�T�EP�ZPV�MJLF�NF� FYBNQMF�SFBMMZ�HSPVOE- MFTT �0S�BSF�UIFZ�CBDLFE� CZ�CBTJD�QSJODJQMFT�PG� IVNBO�QTZDIPMPHZ �
8JMMJBN�+BNFT�� i5IF̓8JMM�UP�#FMJFWFw
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 359 05/09/17 06:05 PM
+BNFT� 359
TPMF�DIBODF�JO�MJGF�PG�HFUUJOH�VQPO�UIF�XJOOJOH�TJEF �UIBU�DIBODF�EFQFOEJOH �PG�DPVSTF � PO�NZ�XJMMJOHOFTT�UP�SVO�UIF�SJTL�PG�BDUJOH�BT�JG�NZ�QBTTJPOBM�OFFE�PG�UBLJOH�UIF�XPSME�SFMJ- HJPVTMZ�NJHIU�CF�QSPQIFUJD�BOE�SJHIU�
"MM�UIJT�JT�PO�UIF�TVQQPTJUJPO�UIBU�JU�SFBMMZ�NBZ�CF�QSPQIFUJD�BOE�SJHIU �BOE�UIBU �FWFO� UP�VT�XIP�BSF�EJTDVTTJOH�UIF�NBUUFS �SFMJHJPO�JT�B�MJWF�IZQPUIFTJT�XIJDI�NBZ�CF�USVF��/PX� UP�NPTU�PG�VT�SFMJHJPO�DPNFT�JO�B�TUJMM�GBSUIFS�XBZ�UIBU�NBLFT�B�WFUP�PO�PVS�BDUJWF�GBJUI�FWFO� NPSF�JMMPHJDBM��5IF�NPSF�QFSGFDU�BOE�NPSF�FUFSOBM�BTQFDU�PG�UIF�VOJWFSTF�JT�SFQSFTFOUFE�JO� PVS�SFMJHJPOT�BT�IBWJOH�QFSTPOBM�GPSN��5IF�VOJWFSTF�JT�OP�MPOHFS�B�NFSF�It�UP�VT �CVU�B�Thou, JG�XF�BSF�SFMJHJPVT��BOE�BOZ�SFMBUJPO�UIBU�NBZ�CF�QPTTJCMF�GSPN�QFSTPO�UP�QFSTPO�NJHIU�CF� QPTTJCMF�IFSF��'PS�JOTUBODF �BMUIPVHI�JO�POF�TFOTF�XF�BSF�QBTTJWF�QPSUJPOT�PG�UIF�VOJWFSTF � JO�BOPUIFS�XF�TIPX�B�DVSJPVT�BVUPOPNZ �BT�JG�XF�XFSF�TNBMM�BDUJWF�DFOUFST�PO�PVS�PXO�BD- DPVOU��8F�GFFM �UPP �BT�JG�UIF�BQQFBM�PG�SFMJHJPO�UP�VT�XFSF�NBEF�UP�PVS�PXO�BDUJWF�HPPE�XJMM� BT�JG�FWJEFODF�NJHIU�CF�GPSFWFS�XJUIIFME�GSPN�VT�VOMFTT�XF�NFU�UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�IBMGXBZ��5P� UBLF�B�USJWJBM�JMMVTUSBUJPO��KVTU�BT�B�NBO�XIP�JO�B�DPNQBOZ�PG�HFOUMFNFO�NBEF�OP�BEWBODFT � BTLFE�B�XBSSBOU�GPS�FWFSZ�DPODFTTJPO �BOE�CFMJFWFE�OP�POF�T�XPSE�XJUIPVU�QSPPG �XPVME� DVU�IJNTFMG�Pò�CZ�TVDI�DIVSMJTIOFTT�GSPN�BMM�UIF�TPDJBM�SFXBSET�UIBU�B�NPSF�USVTUJOH�TQJSJU� XPVME�FBSO �TP�IFSF �POF�XIP�TIPVME�TIVU�IJNTFMG�VQ�JO�TOBSMJOH�MPHJDBMJUZ�BOE�USZ�UP� NBLF�UIF�HPET�FYUPSU�IJT�SFDPHOJUJPO�XJMMZ�OJMMZ �PS�OPU�HFU�JU�BU�BMM �NJHIU�DVU�IJNTFMG�Pò� GPSFWFS�GSPN�IJT�POMZ�PQQPSUVOJUZ�PG�NBLJOH�UIF�HPET��BDRVBJOUBODF��5IJT�GFFMJOH �GPSDFE� PO�VT�XF�LOPX�OPU�XIFODF �UIBU�CZ�PCTUJOBUFMZ�CFMJFWJOH�UIBU�UIFSF�BSF�HPET� BMUIPVHI� OPU�UP�EP�TP�XPVME�CF�TP�FBTZ�CPUI�GPS�PVS�MPHJD�BOE�PVS�MJGF �XF�BSF�EPJOH�UIF�VOJWFSTF� UIF�EFFQFTU�TFSWJDF�XF�DBO �TFFNT�QBSU�PG�UIF�MJWJOH�FTTFODF�PG�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�IZQPUIFTJT��*G� UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�were�USVF�JO�BMM�JUT�QBSUT �JODMVEJOH�UIJT�POF �UIFO�QVSF�JOUFMMFDUVBMJTN �XJUI� JUT�WFUP�PO�PVS�NBLJOH�XJMMJOH�BEWBODFT �XPVME�CF�BO�BCTVSEJUZ��BOE�TPNF�QBSUJDJQBUJPO� PG�PVS�TZNQBUIFUJD�OBUVSF�XPVME�CF�MPHJDBMMZ�SFRVJSFE��*�UIFSFGPSF �GPS�POF �DBOOPU�TFF�NZ� XBZ�UP�BDDFQUJOH�UIF�BHOPTUJD�SVMFT�GPS�USVUI�TFFLJOH �PS�XJMMGVMMZ�BHSFF�UP�LFFQ�NZ�XJMMJOH� OBUVSF�PVU�PG�UIF�HBNF��*�DBOOPU�EP�TP�GPS�UIJT�QMBJO�SFBTPO �that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule.�5IBU�GPS�NF�JT�UIF�MPOH�BOE�TIPSU�PG�UIF�GPSNBM� MPHJD�PG�UIF�TJUVBUJPO �OP�NBUUFS�XIBU�UIF�LJOET�PG�USVUI�NJHIU�NBUFSJBMMZ�CF�������
8IFO�*�MPPL�BU�UIF�SFMJHJPVT�RVFTUJPO�BT�JU�SFBMMZ�QVUT�JUTFMG�UP�DPODSFUF�NFO �BOE�XIFO� *�UIJOL�PG�BMM�UIF�QPTTJCJMJUJFT�XIJDI�CPUI�QSBDUJDBMMZ�BOE�UIFPSFUJDBMMZ�JU�JOWPMWFT �UIFO�UIJT� DPNNBOE�UIBU�XF�TIBMM�QVU�B�TUPQQFS�PO�PVS�IFBSU �JOTUJODUT�BOE�DPVSBHF �BOE�wait�BDUJOH� PG�DPVSTF�NFBOXIJMF�NPSF�PS�MFTT�BT�JG�SFMJHJPO�XFSF�not�USVF�UJMM�EPPNTEBZ �PS�UJMM�TVDI� UJNF�BT�PVS�JOUFMMFDU�BOE�TFOTFT�XPSLJOH�UPHFUIFS�NBZ�IBWF�SBLFE�JO�FWJEFODF�FOPVHI� UIJT�DPNNBOE �*�TBZ �TFFNT�UP�NF�UIF�RVFFSFTU�JEPM�FWFS�NBOVGBDUVSFE�JO�UIF�QIJMPTPQIJD� DBWF��8FSF�XF�TDIPMBTUJD�BCTPMVUJTUT �UIFSF�NJHIU�CF�NPSF�FYDVTF��*G�XF�IBE�BO�JOGBMMJCMF� JOUFMMFDU�XJUI�JUT�PCKFDUJWF�DFSUJUVEFT �XF�NJHIU�GFFM�PVSTFMWFT�EJTMPZBM�UP�TVDI�B�QFSGFDU� PSHBO�PG�LOPXMFEHF�JO�OPU�USVTUJOH�UP�JU�FYDMVTJWFMZ �JO�OPU�XBJUJOH�GPS�JUT�SFMFBTJOH�XPSE�� #VU�JG�XF�BSF�FNQJSJDJTUT �JG�XF�CFMJFWF�UIBU�OP�CFMM�JO�VT�UPMMT�UP�MFU�VT�LOPX�GPS�DFSUBJO�XIFO� USVUI�JT�JO�PVS�HSBTQ �UIFO�JU�TFFNT�B�QJFDF�PG�JEMF�GBOUBTUJDBMJUZ�UP�QSFBDI�TP�TPMFNOMZ�PVS� EVUZ�PG�XBJUJOH�GPS�UIF�CFMM��*OEFFE�XF�may�XBJU�JG�XF�XJMM �*�IPQF�ZPV�EP�OPU�UIJOL�UIBU�*� BN�EFOZJOH�UIBU �CVU�JG�XF�EP�TP �XF�EP�TP�BU�PVS�QFSJM�BT�NVDI�BT�JG�XF�CFMJFWFE��*O�FJUIFS� DBTF�XF�act,�UBLJOH�PVS�MJGF�JO�PVS�IBOET��/P�POF�PG�VT�PVHIU�UP�JTTVF�WFUPFT�UP�UIF�PUIFS � OPS�TIPVME�XF�CBOEZ�XPSET�PG�BCVTF��8F�PVHIU �PO�UIF�DPOUSBSZ �EFMJDBUFMZ�BOE�QSPGPVOEMZ� UP�SFTQFDU�POF�BOPUIFS�T�NFOUBM�GSFFEPN�UIFO�POMZ�TIBMM�XF�CSJOH�BCPVU�UIF�JOUFMMFDUVBM� SFQVCMJD��UIFO�POMZ�TIBMM�XF�IBWF�UIBU�TQJSJU�PG�JOOFS�UPMFSBODF�XJUIPVU�XIJDI�BMM�PVS�PVUFS� UPMFSBODF�JT�TPVMMFTT �BOE�XIJDI�JT�FNQJSJDJTN�T�HMPSZ��UIFO�POMZ�TIBMM�XF�MJWF�BOE�MFU�MJWF �JO� TQFDVMBUJWF�BT�XFMM�BT�JO�QSBDUJDBM�UIJOHT���
7.�*T�JU�SFBTPOBCMF�UP� FYQFDU�UIBU�CZ�öSTU�IBWJOH� GBJUI�JO�(PE�ZPV�DBO� con!rm�IJT�FYJTUFODF�JO� ZPVS�FYQFSJFODF �8PVME� IBWJOH�GBJUI�CFGPSF�ZPV� HFU�DPOöSNBUJPO�EJTUPSU� UIJT�NFUIPE�PG�JORVJSZ� BOE�CJBT�UIF�SFTVMUT
“Belief creates the actual fact.”
—William James
6.�+BNFT�BTTVNFT�UIBU�XF� BSF�CFUUFS�Pò�JO�UIJT�MJGF�JG� XF�CFMJFWF�UIF�SFMJHJPVT� IZQPUIFTJT�UIBO�JG�XF� EPO�U��*T�UIJT�BTTVNQUJPO� DPSSFDU �8IBU�FWJEFODF� DBO�ZPV�CSJOH�UP�CFBS�PO� UIJT�RVFTUJPO �
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 360 05/09/17 06:05 PM
360 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
THEN AND NOW
James and Indeterminism Like many philosophers and scientists today, James was gripped by the philosophical problem of free will—the challenge of reconciling deter- minism with our intuitions or ideas about per- sonal freedom. Determinism is the doctrine that every event in the universe is determined or neces- sitated by preceding events and the laws of nature. It says that everything that happens must happen in an unalterable, preset fashion. But if determin- ism is true, how can any choices we make or any actions we perform be up to us? How can we do anything “of our own free will”? !e problem of free will, then, is the challenge of reconciling determinism with our intuitions or ideas about personal freedom. Hard determinists believe that because determinism is true, no one has free will. James rejects this view, holding that not every event is determined by preceding events and the
laws of nature (the position known as indeterminism) and that therefore there is room for free will in our lives. He argues that indeterminism is a feature of the universe that permits “al- ternative futures” and the possibility of freedom. It allows some things to happen by chance. Most importantly, James says, it allows free actions, for free actions are chance happenings.
Figure 15.5 %PFT� JOEFUFSNJOJTN� PO� UIF� RVBOUVN� MFWFM� TIPX� UIBU� TPNF� BDUJPOT� BSF� OPU�DBVTFE
Despite the eloquence of James’s argument, it has many detractors. For start- ers, they deny his assumption that the claims of religion cannot be decided by argument and evidence. Many theists and atheists think that reason can indeed decide the issue of God’s existence, and the traditional arguments are attempts to do just that.
Others doubt James’s assertion that it is better to believe the religious hypothesis than not to believe it because by believing we acquire “even now . . . a certain vital good.” He doesn’t say what this vital good is, but if he means something like a better life, happiness, or spiritual satisfaction in this life, he seems to be on shaky ground. It is not obvious that religious believers of any sort lead better, happier, or more satisfy- ing lives than nonbelievers.
Some have also taken issue with James’s notion of verifying through our experi- ences the religious hypothesis by first believing it. Faith is supposed to be the prereq- uisite for experiences that will enable us to confirm some divine reality. But critics
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rear- ranging their prejudices.”
—William James
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 361 05/09/17 06:05 PM
+BNFT� 361
As it turns out, modern science o"ers evidence that indeterminism may actually be true. Quantum physics (the science of subatomic particles) provides a surprising counterexample to the notion that every event has a cause. !e most widely accepted view among quantum physicists is that at the subatomic level, some events (such as the decay of radioactive par- ticles) are random and therefore uncaused. If so, it is not the case that every event is deter- mined by preceding events and the laws of nature. (Some hard determinists maintain that these uncaused events are mostly confined to the subatomic realm and do not significantly a"ect the larger world of human actions. !is suggests, they say, that for all practical pur- poses, determinism is true.)
Many philosophers nowadays reject James’s argument, but not because of quantum physics. !e problem, they say, is that indeterminism alone does not make for free and responsible actions. !ey agree that indeterminism is necessary for free will, that free ac- tions can occur only in a world where not all actions are determined by prior events and natural laws. But they also point out that if what an agent does happens by chance (that is, randomly), then she is not free to act or not act. What she does just happens, and she has nothing to do with it. Her actions are not under her control and therefore are not really her actions. In fact, they would not be actions at all.
Despite these complications, many today believe, on various grounds, that some of our actions are indeed free. And a few think James was right all along.
8IP�EP�ZPV�UIJOL�JT�SJHIU�BCPVU�JOEFUFSNJOJTN�BOE�GSFF�XJMM�+BNFT�PS�UIPTF�XIP� DMBJN�UIBU�DIBODF�BDUJPOT�DBOOPU�CF�GSFF �8IZ
.JDIBFM�.BSUJO��Atheism: A Philosophical Justi!cation
+BNFT�UBMLT�BT�JG�CFMJFWJOH�JO�(PE�BOE�TFFJOH�XIFUIFS�UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�UIBU�(PE�FYJTUT�JT�DPO- öSNFE�JO�POF�T�FYQFSJFODF�JT�MJLF�BO�FYQFSJNFOU��#VU�IJT�QSPDFEVSF�MBDLT�BO�FTTFOUJBM�FMFNFOU� PG�TUBOEBSE�FYQFSJNFOUBM�QSPDFEVSF��IF�EPFT�OPU�TFFN�UP�BMMPX�GPS�UIF�discon!rmation�PG� UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�CZ�UIF�SFTVMUT�PG�UIF�FYQFSJNFOU��4VQQPTF�POF�CFMJFWFT�JO�TPNF�HPE�BOE�ZFU� OP�FWJEFODF�PG�IJT�FYJTUFODF�JT�SFWFBMFE�JO�POF�T�FYQFSJFODF��+BNFT�EPFT�OPU�FOUFSUBJO�UIF� QPTTJCJMJUZ�UIBU�UIJT�GBJMVSF�XPVME�DPVOU�BHBJOTU�UIF�IZQPUIFTJT�UIBU�UIJT�HPE�FYJTUT�11
say that having faith first is not likely to corroborate anything. Michael Martin explains the point this way:
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 362 05/09/17 06:05 PM
362 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
WRITING AND REASONING CHAPTER 15
1. Evaluate this criticism of Peirce’s theory of truth: It’s possible to devise many di"erent hypotheses to account for the same evidence, so it’s pos- sible for investigators to ultimately converge on two conflicting beliefs about the same facts. But this results in a contradiction, which shows that Peirce’s theory of truth cannot be right.
2. Provide an example showing that a false belief can have good consequences. !en explain how this fact would undermine James’s theory of truth.
3. Do you agree with James that faith in the religious hypothesis can bring about a “vital good” in one’s life now? What evidence can you cite to back up your answer? For example, is there evidence showing that those who accept the religious hypothesis are happier than those who don’t?
4. Suppose it is true that sometimes, as James says, “faith in a fact can help create the fact.” Is the existence of God one of the facts that we can create by believing it? Explain.
5. Give reasons for why you accept or do not accept the doctrine of evi- dentialism. What does your position imply about James’s rejection of this doctrine? Is James right or wrong?
3&7*&8�/05&4
15.1 THE PRAGMATIST WAY t� 1SBHNBUJTN�JT�UIF�EPDUSJOF�UIBU�UIF�NFBOJOH�PS�USVUI�PG�B�CFMJFG�JT�TZOPOZNPVT�
with the practical results of accepting it; to pragmatists the meaning of a term is defined by its consequences in the real world.
t� 'PS�+BNFT�BOE�$IBSMFT�4��1FJSDF �QSBHNBUJTN�XBT �JO�QBSU �B�SFBDUJPO�UP�UIF�NFUB- physics of the past. !ey rejected the otherworldly belief systems and the unsup- ported speculations.
15.2 PEIRCE t� 1FJSDF�XBT�UIF�mSTU�UP�BSUJDVMBUF�QSBHNBUJTN�T�UIFPSZ�PG�NFBOJOH �UIF�JEFB�UIBU�UIF�
meaning of a concept equals its real-world e"ects. t� 'PS�1FJSDF �B�USVF�CFMJFG�JT�POF�UIBU�JT�EFTUJOFE�UP�CF�DPOWFSHFE�PO�CZ�DPNQFUFOU�
investigators if they have an unlimited amount of time to reach their conclusion.
15.3 JAMES t� +BNFT�BSHVFT�UIBU�USVUI�JT�OPU�B�NBUUFS�PG�JOUFSQFSTPOBM�DPOTFOTVT�CVU�PG�QSBDUJDBM�
consequences for individuals. A belief is true if it is beneficial to our lives: the truth
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 363 05/09/17 06:05 PM
'PS�'VSUIFS�3FBEJOH� 363
is “what works,” and what works may mean either success in predicting events or promotion of beneficial feelings and actions.
t� +BNFT� NBJOUBJOT� UIBU� TPNFUJNFT� XF� NBZ� CF� KVTUJmFE� JO� NBLJOH� B� MFBQ� PG� GBJUI� to embrace a belief that is unsupported by evidence. He says, “Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between proposi- tions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds.”
t� +BNFT�TBZT�UIBU�XIFO�XF�BSF�QSFTFOUFE�XJUI�UIF�VOQSPWFO�iSFMJHJPVT�IZQPUIFTJT w� the wise choice is to believe it and to refuse to forfeit our “sole chance in life of getting upon the winning side.” And to discover whether a divine being exists, we may first have to have faith that it does.
,&:�5&3.4 evidentialism fallibilism pragmatism
/PUFT 1. William James, “Pragmatism,” translated in the Revue Philosophique for January
1879, vol. vii. 2. James, “Pragmatism.” 3. Charles Sanders Peirce, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” Popular Science
Monthly, 1878. 4. Peirce, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” 5. James, “Pragmatism.” 6. James, “Pragmatism.” 7. W. K. Cli"ord, “!e Ethics of Belief,” Lectures and Essays (London: Macmillan,
1886). 8. William James, “!e Will to Believe,” in !e Will to Believe and Other Essays in
Popular Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green, 1896), 11. 9. James, “!e Will to Believe,” 26. 10. James, “!e Will to Believe,” 2–30. 11. Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1990), 246.
'PS�'VSUIFS�3FBEJOH Robert Audi, Belief, Justification, and Knowledge (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988).
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume VIII: Modern Philosophy: Em- piricism, Idealism, and Pragmatism in Britain and America (New York: Doubleday, 1994).
Ted Honderich, ed., !e Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
William James, !e Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Barnes and Noble Classics, 1902, 2004).
vau28703_ch15_349-364.indd 364 05/09/17 06:05 PM
364 CHAPTER 15 5IF�1SBHNBUJTUT��1FJSDF�BOE�+BNFT
Anthony Kenny, !e Rise of Modern Philosophy: A New History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
Keith Lehrer, !eory of Knowledge, 2nd edition (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000).
Cheryl Misak, !e American Pragmatists (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Cheryl Misak, !e Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 365 05/09/17 06:05 PM
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
16.1 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT t�4VNNBSJ[F�UIF�CBTJD�GBDUT�PG�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�T�MJGF� t�6OEFSTUBOE�TPNF�PG�UIF�XBZT�UIBU�NJEEMF�DMBTT�&OHMJTI�XPNFO�JO�8PMMTUPOF� DSBGU�T�EBZ�XFSF�NBEF�UP�iFYJTU�GPS�UIF�TBLF�PG�NFO�w
t�4UBUF�UIF�UISFF�GBDUPST�UIBU�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�TBZT�BSF�UIF�TPVSDF�PG�USVF�IBQQJ� OFTT�GPS�CPUI�NFO�BOE�XPNFO�
t�6OEFSTUBOE�XIZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�SFKFDUT�NFO�T�BUUFNQUT�UP�LFFQ�XPNFO� JOOPDFOU�
������4*.0/&�%&�#&"670*3 t�&YQMBJO�UIF�EJTUJODUJPO�UIBU�#FBVWPJS�NBLFT�CFUXFFO�sex�BOE�gender. t�&YQMBJO�XIBU�#FBVWPJS�NFBOT�CZ�IFS�BTTFSUJPO�UIBU�XPNFO�IBWF�CFFO�EFöOFE� CZ�NFO�BT�UIF�i0UIFS�w
t�4VNNBSJ[F�#FBVWPJS�T�DFOUSBM�BSHVNFOU�JO�The Second Sex. t�6OEFSTUBOE�XIBU�#FBVWPJS�UIJOLT�iSFBM�GSFFEPN�BOE�USVF�FRVBMJUZw�XPVME� FOUBJM�
t�%FTDSJCF�UIF�UXP�QPTJUJPOT�TUBLFE�PVU�JO�UIF�EFCBUF�BCPVU�JOOBUF�HFOEFS� EJòFSFODF�
16.3 FEMINIST ETHICS t�%FöOF�feminist ethics�BOE�UIF�ethics of care. t�&OVNFSBUF�TPNF�PG�UIF�WBMVFT�BOE�FYQFSJFODFT�UIBU�TPNF�GFNJOJTUT�TBZ�BSF� BTTPDJBUFE�XJUI�UIF�UZQJDBMMZ�NBMF�QFSTQFDUJWF�
t�%FTDSJCF�UIF�OBUVSF�PG�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF �JUT�NPTU�BUUSBDUJWF�GFBUVSFT �BOE�TPNF� PG�UIF�DSJUJDJTNT�UIBU�IBWF�CFFO�MPEHFE�BHBJOTU�JU�
������'&.*/*45�1&341&$5*7&4�0/�,/08-&%(& t�4UBUF�UIF�DFOUSBM�BJN�PG�GFNJOJTU�QIJMPTPQIZ�BOE�PG�GFNJOJTU�FQJTUFNPMPHZ� t�-JTU�TPNF�XBZT�UIBU �BDDPSEJOH�UP�GFNJOJTUT �iEPNJOBOU�LOPXMFEHF�QSBDUJDFTw� EJTBEWBOUBHF�XPNFO�
Feminist Philosophers
CHAPTER 16
366 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 366 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Feminism, as both a movement and an approach to social and intellectual issues, is concerned with identifying and remedying harm and disadvantage arising from biases against women. Feminists argue that such prejudices are common throughout society and academia, and that they lead to the widespread discrediting of women’s ideas and experiences and the relegating of women to subordinate roles. Feminist philosophy is an attempt to address the disparagement or subordination of women in philosophy and related fields, and feminist ethics and epistemology try to do the same in theories of morality and knowledge.
In philosophy, there is no single outlook that can be called feminist; rather there are several di!erent viewpoints and approaches that deserve the name. "e common thread is an emphasis on gender and on how it shapes the issues at hand. Alison Ainley, a feminist philosopher, notes the diversity of the philosophical projects:
t�4VNNBSJ[F�UIF�QSJODJQBM�DMBJNT�PG�GFNJOJTU�FNQJSJDJTN �GFNJOJTU�TUBOEQPJOU� UIFPSZ �BOE�GFNJOJTU�QPTUNPEFSOJTN�
t�6OEFSTUBOE�TPNF�PG�UIF�DSJUJDJTNT�UIBU�GFNJOJTUT�IBWF�MPEHFE�BHBJOTU�GFNJOJTU� QPTUNPEFSOJTN�
"MJTPO�"JOMFZ��i'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIZw�
'FNJOJTU�BQQSPBDIFT�UP�QIJMPTPQIZ�DBO�UBLF�QMBDF�BU�B�OVNCFS�PG�MFWFMT�BOE�GSPN�EJòFSFOU� QFSTQFDUJWFT �BOE�JOEFFE�UIJT�IBT�CFFO�JEFOUJöFE�BT�B�OPUBCMF�TUSFOHUI��'PS�FYBNQMF �GFNJ� OJTUT�IBWF�QSFTFOUFE�QIJMPTPQIJDBM�DSJUJRVFT�PG�QIJMPTPQIFST��JNBHFT�PG�XPNFO �QPMJUJDBM� DSJUJRVFT�PG�UIF�PSHBOJ[BUJPO�PG�UIF�EJTDJQMJOF�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ �DSJUJRVFT�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ�BT�NBT� DVMJOF �IJTUPSJDBM�SFTFBSDI�JOUP�UIF�XPSL�PG�QBTU�XPNFO�QIJMPTPQIFST�XIPTF�XPSL�NBZ�IBWF� CFFO�VOKVTUMZ�EJTSFHBSEFE �BOE�QPTJUJWF�DPOUSJCVUJPOT�UP�QIJMPTPQIZ�GSPN�B�GFNJOJTU�QFS� TQFDUJWF��'FNJOJTU�QIJMPTPQIFST�NBZ�UBLF�TPNF�PS�BMM�PG�UIFTF�BQQSPBDIFT�UP�CF�JNQPSUBOU � CVU �HFOFSBMMZ�TQFBLJOH �GFNJOJTU�QIJMPTPQIZ�XJMM�BTTVNF�UIF�RVFTUJPO�PG�TFYVBM�EJòFSFODF� UP�CF�B�QIJMPTPQIJDBM�JTTVF�BU�TPNF�MFWFM�BOE �EFQFOEJOH�PO�UIF�QPJOU�PG�EFQBSUVSF �QSPEVDF� WFSZ�EJòFSFOU�XBZT�PG�UIFPSJ[JOH�BCPVU�UIJT�RVFTUJPO��"MUIPVHI�XPNFO�UFOE�UP�XPSL�JO�UIJT� BSFB �OPU�BMM�XPNFO�QIJMPTPQIFST�BSF�OFDFTTBSJMZ�GFNJOJTU�QIJMPTPQIFST� BMUIPVHI�UIFSF�NBZ� CF�GFNJOJTU�JNQMJDBUJPOT�JO�UIFJS�XPSL �1
Feminist thinkers have had good reason to suspect bias in the philosophical en- terprise. It is easy in philosophy’s history to find eminent male philosophers dismiss- ing, devaluing, or ignoring the female intellect—even though women philosophers have been present in every age, from the classical period to modern times. (Some
1.�%PFT�UIF�GBDU�UIBU� TPNF�GBNPVT�QIJMPTP� QIFST�IFME�OFHBUJWF�WJFXT� PG�XPNFO�JNQVHO�UIF� OBUVSF�PG�UIF�QIJMPTPQIJ� DBM�FOUFSQSJTF �8IZ�PS� XIZ�OPU �
.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU� 367
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 367 05/09/17 06:05 PM
important male philosophers have a!orded women more respect—for example, Plato and John Stuart Mill; and some have developed ideas that have been put to use in feminist writings—for example, David Hume and John Dewey.) Louise M. Antony points out some of the more notorious examples of bias:
-PVJTF�.��"OUPOZ��i&NCPEJNFOU�BOE�&QJTUFNPMPHZw
"MUIPVHI�XPNFO�XFSF�MBSHFMZ�JHOPSFE�CZ�UIF�NBKPS�QIJMPTPQIFST �XIFOFWFS�XF�were�EJT� DVTTFE �XF�XFSF�EFOJHSBUFE��4USJLJOHMZ �UIF�JOTVMU�PGUFO�JOWPMWFE�B�QIJMPTPQIFS�T�FYQMJDJUMZ� EFOZJOH�UP�XPNFO�TPNF�DIBSBDUFSJTUJD�UIBU�UIBU�QIJMPTPQIFS�IBE�FMTFXIFSF�IFME�UP�CF�FT� TFOUJBM�UP�GVMM�QFSTPOIPPE �NBLJOH�VT �CZ�EFöOJUJPO �MFTT�UIBO�IVNBO��5IVT�"SJTUPUMF �XIP� EFöOFE�iNBOw�BT�B�SBUJPOBM�BOJNBM �DMBJNFE�UIBU�XPNFO�T�SFBTPO�XBT�EFGFDUJWF�JO�UIBU�JU�XBT� iXJUIPVU�UIF�QPXFS�UP�CF�FòFDUJWF�w�-PDLF �XIP�UIPVHIU�UIBU�iNBOw�DPVME�USBOTDFOE�OBUVSBM� QPXFS�SFMBUJPOT�CZ�NFBOT�PG�DJWJM�BHSFFNFOU �TUJMM�GPVOE�JU�PCWJPVT�UIBU�JO�DBTF�PG�DPOøJDU� CFUXFFO�IVTCBOE�BOE�XJGF �iUIF�SVMF�������OBUVSBMMZ�GBMMT�UP�UIF�NBO�T�TIBSF �BT�UIF�BCMFS�BOE� UIF�TUSPOHFS�w�3PVTTFBV �XIP�UPPL�GSFFEPN�UP�CF�UIF�EJTUJOHVJTIJOH�NBSL�PG�IVNBOJUZ �IFME� UIBU�JU�GPMMPXFE�GSPN�UIF�EJòFSFOU�OBUVSFT�PG�NFO� iBDUJWF�BOE�TUSPOHw �BOE�XPNFO� iQBT� TJWF�BOE�XFBLw �UIBU�iXPNBO�JT�NBEF�UP�QMFBTF�BOE�CF�EPNJOBUFEw�CZ�NBO��1FSIBQT�NPTU� OPUPSJPVTMZ�PG�BMM �,BOU �XIP�NBEF�BDUJOH�GSPN�BQQSFIFOTJPO�PG�UIF�DBUFHPSJDBM�JNQFSBUJWF� UIF�FTTFODF�PG�NPSBM�BHFODZ �BWFSSFE�UIBU�i*�IBSEMZ�CFMJFWF�UIBU�UIF�GBJS�TFY�JT�DBQBCMF�PG� QSJODJQMFT�w2
“Men, in general seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they can scarcely trace how, rather than to root them out.”
—Mary Wollstonecraft
16.1 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT
Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) was a political radical, a social critic with a strong egalitarian bent, a distinguished novelist, and one of the great forebears of feminist thought. What she wrote then about women’s rights and women’s sit- uation in society is still relevant today—and still considered radical by many. By law and by custom, middle-class English women in her day were thought to be subordinate to men in countless ways. "ey lived under the weight of a damaging presumption: women exist for the sake of men. Women were denied property ownership, expected to defer to men in im- portant matters, barred from almost all professions, excluded from voting and government posts, deprived of higher edu- cation, and judged by di!erent moral standards than those applied to men. Few societies in the rest of the world treated women any better.
Wollstonecraft studied the conditions that women found themselves in, and she read what prominent men had to say about the character, duties, and education of women. "us much of her literary output was in response to the views of Figure 16.1 �.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU� ����o���� �
368 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 368 05/09/17 06:05 PM
the famous Edmund Burke, who wrote in support of aristocratic rights and privi- leges, and to Rousseau, who considered women inferior to men.
Her greatest works are A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and A Vindica- tion of the Rights of Women (1792). In the latter, she envisions a society of equals freed from the tyranny of unreason and spurious authority. Such a society requires the full development of the moral and rational faculties of both men and women. For too long, she says, women have had their powers of reason obstructed by men who believe that reason is the domain of males and who define women in ways that serve men. Men have ensured that women are uneducated, molded by male expectations, judged by appearances instead of intellect, and obliged to submit to the preferences of men instead of the dictates of reason. As Wollstonecraft puts it:
.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU��A Vindication of the Rights of Women
*�IBWF�UVSOFE�PWFS�WBSJPVT�CPPLT�XSJUUFO�PO�UIF�TVCKFDU�PG�FEVDBUJPO �BOE�QBUJFOUMZ�PC� TFSWFE� UIF� DPOEVDU� PG� QBSFOUT� BOE� UIF� NBOBHFNFOU� PG� TDIPPMT�� CVU� XIBU� IBT� CFFO� UIF� SFTVMU �B�QSPGPVOE�DPOWJDUJPO�UIBU�UIF�OFHMFDUFE�FEVDBUJPO�PG�NZ�GFMMPX�DSFBUVSFT�JT�UIF� HSBOE� TPVSDF� PG� UIF� NJTFSZ� *� EFQMPSF�� BOE� UIBU� XPNFO � JO� QBSUJDVMBS � BSF� SFOEFSFE� XFBL� BOE� XSFUDIFE� CZ� B� WBSJFUZ� PG� DPODVSSJOH� DBVTFT � PSJHJOBUJOH� GSPN� POF� IBTUZ� DPODMVTJPO�� 5IF�DPOEVDU�BOE�NBOOFST�PG�XPNFO �JO�GBDU �FWJEFOUMZ�QSPWF�UIBU�UIFJS�NJOET�BSF�OPU�JO�B� IFBMUIZ�TUBUF��GPS �MJLF�UIF�øPXFST�XIJDI�BSF�QMBOUFE�JO�UPP�SJDI�B�TPJM �TUSFOHUI�BOE�VTFGVM� OFTT�BSF�TBDSJöDFE�UP�CFBVUZ��BOE�UIF�øBVOUJOH�MFBWFT �BGUFS�IBWJOH�QMFBTFE�B�GBTUJEJPVT�FZF � GBEF �EJTSFHBSEFE�PO�UIF�TUBML �MPOH�CFGPSF�UIF�TFBTPO�XIFO�UIFZ�PVHIU�UP�IBWF�BSSJWFE�BU� NBUVSJUZ��0OF�DBVTF�PG�UIJT�CBSSFO�CMPPNJOH�*�BUUSJCVUF�UP�B�GBMTF�TZTUFN�PG�FEVDBUJPO � HBUIFSFE�GSPN�UIF�CPPLT�XSJUUFO�PO�UIJT�TVCKFDU�CZ�NFO�XIP �DPOTJEFSJOH�GFNBMFT�SBUIFS�BT� XPNFO�UIBO�IVNBO�DSFBUVSFT �IBWF�CFFO�NPSF�BOYJPVT�UP�NBLF�UIFN�BMMVSJOH�NJTUSFTTFT� UIBO�BòFDUJPOBUF�XJWFT�BOE�SBUJPOBM�NPUIFST��BOE�UIF�VOEFSTUBOEJOH�PG�UIF�TFY�IBT�CFFO� TP�CVCCMFE�<EFMVEFE>�CZ�UIJT�TQFDJPVT�IPNBHF �UIBU�UIF�DJWJMJ[FE�XPNFO�PG�UIF�QSFTFOU� DFOUVSZ �XJUI�B�GFX�FYDFQUJPOT �BSF�POMZ�BOYJPVT�UP�JOTQJSF�MPWF �XIFO�UIFZ�PVHIU�UP�DIFSJTI� B�OPCMFS�BNCJUJPO �BOE�CZ�UIFJS�BCJMJUJFT�BOE�WJSUVFT�FYBDU�SFTQFDU�3
“Every profession, in which subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to morality.”
—Mary Wollstonecraft
Wollstonecraft argues that humanity’s true happiness and ultimate perfection lie in the development of reason, virtue, and knowledge. Yet in women, these human capacities have been deliberately stunted, and the result is a deformity of the soul that society must correct. If women have souls just as men do, they can—and should— aspire to possess these same qualities and in the same measure.
5P�BDDPVOU�GPS �BOE�FYDVTF�UIF�UZSBOOZ�PG�NBO �NBOZ�JOHFOJPVT�BSHVNFOUT�IBWF�CFFO� CSPVHIU�GPSXBSE�UP�QSPWF �UIBU�UIF�UXP�TFYFT �JO�UIF�BDIJFWFNFOU�PG�WJSUVF �PVHIU�UP�BJN�BU� BUUBJOJOH�B�WFSZ�EJòFSFOU�DIBSBDUFS��PS �UP�TQFBL�FYQMJDJUMZ �XPNFO�BSF�OPU�BMMPXFE�UP�IBWF� TVóDJFOU�TUSFOHUI�PG�NJOE�UP�BDRVJSF�XIBU�SFBMMZ�EFTFSWFT�UIF�OBNF�PG�WJSUVF��:FU�JU�TIPVME� TFFN �BMMPXJOH�UIFN�UP�IBWF�TPVMT �UIBU�UIFSF�JT�CVU�POF�XBZ�BQQPJOUFE�CZ�1SPWJEFODF�UP� MFBE�mankind�UP�FJUIFS�WJSUVF�PS�IBQQJOFTT�
.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�� A Vindication of the Rights of Women
“How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes!”
—Mary Wollstonecraft
.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU� 369
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 369 05/09/17 06:05 PM
PORTR AIT
Figure 16.2 .BSZ� 8PMM� TUPOFDSBGU�T�HSBWFTUPOF�JO�4U�� 1BODSBT�(BSEFOT �-POEPO�
Wollstonecraft Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) was born in London to a fi- nancially strapped family, one of seven children, only one of whom (her brother Edward) received a formal education. She was mostly self-taught and very well read, eventually showing herself to be an astute social critic and an insightful moral, philosophi- cal, and political writer. She expressed her ideas in several forms, including books, essays, reviews, translations, stories, and novels.
Her literary and philosophical achievements are remarkable in themselves, but they seem all the more extraordinary con- sidering that she produced them during a short life filled with grief and disappointment. To support herself she worked as a schoolteacher, a companion to a lady, and a governess—almost the only jobs open to women in her situation. She had to aban- don her own plans to care for her dying mother, and she had to come to the aid of her sister Eliza, who su!ered a breakdown that Mary believed resulted from mistreatment by Eliza’s husband. In 1784 she opened a progressive school, but it failed within two years and became a major cause of misery to her, both financially and otherwise. In 1785 she left for Lisbon to be with her best friend, Fanny Blood, who was soon to have a baby. Fanny had been described as the “ruling passion” of Mary’s mind. Unfortunately, when Mary arrived, Fanny was already in premature labor and died in Mary’s arms, with the baby soon to follow.
Despite these woes, she managed to produce several important works, including !oughts on the Education of Daughters (1786); Mary, A Fiction (her first novel, 1788); Original Stories from Real Life (1788); A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790); A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792); and An Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French Revolution (1794).
In the early 1790s, she had a miserable a!air with an American author named Gilbert Imlay. "ey never married, and she had a child by him. She ended the a!air in 1796 and later that year fell in love with William Godwin, whom she married in 1797. "ey soon had a daughter—later known as Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein and the wife of the famous poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. But the delivery was complicated, and ten days after the birth, Mary Wollstonecraft was dead at age thirty-eight.
*G�UIFO�XPNFO�BSF�OPU�B�TXBSN�PG�FQIFNFSPO�<TIPSU�MJWFE>�USJøFST �XIZ�TIPVME�UIFZ�CF� LFQU�JO�JHOPSBODF�VOEFS�UIF�TQFDJPVT�OBNF�PG�JOOPDFODF �.FO�DPNQMBJO �BOE�XJUI�SFBTPO � PG�UIF�GPMMJFT�BOE�DBQSJDFT�PG�PVS�TFY �XIFO�UIFZ�EP�OPU�LFFOMZ�TBUJSJ[F�PVS�IFBETUSPOH�BOE� HSPWFMJOH�WJDF��#FIPME �*�TIPVME�BOTXFS �UIF�OBUVSBM�FòFDU�PG�JHOPSBODF��5IF�NJOE�XJMM� FWFS�CF�VOTUBCMF�UIBU�IBT�POMZ�QSFKVEJDFT�UP�SFTU�PO �BOE�UIF�DVSSFOU�XJMM�SVO�XJUI�EFTUSVD� UJWF�GVSZ�XIFO�UIFSF�BSF�OPU�CBSSJFST�UP�CSFBL�JUT�GPSDF��8PNFO�BSF�UPME�GSPN�UIFJS�JOGBODZ � BOE�UBVHIU�CZ�UIF�FYBNQMF�PG�UIFJS�NPUIFST �UIBU�B�MJUUMF�LOPXMFEHF�PG�IVNBO�XFBLOFTT �
370 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 370 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Figure 16.3 "�6�4��QPTUBHF�TUBNQ�DPNNFNPSBUJOH�UISFF�FBSMZ�TVòSBHFUUFT��"NFSJDBO�XPNFO�EJE�OPU� HFU�UIF�WPUF�VOUJM�������#SJUJTI�XPNFO ������
KVTUMZ�UFSNFE�DVOOJOH �TPGUOFTT�PG�UFNQFS �outward�PCFEJFODF �BOE�B�TDSVQVMPVT�BUUFOUJPO� UP�B�QVFSJMF�LJOE�PG�QSPQSJFUZ �XJMM�PCUBJO�GPS�UIFN�UIF�QSPUFDUJPO�PG�NBO��BOE�TIPVME�UIFZ� CF�CFBVUJGVM �FWFSZ�UIJOH�FMTF�JT�OFFEMFTT �GPS �BU�MFBTU�UXFOUZ�ZFBST�PG�UIFJS�MJWFT�������
.FO �JOEFFE �BQQFBS�UP�NF�UP�BDU�JO�B�WFSZ�VOQIJMPTPQIJDBM�NBOOFS�XIFO�UIFZ�USZ� UP�TFDVSF�UIF�HPPE�DPOEVDU�PG�XPNFO�CZ�BUUFNQUJOH�UP�LFFQ�UIFN�BMXBZT�JO�B�TUBUF�PG� DIJMEIPPE��3PVTTFBV�XBT�NPSF�DPOTJTUFOU�XIFO�IF�XJTIFE�UP�TUPQ�UIF�QSPHSFTT�PG�SFBTPO� JO�CPUI�TFYFT �GPS�JG�NFO�FBU�PG�UIF�USFF�PG�LOPXMFEHF �XPNFO�XJMM�DPNF�JO�GPS�B�UBTUF��CVU � GSPN�UIF�JNQFSGFDU�DVMUJWBUJPO�XIJDI�UIFJS�VOEFSTUBOEJOHT�OPX�SFDFJWF �UIFZ�POMZ�BUUBJO�B� LOPXMFEHF�PG�FWJM�������
$POTFRVFOUMZ �UIF�NPTU�QFSGFDU�FEVDBUJPO �JO�NZ�PQJOJPO �JT�TVDI�BO�FYFSDJTF�PG�UIF� VOEFSTUBOEJOH�BT�JT�CFTU�DBMDVMBUFE�UP�TUSFOHUIFO�UIF�CPEZ�BOE�GPSN�UIF�IFBSU��0S �JO�PUIFS� XPSET �UP�FOBCMF�UIF�JOEJWJEVBM�UP�BUUBJO�TVDI�IBCJUT�PG�WJSUVF�BT�XJMM�SFOEFS�JU�JOEFQFOEFOU�� *O�GBDU �JU�JT�B�GBSDF�UP�DBMM�BOZ�CFJOH�WJSUVPVT�XIPTF�WJSUVFT�EP�OPU�SFTVMU�GSPN�UIF�FYFSDJTF� PG�JUT�PXO�SFBTPO��5IJT�XBT�3PVTTFBV�T�PQJOJPO�SFTQFDUJOH�NFO��*�FYUFOE�JU�UP�XPNFO�������
:PVUI�JT�UIF�TFBTPO�GPS�MPWF�JO�CPUI�TFYFT��CVU�JO�UIPTF�EBZT�PG�UIPVHIUMFTT�FOKPZNFOU� QSPWJTJPO�TIPVME�CF�NBEF�GPS�UIF�NPSF�JNQPSUBOU�ZFBST�PG�MJGF �XIFO�SFøFDUJPO�UBLFT�QMBDF� PG�TFOTBUJPO��#VU�3PVTTFBV �BOE�NPTU�PG�UIF�NBMF�XSJUFST�XIP�IBWF�GPMMPXFE�IJT�TUFQT �IBWF� XBSNMZ�JODVMDBUFE�UIBU�UIF�XIPMF�UFOEFODZ�PG�GFNBMF�FEVDBUJPO�PVHIU�UP�CF�EJSFDUFE�UP� POF�QPJOU��UP�SFOEFS�UIFN�QMFBTJOH�������
<5>IPVHI� NPSBMJTUT� IBWF� BHSFFE� UIBU� UIF� UFOPS� PG� MJGF� TFFNT� UP� QSPWF� UIBU� man� JT� QSFQBSFE�CZ�WBSJPVT�DJSDVNTUBODFT�GPS�B�GVUVSF�TUBUF �UIFZ�DPOTUBOUMZ�DPODVS�JO�BEWJTJOH� woman�POMZ�UP�QSPWJEF�GPS�UIF�QSFTFOU��(FOUMFOFTT �EPDJMJUZ �BOE�B�TQBOJFM�MJLF�BòFDUJPO� BSF �PO�UIJT�HSPVOE �DPOTJTUFOUMZ�SFDPNNFOEFE�BT�UIF�DBSEJOBM�WJSUVFT�PG�UIF�TFY��BOE �EJT� SFHBSEJOH�UIF�BSCJUSBSZ�FDPOPNZ�PG�OBUVSF �POF�XSJUFS�IBT�EFDMBSFE�UIBU�JU�JT�NBTDVMJOF�GPS�B� XPNBO�UP�CF�NFMBODIPMZ��4IF�XBT�DSFBUFE�UP�CF�UIF�UPZ�PG�NBO �IJT�SBUUMF �BOE�JU�NVTU�KJOHMF� JO�IJT�FBST�XIFOFWFS �EJTNJTTJOH�SFBTPO �IF�DIPPTFT�UP�CF�BNVTFE�������
.BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�� A Vindication of the Rights of Women
2.�8IBU�TQFDJöDBMMZ�JT� NPSBMMZ�XSPOH�BCPVU�UIF� LJOE�PG�FEVDBUJPO�UIBU� 8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�TBZT�MFBWFT� XPNFO�JHOPSBOU�BOE� XFBL �*T�JU�B�WJPMBUJPO�PG� SJHIUT �B�MBDL�PG�SFTQFDU�GPS� QFSTPOT �B�DBTF�PG�QSPEVD� JOH�NPSF�CBE�UIBO�HPPE � PS�TPNFUIJOH�FMTF �
“[According to the dominant view] woman was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it must jingle in his ears whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused.”
—Mary Wollstonecraft
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 371 05/09/17 06:05 PM
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS� 371
16.2 SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR
In the last sixty years, the world’s attitudes toward women, and women’s attitudes toward themselves, have changed (mostly for the better) in ways that probably would have shocked even Mary Wollstonecraft. Much of this alteration in outlook can be traced back to the French philosopher, novelist, and feminist Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986). "e writer Judith "urman sums up Beauvoir’s influence like this:
*U�JT�UJNF�UP�FòFDU�B�SFWPMVUJPO�JO�GFNBMF�NBOOFST�UJNF�UP�SFTUPSF�UP�UIFN�UIFJS�MPTU� EJHOJUZ�BOE�NBLF�UIFN �BT�QBSU�PG�UIF�IVNBO�TQFDJFT �MBCPVS�CZ�SFGPSNJOH�UIFNTFMWFT� UP�SFGPSN�UIF�XPSME�4
+VEJUI�5IVSNBO��*OUSPEVDUJPO�UP�The Second Sex�CZ�4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS�
8IJMF�OP�POF�JOEJWJEVBM�PS�IFS�XPSL�JT�SFTQPOTJCMF�GPS�UIBU�TFJTNJD�TIJGU�JO�MBXT�BOE�BUUJUVEFT � UIF�NJMMJPOT�PG�ZPVOH�XPNFO�XIP�OPX�DPOöEFOUMZ�BTTVNF�UIBU�UIFJS�FOUJUMFNFOU�UP�XPSL � QMFBTVSF �BOE�BVUPOPNZ�JT�FRVBM�UP�UIBU�PG�UIFJS�CSPUIFST�PXF�B�NFBTVSF�PG�UIFJS�GSFFEPN� UP�#FBVWPJS���
“If woman discovers herself as the inessential and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about this transformation herself.”
—Simone de Beauvoir
Beauvoir was born in Paris, schooled in the Sorbonne, and known as the lover and companion of the renowned Jean-Paul Sartre. She was his devoted colleague, a fellow existentialist, and she also served as his most astute critic and influenced him more than her own critics realized. She wrote essays, philosophical works, novels, and biography, and became renowned in her own right with the publica- tion of !e Second Sex (1949), her influential study of the inequality and injustice that defines the female condition. In her writings she ranged far and wide, examining radical free- dom, the nature of evil, the use of violence, sex and gender, existentialism, good and bad faith, and moral responsibility.
Beauvoir begins !e Second Sex by asking a seemingly inane question: What is a woman? "e answer is not at all obvious to men and women, she says. To clarify, she makes a distinction that has become central to feminist thought: biological sexual di!erence (male, female) is not the same as gender, which is mostly (or entirely) a socially deter- mined characteristic. So she declares, “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” And this socially determined becoming is shaped by male expectations and prerogative. Figure 16.4 4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS� ����o���� �
372 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 372 05/09/17 06:05 PM
"us woman has been defined by a male-skewed society as the Other (another im- portant concept introduced by Beauvoir). "roughout history the male human has been thought of as the epitome of a human, as the embodiment of humanity—the One. Woman, however, has been cast as the Other, a creature defined in relation to man. Women are secondary; men are primary.
Here is Beauvoir making her case:
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS��The Second Sex
*G�UIF�GFNBMF�GVODUJPO�JT�OPU�FOPVHI�UP�EFöOF�XPNBO �BOE�JG�XF�BMTP�SFKFDU�UIF�FYQMBOBUJPO� PG�UIF�iFUFSOBM�GFNJOJOF w�CVU�JG�XF�BDDFQU �FWFO�UFNQPSBSJMZ �UIBU�UIFSF�BSF�XPNFO�PO�FBSUI � XF�UIFO�IBWF�UP�BTL��8IBU�JT�B�XPNBO
.FSFMZ�TUBUJOH�UIF�QSPCMFN�TVHHFTUT�BO�JNNFEJBUF�BOTXFS�UP�NF��*U�JT�TJHOJGJDBOU� UIBU�*�QPTF�JU��*U�XPVME�OFWFS�PDDVS�UP�B�NBO�UP�XSJUF�B�CPPL�PO�UIF�TJOHVMBS�TJUVBUJPO� PG�NBMFT�JO�IVNBOJUZ��*G�*�XBOU�UP�EFGJOF�NZTFMG �*�GJSTU�IBWF�UP�TBZ �i*�BN�B�XPNBOw��BMM� PUIFS�BTTFSUJPOT�XJMM�BSJTF�GSPN�UIJT�CBTJD�USVUI��"�NBO�OFWFS�CFHJOT�CZ�QPTJUJOH�IJNTFMG� BT�BO�JOEJWJEVBM�PG�B�DFSUBJO�TFY��UIBU�IF�JT�B�NBO�JT�PCWJPVT��5IF�DBUFHPSJFT�NBTDVMJOF� BOE�GFNJOJOF�BQQFBS�BT�TZNNFUSJDBM�JO�B�GPSNBM�XBZ�PO�UPXO�IBMM�SFDPSET�PS�JEFOUJGJDB� UJPO�QBQFST��5IF�SFMBUJPO�PG�UIF�UXP�TFYFT�JT�OPU�UIBU�PG�UXP�FMFDUSJDBM�QPMFT��UIF�NBO� SFQSFTFOUT�CPUI�UIF�QPTJUJWF�BOE�UIF�OFVUFS�UP�TVDI�BO�FYUFOU�UIBU�JO�'SFODI�hommes EFTJHOBUFT� IVNBO� CFJOHT � UIF� QBSUJDVMBS� NFBOJOH� PG� UIF� XPSE� vir� CFJOH� BTTJNJMBUFE� JOUP�UIF�HFOFSBM�NFBOJOH�PG�UIF�XPSE�iIPNP�w�8PNBO�JT�UIF�OFHBUJWF �UP�TVDI�B�QPJOU� UIBU� BOZ� EFUFSNJOBUJPO� JT� JNQVUFE� UP� IFS� BT� B� MJNJUBUJPO � XJUIPVU� SFDJQSPDJUZ�� *� VTFE� UP�HFU�BOOPZFE�JO�BCTUSBDU�EJTDVTTJPOT�UP�IFBS�NFO�UFMM�NF��i:PV�UIJOL�TVDI�BOE�TVDI� B�UIJOH�CFDBVTF�ZPV�SF�B�XPNBO�w�#VU�*�LOPX�NZ�POMZ�EFGFOTF�JT�UP�BOTXFS �i*�UIJOL�JU� CFDBVTF�JU�JT�USVF w�UIFSFCZ�FMJNJOBUJOH�NZ�TVCKFDUJWJUZ��JU�XBT�PVU�PG�UIF�RVFTUJPO�UP� BOTXFS �i"OE�ZPV�UIJOL�UIF�DPOUSBSZ�CFDBVTF�ZPV�BSF�B�NBO w�CFDBVTF�JU�JT�VOEFSTUPPE� UIBU�CFJOH�B�NBO�JT�OPU�B�QBSUJDVMBSJUZ��B�NBO�JT�JO�IJT�SJHIU�CZ�WJSUVF�PG�CFJOH�NBO��JU�JT� UIF�XPNBO�XIP�JT�JO�UIF�XSPOH��*O�GBDU �KVTU�BT�GPS�UIF�BODJFOUT�UIFSF�XBT�BO�BCTPMVUF� WFSUJDBM�UIBU�EFGJOFE�UIF�PCMJRVF �UIFSF�JT�BO�BCTPMVUF�IVNBO�UZQF�UIBU�JT�NBTDVMJOF�� 8PNBO� IBT� PWBSJFT� BOE� B� VUFSVT�� TVDI� BSF� UIF� QBSUJDVMBS� DPOEJUJPOT� UIBU� MPDL� IFS� JO� IFS�TVCKFDUJWJUZ��TPNF�FWFO�TBZ�TIF�UIJOLT�XJUI�IFS�IPSNPOFT��.BO�WBJOMZ�GPSHFUT�UIBU� IJT�BOBUPNZ�BMTP�JODMVEFT�IPSNPOFT�BOE�UFTUJDMFT��)F�HSBTQT�IJT�CPEZ�BT�B�EJSFDU�BOE� OPSNBM�MJOL�XJUI�UIF�XPSME�UIBU�IF�CFMJFWFT�IF�BQQSFIFOET�JO�BMM�PCKFDUJWJUZ �XIFSFBT� IF�DPOTJEFST�XPNBO�T�CPEZ�BO�PCTUBDMF �B�QSJTPO �CVSEFOFE�CZ�FWFSZUIJOH�UIBU�QBS� UJDVMBSJ[FT� JU�� i5IF� GFNBMF� JT� GFNBMF� CZ� WJSUVF� PG� B� DFSUBJO� lack� PG� RVBMJUJFT w� "SJTUPUMF� TBJE��i8F�TIPVME�SFHBSE�XPNFO�T�OBUVSF�BT�TVGGFSJOH�GSPN�OBUVSBM�EFGFDUJWFOFTT�w�"OE� 4BJOU�5IPNBT�JO�IJT�UVSO�EFDSFFE�UIBU�XPNBO�XBT�BO�iJODPNQMFUF�NBO w�BO�iJODJEFOUBMw� CFJOH��5IJT�JT�XIBU�UIF�(FOFTJT�TUPSZ�TZNCPMJ[FT �XIFSF�&WF�BQQFBST�BT�JG�ESBXO�GSPN� "EBN�T�iTVQFSOVNFSBSZw�CPOF �JO�#PTTVFU�T�XPSET��)VNBOJUZ�JT�NBMF �BOE�NBO�EFGJOFT� XPNBO �OPU�JO�IFSTFMG �CVU�JO�SFMBUJPO�UP�IJNTFMG��TIF�JT�OPU�DPOTJEFSFE�BO�BVUPOPNPVT� CFJOH�� i8PNBO � UIF� SFMBUJWF� CFJOH w� XSJUFT� .JDIFMFU�� 5IVT� .POTJFVS� #FOEB� EFDMBSFT� JO�<6SJFM�T�3FQPSU>��i"�NBO�T�CPEZ�IBT�NFBOJOH�CZ�JUTFMG �EJTSFHBSEJOH�UIF�CPEZ�PG�UIF� XPNBO � XIFSFBT� UIF� XPNBO�T� CPEZ� TFFNT� EFWPJE� PG� NFBOJOH� XJUIPVU� SFGFSFODF� UP�
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 373 05/09/17 06:05 PM
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS� 373
UIF�NBMF��.BO�UIJOLT�IJNTFMG�XJUIPVU�XPNBO��8PNBO�EPFT�OPU�UIJOL�IFSTFMG�XJUIPVU� NBO�w�"OE�TIF�JT�OPUIJOH�PUIFS�UIBO�XIBU�NBO�EFDJEFT��TIF�JT�UIVT�DBMMFE�iUIF�TFY w� NFBOJOH�UIBU�UIF�NBMF�TFFT�IFS�FTTFOUJBMMZ�BT�B�TFYFE�CFJOH��GPS�IJN�TIF�JT�TFY �TP�TIF� JT�JU�JO�UIF�BCTPMVUF��4IF�JT�EFUFSNJOFE�BOE�EJGGFSFOUJBUFE�JO�SFMBUJPO�UP�NBO �XIJMF�IF� JT�OPU�JO�SFMBUJPO�UP�IFS��TIF�JT�UIF�JOFTTFOUJBM�JO�GSPOU�PG�UIF�FTTFOUJBM��)F�JT�UIF�4VCKFDU�� IF�JT�UIF�"CTPMVUF��4IF�JT�UIF�0UIFS�
5IF�DBUFHPSZ�PG�Other�JT�BT�PSJHJOBM�BT�DPOTDJPVTOFTT�JUTFMG��5IF�EVBMJUZ�CFUXFFO�4FMG� BOE�0UIFS�DBO�CF�GPVOE�JO�UIF�NPTU�QSJNJUJWF�TPDJFUJFT��������/P�HSPVQ�FWFS�EFöOFT�JUTFMG�BT� 0OF�XJUIPVU�JNNFEJBUFMZ�TFUUJOH�VQ�UIF�0UIFS�PQQPTJUF�JUTFMG�������
/PX �XPNBO�IBT�BMXBZT�CFFO �JG�OPU�NBO�T�TMBWF �BU�MFBTU�IJT�WBTTBM��UIF�UXP�TFYFT� IBWF�OFWFS�EJWJEFE�UIF�XPSME�VQ�FRVBMMZ��BOE�TUJMM�UPEBZ �FWFO�UIPVHI�IFS�DPOEJUJPO�JT� DIBOHJOH �XPNBO�JT�IFBWJMZ�IBOEJDBQQFE��*O�OP�DPVOUSZ�JT�IFS�MFHBM�TUBUVT�JEFOUJDBM�UP� NBO�T �BOE�PGUFO�JU�QVUT�IFS�BU�B�DPOTJEFSBCMF�EJTBEWBOUBHF��&WFO�XIFO�IFS�SJHIUT�BSF�SFD� PHOJ[FE�BCTUSBDUMZ �MPOH�TUBOEJOH�IBCJU�LFFQT�UIFN�GSPN�CFJOH�DPODSFUFMZ�NBOJGFTUFE�JO� DVTUPNT��&DPOPNJDBMMZ �NFO�BOE�XPNFO�BMNPTU�GPSN�UXP�DBTUFT��BMM�UIJOHT�CFJOH�FRVBM � UIF�GPSNFS�IBWF�CFUUFS�KPCT �IJHIFS�XBHFT �BOE�HSFBUFS�DIBODFT�UP�TVDDFFE�UIBO�UIFJS� OFX�GFNBMF�DPNQFUJUPST��UIFZ�PDDVQZ�NBOZ�NPSF�QMBDFT�JO�JOEVTUSZ �JO�QPMJUJDT �BOE�TP� GPSUI �BOE�UIFZ�IPME�UIF�NPTU�JNQPSUBOU�QPTJUJPOT��������"U�UIF�NPNFOU�UIBU�XPNFO�BSF� CFHJOOJOH�UP�TIBSF�JO�UIF�NBLJOH�PG�UIF�XPSME �UIJT�XPSME�TUJMM�CFMPOHT�UP�NFO��NFO�IBWF� OP�EPVCU�BCPVU�UIJT �BOE�XPNFO�CBSFMZ�EPVCU�JU��������5IF�NBO�XIP�TFUT�UIF�XPNBO�VQ�BT� BO�Other�XJMM�UIVT�öOE�IFS�JO�EFFQ�DPNQMJDJUZ��)FODF�XPNBO�NBLFT�OP�DMBJN�GPS�IFSTFMG� BT�TVCKFDU�CFDBVTF�TIF�MBDLT�UIF�DPODSFUF�NFBOT �CFDBVTF�TIF�TFOTFT�UIF�OFDFTTBSZ�MJOL�
Figure 16.5 5IF�IFBETUPOF�GPS�+FBO�1BVM�4BSUSF�BOE�4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS�JO�.POUQBSOBTTF�$FNFUFSZ � 1BSJT�
3.�%P�ZPV�BHSFF�XJUI� #FBVWPJS�UIBU�XPNFO� IBWF�CFFO�EFöOFE�BT�UIF� 0UIFS �*G�TP �JO�XIBU�XBZT � 8IBU�BSF�UIF�SBNJöDBUJPOT� GPS�XPNFO�PG�CFJOH�TP� EFöOFE �
374 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 374 05/09/17 06:05 PM
DPOOFDUJOH�IFS�UP�NBO�XJUIPVU�QPTJUJOH�JUT�SFDJQSPDJUZ �BOE�CFDBVTF�TIF�PGUFO�EFSJWFT� TBUJTGBDUJPO�GSPN�IFS�SPMF�BT�Other. . . .
<5>IF�WFSZ�GBDU�UIBU�XPNBO�JT�Other�DIBMMFOHFT�BMM�UIF�KVTUJöDBUJPOT�UIBU�NFO�IBWF�FWFS� HJWFO��UIFTF�XFSF�POMZ�UPP�DMFBSMZ�EJDUBUFE�CZ�UIFJS�PXO�JOUFSFTU��i&WFSZUIJOH�UIBU�NFO�IBWF� XSJUUFO�BCPVU�XPNFO�TIPVME�CF�WJFXFE�XJUI�TVTQJDJPO �CFDBVTF�UIFZ�BSF�CPUI�KVEHF�BOE� QBSUZ w�XSPUF�1PVMBJO�EF�MB�#BSSF �B�MJUUMF�LOPXO�TFWFOUFFOUI�DFOUVSZ�GFNJOJTU��������"NPOH� UIF�CMFTTJOHT�1MBUP�UIBOLFE�UIF�HPET�GPS�XBT �öSTU �CFJOH�CPSO�GSFF�BOE�OPU�B�TMBWF�BOE � TFDPOE �B�NBO�BOE�OPU�B�XPNBO��������-BXNBLFST �QSJFTUT �QIJMPTPQIFST �XSJUFST �BOE�TDIPM� BST�IBWF�HPOF�UP�HSFBU�MFOHUIT�UP�QSPWF�UIBU�XPNFO�T�TVCPSEJOBUF�DPOEJUJPO�XBT�XJMMFE�JO� IFBWFO�BOE�QSPöUBCMF�PO�FBSUI�6
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS� The Second Sex
Lifting this oppression, says Beauvoir, requires real freedom and true equality of both men and women—equality in education, working conditions and salaries, sexuality, marriage, motherhood, the care of children, and more. But can men and women become peers, she asks, just by changing institutions, customs, and social systems? No: a deeper transformation must first occur.
“No one is more arrogant toward women, more ag- gressive or more disdain- ful, than a man anxious about his own virility.”
—Simone de Beauvoir
THEN AND NOW
Innate Gender Di!erences? In 1949 Simone de Beauvoir declared in !e Second Sex that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” In other words, gender is not innate—it’s learned. It’s a product of the continually reinforced male perspective. In the twenty-first century the question of innate gender di!erences has arisen in several forms. One popular version is, “Are females hard- wired to be worse at math than males?” Many people believe the answer is yes. "ey assume that males are inherently better at math and that biology (hormones, genetics, etc.) accounts for the male/female di!erences that researchers have uncovered. ("e issue matters because people who assume that boys are naturally better at math may end up treating boys and girls accordingly, expecting less from girls and more from boys.) But is biology the reason for a male/female math gap?
Of course there are obvious sex di!erences between men and women (genitals and breasts). "ere are also subtle biological di!erences (brain size and neural activity patterns, for example), but so far these di!erences seem not to have much e!ect on cognition. In the past decade, scientific research has shown that cognitive di!erences between girls and boys come mostly from bias, culture, and education systems. Studies consisting of hundreds of thousands of students in dozens of countries have failed to find a strong link between math skills and biology, but they have found clear correlations between math skills and
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 375 05/09/17 06:05 PM
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS� 375
sociological and psychological factors. Here is a typical account from the American Psycho- logical Association:
Girls around the world are not worse at math than boys, even though boys are more confident in their math abilities, and girls from countries where gender equity is more prevalent are more likely to perform better on mathematics as- sessment tests, according to a new analysis of international research.
“Stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics are a distinct contrast to the actual scientific data,” said Nicole Else-Quest, PhD, a psychology professor at Villanova University, and lead author of the meta-analysis. “"ese results show that girls will perform at the same level as the boys when they are given the right educational tools and have visible female role models excelling in mathematics.”
#FBVWPJS�T�BTTFSUJPOT�BCPVU�TPDJPMPHJDBM�NBMF�JOøVFODFT�TIBQJOH�XPNFO�T�TFMG�JNBHF� BSF�FNQJSJDBM�DMBJNT��#VU�JO�IFS�EBZ�UIFSF�XBT�MJUUMF�PS�OP�FNQJSJDBM�FWJEFODF�UP�CBDL� UIFN�VQ��8BT�TIF�KVTUJöFE�JO�NBLJOH�TVDI�DMBJNT
American Psychological Association, “Worldwide Study Finds Few Gender Di!erences in Math Abilities,” January 5, 2010, http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/01/gender-math.aspx.
4JNPOF�EF�#FBVWPJS�� The Second Sex
i8PNFO�XJMM�BMXBZT�CF�XPNFO w�TBZ�UIF�TLFQUJDT��PUIFS�TFFST�QSPQIFTZ�UIBU�JO�TIFEEJOH� UIFJS� GFNJOJOJUZ � UIFZ� XJMM� OPU� TVDDFFE� JO� DIBOHJOH� JOUP� NFO� BOE�XJMM� CFDPNF� NPOTUFST�� 5IJT�XPVME�NFBO�UIBU�UPEBZ�T�XPNBO�JT�OBUVSF�T�DSFBUJPO��JU�NVTU�CF�SFQFBUFE�BHBJO�UIBU� XJUIJO�UIF�IVNBO�DPMMFDUJWJUZ�OPUIJOH�JT�OBUVSBM �BOE�XPNBO �BNPOH�PUIFST �JT�B�QSPEVDU� EFWFMPQFE�CZ�DJWJMJ[BUJPO��������8PNBO�JT�EFöOFE�OFJUIFS�CZ�IFS�IPSNPOFT�OPS�CZ�NZTUFSJPVT� JOTUJODUT�CVU�CZ�UIF�XBZ�TIF�HSBTQT �UISPVHI�GPSFJHO�DPOTDJPVTOFTTFT �IFS�CPEZ�BOE�IFS�SFMB� UJPO�UP�UIF�XPSME��UIF�BCZTT�UIBU�TFQBSBUFT�BEPMFTDFOU�HJSMT�GSPN�BEPMFTDFOU�CPZT�XBT�QVS� QPTFMZ�EVH�PVU�GSPN�FBSMZ�JOGBODZ��MBUFS �JU�XPVME�CF�JNQPTTJCMF�UP�LFFQ�XPNBO�GSPN�CFJOH� XIBU�TIF�was made,�BOE�TIF�XJMM�BMXBZT�USBJM�UIJT�QBTU�CFIJOE�IFS��JG�UIF�XFJHIU�PG�UIJT�QBTU� JT�BDDVSBUFMZ�NFBTVSFE �JU�JT�PCWJPVT�UIBU�IFS�EFTUJOZ�JT�OPU�öYFE�JO�FUFSOJUZ��0OF�NVTU�DFS� UBJOMZ�OPU�UIJOL�UIBU�NPEJGZJOH�IFS�FDPOPNJD�TJUVBUJPO�JT�FOPVHI�UP�USBOTGPSN�XPNBO��UIJT� GBDUPS�IBT�CFFO�BOE�SFNBJOT�UIF�QSJNPSEJBM�GBDUPS�PG�IFS�EFWFMPQNFOU �CVU�VOUJM�JU�CSJOHT� BCPVU�UIF�NPSBM �TPDJBM �BOE�DVMUVSBM�DPOTFRVFODFT�JU�IFSBMET�BOE�SFRVJSFT �UIF�OFX�XPNBO� DBOOPU�BQQFBS��������5IF�TBNF�ESBNB�PG�øFTI�BOE�TQJSJU �BOE�PG�öOJUVEF�BOE�USBOTDFOEFODF � QMBZT�JUTFMG�PVU�JO�CPUI�TFYFT��CPUI�BSF�FBUFO�BXBZ�CZ�UJNF �TUBMLFE�CZ�EFBUI �UIFZ�IBWF�UIF� TBNF�FTTFOUJBM�OFFE�PG�UIF�PUIFS��BOE�UIFZ�DBO�UBLF�UIF�TBNF�HMPSZ�GSPN�UIFJS�GSFFEPN��JG� UIFZ�LOFX�IPX�UP�TBWPS�JU �UIFZ�XPVME�OP�MPOHFS�CF�UFNQUFE�UP�DPOUFOE�GPS�GBMTF�QSJWJMFHFT�� BOE�GSBUFSOJUZ�DPVME�UIFO�CF�CPSO�CFUXFFO�UIFN���
376 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 376 05/09/17 06:05 PM
16.3 FEMINIST ETHICS
In recent decades, an important development has challenged the traditional theo- ries and concepts of moral philosophy: the rise of feminist ethics. Feminist ethics is an approach to morality aimed at advancing women’s interests, underscoring their distinctive experiences and characteristics, and advancing the obvious truth that women and men are morally equal. It is defined by a distinctive focus on these issues, rather than by a set of doctrines or common ideology among feminists, many of whom may disagree on the nature of feminist ethics or on particular moral issues.
Feminist ethics generally downplays the role of moral principles and traditional ethical concepts, insisting instead that moral reflection must take into account the social realities—the relevant social practices, relationships, institutions, and power arrangements. Many feminists think that the familiar principles of West- ern ethics—autonomy, utility, freedom, equality, and the like—are too broad and abstract to help us make moral judgments about specific persons who are enmeshed in concrete social situations. It is not enough, for example, to respect a woman’s decision to have an abortion if she is too poor to have one, or if her culture is so oppressive (or oppressed) as to make abortion impossible to obtain, or if social con- ditioning leads her to believe that she has no choice or that her views don’t count. "eoretical autonomy does not mean much if it is so thoroughly undermined in reality.
Many feminist writers maintain that the values and virtues inherent in most traditional moral theories reflect a typically masculine perspective—and thus o!er a one-sided (or wrong-sided) view of the moral life. What’s needed, they say, is a moral outlook that takes into account values and experiences that usually have been identified with women. According to one feminist philosopher, feminists claim that traditional ethics favors the
feminist ethics An ap- proach to morality aimed at advancing women’s interests, underscoring their distinctive experi- ences and characteristics, and advancing the obvi- ous truth that women and men are morally equal.
4.�*T�UIFSF�TVDI�B�UIJOH�BT� iUIF�GFNBMF�QFSTQFDUJWFw � 5IBU�JT �EP�BMM�XPNFO�IBWF� UIF�TBNF�CBTJD�PVUMPPL�PS� TUZMF�PG�SFBTPOJOH �
"MJTPO�+BHHBS��i'FNJOJTU�&UIJDTw�
�̓�̓�̓TVQQPTFEMZ�NBTDVMJOF�PS�NBMF�BTTPDJBUFE�WBMVFT�PG�JOEFQFOEFODF �BVUPOPNZ �JOUFMMFDU � XJMM �XBSJOFTT �IJFSBSDIZ �EPNJOBUJPO �DVMUVSF �USBOTDFOEFODF �QSPEVDU �BTDFUJDJTN �XBS�BOE� EFBUI�PWFS�UIF�TVQQPTFEMZ�GFNJOJOF�PS�GFNBMF�BTTPDJBUFE�WBMVFT�PG�JOUFSEFQFOEFODF �DPN� NVOJUZ �DPOOFDUJPO �TIBSJOH �FNPUJPO �CPEZ �USVTU �BCTFODF�PG�IJFSBSDIZ �OBUVSF �JNNBOFODF � QSPDFTT �KPZ �QFBDF�BOE�MJGF���
Some proponents of feminist ethics also reject the traditional concept of the moral agent. Jan Crosthwaite says that the old notion is that of “abstract individuals as fundamentally autonomous agents, aware of their own preferences and values, and motivated by rational self-interest (though not necessarily selfish).”9 But, she says, many feminists
'FNJOJTU�&UIJDT� 377
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 377 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Many of these themes run through the ethics of care, a moral perspective that arose out of feminist concerns and grew to challenge core elements of most other moral theories. Generally those theories emphasize abstract principles, gen- eral duties, individual rights, justice, utility, impartial judgments, and delibera- tive reasoning. But the ethics of care shifts the focus to the unique demands of specific situations and to the virtues and feelings that are central to close personal relationships—empathy, compassion, love, sympathy, and fidelity. "e heart of the moral life is feeling for and caring for those with whom you have a special, intimate connection.
Early on, the ethics of care drew inspiration from the notion that men and women have dramatically di!erent styles of moral decision-making, with men seiz- ing on principles, duties, and rights, and women homing in on personal relation- ships, caring, and empathy. "is di!erence was highlighted in research done by psychologist Carol Gilligan and published in her 1982 book In a Di"erent Voice.11 Typically men recognize an ethic of justice and rights, she says, and women are guided by an ethic of compassion and care. In her view the latter is as legitimate as the former, and both have their place in ethics.
Other research has suggested that the di!erences between men and women in styles of moral thinking may not be as great as Gilligan suggests. But the credibility of the empirical claim does not a!ect the larger insight that the research seemed to some writers to suggest: caring is an essential part of morality, and the most influen- tial theories have not fully taken it into account.
"ese points get support along several lines. First, many philosophers—from Aristotle to contemporary thinkers—hold that virtues are part of the moral life. If caring is viewed as a virtue—in the form of compassion, empathy, or kindness— then caring too must be an element of morality. A moral theory then would be deficient if it made no room for care.
Moreover, many argue that unlike the ethics of care, most moral theories push the principle of impartiality too far. Recall that impartiality in morality requires us
ethics of care A moral perspective that empha- sizes the unique demands of specific situations and the virtues and feelings that are central to close personal relationships.
+BO�$SPTUIXBJUF��i(FOEFS�BOE�#JPFUIJDTw�
.!.!. QSFTFOU�B�SJDIFS�DPODFQUJPO�PG�QFSTPOT�BT�IJTUPSJDBMMZ�BOE�DVMUVSBMMZ�MPDBUFE �TPDJBMMZ�SF� MBUFE�BOE�FTTFOUJBMMZ�FNCPEJFE��*OEJWJEVBMT�BSF�MPDBUFE�JO�BOE�GPSNFE�CZ�TQFDJöD�SFMBUJPO� TIJQT� DIPTFO�BOE�VODIPTFO �BOE�UJFT�PG�BòFDUJPO�BOE�SFTQPOTJCJMJUZ��������4VDI�B�DPODFQUJPO� PG�TPDJBMMZ�FNCFEEFE�TFMWFT�SFGPDVTFT�UIJOLJOH�BCPVU�BVUPOPNZ �TIJGUJOH�UIF�FNQIBTJT� GSPN� JOEFQFOEFOU� TFMG�EFUFSNJOBUJPO� UPXBSET� JEFBMT� PG� JOUFHSJUZ� XJUIJO� SFMBUFEOFTT�������� 3FTQFDUJOH�BVUPOPNZ�CFDPNFT�MFTT�B�NBUUFS�PG�QSPUFDUJOH�JOEJWJEVBMT�GSPN�iDPFSDJWFw�JO� øVFODFT�UIBO�POF�PG�QPTJUJWF�FNQPXFSNFOU �SFDPHOJ[JOH�QFPQMF�T�JOUFSEFQFOEFODF�BOE� TVQQPSUJOH� JOEJWJEVBMT�� EFWFMPQNFOU� PG� UIFJS� PXO� VOEFSTUBOEJOH� PG� UIFJS� TJUVBUJPO� BOE� PQUJPOT����
“A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.”
—Socrates
378 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 378 05/09/17 06:05 PM
to consider everyone as equal, counting everyone’s interests the same. "e principle applies widely, especially in matters of public justice, but less so in personal relation- ships of love, family, friendship, and the like. We seem to have special obligations (partiality) to close friends, family members, and others we care for, duties that we do not have to strangers or to universal humanity.
Most moral theories emphasize duties and downplay the role of emotions, at- titudes, and motivations. Kant, for example, would have us do our duty for duty’s sake, whatever our feelings. For him, to be a morally good parent, we need only act from duty. But taking care of our children as a matter of moral obligation alone seems an empty exercise. Surely being a morally good parent also involves having feelings of love and attitudes of caring. "e ethics of care eagerly takes these emo- tional elements into account.
"e feminist philosopher Virginia Held o!ers this synopsis of the main elements of the ethics of care:
7JSHJOJB�)FME��The Ethics of Care
*� UIJOL� POF� DBO� EJTDFSO� BNPOH� WBSJPVT� WFSTJPOT� PG� UIF� FUIJDT� PG� DBSF�B� OVNCFS� PG� NBKPS� GFBUVSFT�
'JSTU �UIF�DFOUSBM�GPDVT�PG�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�JT�PO�UIF�DPNQFMMJOH�NPSBM�TBMJFODF�PG�BU� UFOEJOH�UP�BOE�NFFUJOH�UIF�OFFET�PG�UIF�QBSUJDVMBS�PUIFST�GPS�XIPN�XF�UBLF�SFTQPOTJCJMJUZ�� $BSJOH�GPS�POF�T�DIJME �GPS�JOTUBODF �NBZ�XFMM�BOE�EFGFOTJCMZ�CF�BU�UIF�GPSFGSPOU�PG�B�QFSTPO�T� NPSBM�DPODFSOT��5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�SFDPHOJ[FT�UIBU�IVNBO�CFJOHT�BSF�EFQFOEFOU�GPS�NBOZ� ZFBST�PG�UIFJS�MJWFT �UIBU�UIF�NPSBM�DMBJN�PG�UIPTF�EFQFOEFOU�PO�VT�GPS�UIF�DBSF�UIFZ�OFFE� JT�QSFTTJOH �BOE�UIBU�UIFSF�BSF�IJHIMZ�JNQPSUBOU�NPSBM�BTQFDUT�JO�EFWFMPQJOH�UIF�SFMBUJPOT� PG�DBSJOH�UIBU�FOBCMF�IVNBO�CFJOHT�UP�MJWF�BOE�QSPHSFTT��"MM�QFSTPOT�OFFE�DBSF�GPS�BU�MFBTU� UIFJS�FBSMZ�ZFBST��1SPTQFDUT�GPS�IVNBO�QSPHSFTT�BOE�øPVSJTIJOH�IJOHF�GVOEBNFOUBMMZ�PO� UIF�DBSF�UIBU�UIPTF�OFFEJOH�JU�SFDFJWF �BOE�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�TUSFTTFT�UIF�NPSBM�GPSDF�PG�UIF� SFTQPOTJCJMJUZ�UP�SFTQPOE�UP�UIF�OFFET�PG�UIF�EFQFOEFOU��.BOZ�QFSTPOT�XJMM�CFDPNF�JMM�BOE� EFQFOEFOU�GPS�TPNF�QFSJPET�PG�UIFJS�MBUFS�MJWFT �JODMVEJOH�JO�GSBJM�PME�BHF �BOE�TPNF�XIP�BSF� QFSNBOFOUMZ�EJTBCMFE�XJMM�OFFE�DBSF�UIF�XIPMF�PG�UIFJS�MJWFT��.PSBMJUJFT�CVJMU�PO�UIF�JNBHF� PG�UIF�JOEFQFOEFOU �BVUPOPNPVT �SBUJPOBM�JOEJWJEVBM�MBSHFMZ�PWFSMPPL�UIF�SFBMJUZ�PG�IVNBO� EFQFOEFODF�BOE�UIF�NPSBMJUZ�GPS�XIJDI�JU�DBMMT��5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�BUUFOET�UP�UIJT�DFOUSBM� DPODFSO�PG�IVNBO�MJGF�BOE�EFMJOFBUFT�UIF�NPSBM�WBMVFT�JOWPMWFE��*U�SFGVTFT�UP�SFMFHBUF�DBSF� UP�B�SFBMN�iPVUTJEF�NPSBMJUZ�w������
4FDPOE �JO�UIF�FQJTUFNPMPHJDBM�QSPDFTT�PG�USZJOH�UP�VOEFSTUBOE�XIBU�NPSBMJUZ�XPVME� SFDPNNFOE�BOE�XIBU�JU�XPVME�CF�NPSBMMZ�CFTU�GPS�VT�UP�EP�BOE�UP�CF �UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF� WBMVFT� FNPUJPO� SBUIFS� UIBO� SFKFDUT� JU�� /PU� BMM� FNPUJPO� JT� WBMVFE � PG� DPVSTF � CVU� JO� DPO� USBTU� XJUI� UIF� EPNJOBOU� SBUJPOBMJTU� BQQSPBDIFT � TVDI� FNPUJPOT� BT� TZNQBUIZ � FNQBUIZ �
'FNJOJTU�&UIJDT� 379
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 379 05/09/17 06:05 PM
TFOTJUJWJUZ �BOE�SFTQPOTJWFOFTT�BSF�TFFO�BT�UIF�LJOE�PG�NPSBM�FNPUJPOT�UIBU�OFFE�UP�CF� DVMUJWBUFE�OPU�POMZ�UP�IFMQ�JO�UIF�JNQMFNFOUBUJPO�PG�UIF�EJDUBUFT�PG�SFBTPO�CVU�UP�CFUUFS� BTDFSUBJO�XIBU�NPSBMJUZ�SFDPNNFOET��&WFO�BOHFS�NBZ�CF�B�DPNQPOFOU�PG�UIF�NPSBM�JO� EJHOBUJPO�UIBU�TIPVME�CF�GFMU�XIFO�QFPQMF�BSF�USFBUFE�VOKVTUMZ�PS�JOIVNBOFMZ �BOE�JU�NBZ� DPOUSJCVUF�UP� SBUIFS�UIBO�JOUFSGFSF�XJUI �BO�BQQSPQSJBUF�JOUFSQSFUBUJPO�PG�UIF�NPSBM�XSPOH�� 5IJT�JT�OPU�UP�TBZ�UIBU�SBX�FNPUJPO�DBO�CF�B�HVJEF�UP�NPSBMJUZ��GFFMJOHT�OFFE�UP�CF�SFøFDUFE� PO�BOE�FEVDBUFE��#VU�GSPN�UIF�DBSF�QFSTQFDUJWF �NPSBM�JORVJSJFT�UIBU�SFMZ�FOUJSFMZ�PO�SFBTPO� BOE�SBUJPOBMJTUJD�EFEVDUJPOT�PS�DBMDVMBUJPOT�BSF�TFFO�BT�EFöDJFOU�������
5IJSE �UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�SFKFDUT�UIF�WJFX�PG�UIF�EPNJOBOU�NPSBM�UIFPSJFT�UIBU�UIF�NPSF� BCTUSBDU�UIF�SFBTPOJOH�BCPVU�B�NPSBM�QSPCMFN�UIF�CFUUFS�CFDBVTF�UIF�NPSF�MJLFMZ�UP�BWPJE� CJBT�BOE�BSCJUSBSJOFTT �UIF�NPSF�OFBSMZ�UP�BDIJFWF�JNQBSUJBMJUZ��5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�SFTQFDUT� SBUIFS�UIBO�SFNPWFT�JUTFMG�GSPN�UIF�DMBJNT�PG�QBSUJDVMBS�PUIFST�XJUI�XIPN�XF�TIBSF�BDUVBM� SFMBUJPOTIJQT��*U�DBMMT�JOUP�RVFTUJPO�UIF�VOJWFSTBMJTUJD�BOE�BCTUSBDU�SVMFT�PG�UIF�EPNJOBOU� UIFPSJFT��8IFO�UIF�MBUUFS�DPOTJEFS�TVDI�BDUVBM�SFMBUJPOT�BT�CFUXFFO�B�QBSFOU�BOE�DIJME �JG� UIFZ�TBZ�BOZUIJOH�BCPVU�UIFN�BU�BMM �UIFZ�NBZ�TFF�UIFN�BT�QFSNJUUFE�BOE�DVMUJWBUJOH�UIFN� B�QSFGFSFODF�UIBU�B�QFSTPO�NBZ�IBWF��0S�UIFZ�NBZ�SFDPHOJ[F�B�VOJWFSTBM�PCMJHBUJPO�GPS�BMM� QBSFOUT�UP�DBSF�GPS�UIFJS�DIJMESFO��#VU�UIFZ�EP�OPU�QFSNJU�BDUVBM�SFMBUJPOT�FWFS�UP�UBLF�QSJPS� JUZ�PWFS�UIF�SFRVJSFNFOUT�PG�JNQBSUJBMJUZ�������
5P�NPTU�BEWPDBUFT�PG�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF �UIF�DPNQFMMJOH�NPSBM�DMBJN�PG�UIF�QBSUJDVMBS� PUIFS�NBZ�CF�WBMJE�FWFO�XIFO�JU�DPOøJDUT�XJUI�UIF�SFRVJSFNFOU�VTVBMMZ�NBEF�CZ�NPSBM� UIFPSJFT� UIBU� NPSBM� KVEHNFOUT� CF� VOJWFSTBMJ[FBCMF � BOE� UIJT� JT� PG� GVOEBNFOUBM� NPSBM� JNQPSUBODF�
%PNJOBOU�NPSBM�UIFPSJFT�UFOE�UP�JOUFSQSFU�NPSBM�QSPCMFNT�BT�JG�UIFZ�XFSF�DPOøJDUT� CFUXFFO�FHPJTUJD�JOEJWJEVBM�JOUFSFTUT�PO�UIF�POF�IBOE �BOE�VOJWFSTBM�NPSBM�QSJODJQMFT�PO� UIF�PUIFS��5IF�FYUSFNFT�PG�iTFMöTI�JOEJWJEVBMw�BOE�iIVNBOJUZw�BSF�SFDPHOJ[FE �CVU�XIBU� MJFT�CFUXFFO�UIFTF�JT�PGUFO�PWFSMPPLFE��5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF �JO�DPOUSBTU �GPDVTFT�FTQFDJBMMZ� PO�UIF�BSFB�CFUXFFO�UIFTF�FYUSFNFT��5IPTF�XIP�DPOTDJFOUJPVTMZ�DBSF�GPS�PUIFST�BSF�OPU� TFFLJOH�QSJNBSJMZ�UP�GVSUIFS�UIFJS�PXO�individual�JOUFSFTUT��UIFJS�JOUFSFTUT�BSF�JOUFSUXJOFE� XJUI�UIF�QFSTPOT�UIFZ�DBSF�GPS��/FJUIFS�BSF�UIFZ�BDUJOH�GPS�UIF�TBLF�PG�all others�PS�human- ity in general;�UIFZ�TFFL�JOTUFBE�UP�QSFTFSWF�PS�QSPNPUF�BO�BDUVBM�IVNBO�SFMBUJPO�CFUXFFO� UIFNTFMWFT�BOE�particular others.�1FSTPOT�JO�DBSJOH�SFMBUJPOT�BSF�BDUJOH�GPS�TFMG�BOE�PUIFS� UPHFUIFS��5IFJS�DIBSBDUFSJTUJD�TUBODF�JT�OFJUIFS�FHPJTUJD�OPS�BMUSVJTUJD��UIFTF�BSF�UIF�PQUJPOT� JO�B�DPOøJDUVBM�TJUVBUJPO �CVU�UIF�XFMM�CFJOH�PG�B�DBSJOH�SFMBUJPO�JOWPMWFT�UIF�DPPQFSBUJWF� XFMM�CFJOH�PG�UIPTF�JO�UIF�SFMBUJPO�BOE�UIF�XFMM�CFJOH�PG�UIF�SFMBUJPO�JUTFMG�������
"�GPVSUI�DIBSBDUFSJTUJD�PG�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�JT�UIBU�MJLF�NVDI�GFNJOJTU�UIPVHIU�JO�NBOZ� BSFBT �JU�SFDPODFQUVBMJ[FT�USBEJUJPOBM�OPUJPOT�BCPVU�UIF�QVCMJD�BOE�UIF�QSJWBUF��5IF�USBEJ� UJPOBM�WJFX �CVJMU�JOUP�UIF�EPNJOBOU�NPSBM�UIFPSJFT �JT�UIBU�UIF�IPVTFIPME�JT�B�QSJWBUF�TQIFSF� CFZPOE�QPMJUJDT�JOUP�XIJDI�HPWFSONFOU �CBTFE�PO�DPOTFOU �TIPVME�OPU�JOUSVEF�������
%PNJOBOU�NPSBM�UIFPSJFT�IBWF�TFFO�iQVCMJDw�MJGF�BT�SFMFWBOU�UP�NPSBMJUZ�XIJMF�NJTTJOH� UIF�NPSBM�TJHOJöDBODF�PG�UIF�iQSJWBUFw�EPNBJOT�PG�GBNJMZ�BOE�GSJFOETIJQ��5IVT�UIF�EPNJ� OBOU�UIFPSJFT�IBWF�BTTVNFE�UIBU�NPSBMJUZ�TIPVME�CF�TPVHIU�GPS�VOSFMBUFE �JOEFQFOEFOU � BOE�NVUVBMMZ�JOEJòFSFOU�JOEJWJEVBMT�BTTVNFE�UP�CF�FRVBM��5IFZ�IBWF�QPTJUFE�BO�BCTUSBDU � GVMMZ�SBUJPOBM�iBHFOU�BT�TVDIw�GSPN�XIJDI�UP�DPOTUSVDU�NPSBMJUZ �XIJMF�NJTTJOH�UIF�NPSBM� JTTVFT�UIBU�BSJTF�CFUXFFO�JOUFSDPOOFDUFE�QFSTPOT�JO�UIF�DPOUFYUT�PG�GBNJMZ �GSJFOETIJQ �BOE� TPDJBM� HSPVQT�� *O� UIF� DPOUFYU� PG� UIF� GBNJMZ � JU� JT� UZQJDBM� GPS� SFMBUJPOT� UP� CF� CFUXFFO� QFS� TPOT�XJUI�IJHIMZ�VOFRVBM�QPXFS�XIP�EJE�OPU�DIPPTF�UIF�UJFT�BOE�PCMJHBUJPOT�JO�XIJDI�UIFZ� öOE�UIFNTFMWFT�FONFTIFE��'PS�JOTUBODF �OP�DIJME�DBO�DIPPTF�IFS�QBSFOUT�ZFU�TIF�NBZ�XFMM� IBWF�PCMJHBUJPOT�UP�DBSF�GPS�UIFN��3FMBUJPOT�PG�UIJT�LJOE�BSF�TUBOEBSEMZ�OPODPOUSBDUVBM �BOE�
5.�%PFT�)FME�TVHHFTU� B�XBZ�UP�EFDJEF�XIJDI� FNPUJPOT�UP�IFFE�BOE� XIJDI�UP�JHOPSF �*G�UIF� FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�DBOOPU�IFMQ� VT�TPSU�PVU�PVS�FNPUJPOT � TIPVME�XF�DPOTJEFS�JU�B� CBE�UIFPSZ �
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe: the starry heavens above and the moral law within.”
—Immanuel Kant
380 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 380 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Many philosophers, including some who favor traditional theories, think the ethics of care is surely right about certain aspects of the moral life. Caring, they say, is indeed a vital part of morality. Sometimes the most important factor in moral decision-making is not justice, utility, or rights, but compassionate consideration. Impartiality is a basic requirement of morality, an ideal that guides us to fairness and justice and away from prejudice and inequality. But it often does not apply in our relationships with friends and loved ones, for to those close to us we may have special obligations that we do not have toward others. And, contrary to Kant, feel- ings do matter. "ey can alert us to important moral issues and give us a deeper understanding of morality’s point and purpose. True, reason must hold the reins of our emotions, but there can be no denying that they have a legitimate place in the moral life.
DPODFQUVBMJ[JOH�UIFN�BT�DPOUSBDUVBM�XPVME�PGUFO�VOEFSNJOF�PS�BU�MFBTU�PCTDVSF�UIF�USVTU� PO�XIJDI�UIFJS�XPSUI�EFQFOET��5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�BEESFTTFT�SBUIFS�UIBO�OFHMFDUT�NPSBM� JTTVFT�BSJTJOH�JO�SFMBUJPOT�BNPOH�UIF�VOFRVBM�BOE�EFQFOEFOU �SFMBUJPOT�UIBU�BSF�PGUFO�MBEFO� XJUI�FNPUJPO�BOE�JOWPMVOUBSZ �BOE�UIFO�OPUJDFT�IPX�PGUFO�UIFTF�BUUSJCVUFT�BQQMZ�OPU�POMZ� JO�UIF�IPVTFIPME�CVU�JO�UIF�XJEFS�TPDJFUZ�BT�XFMM�������
"� öGUI� DIBSBDUFSJTUJD� PG� UIF� FUIJDT� PG� DBSF� JT� UIF� DPODFQUJPO� PG� QFSTPOT� XJUI� XIJDI� JU�CFHJOT��������5IF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�VTVBMMZ�XPSLT�XJUI�B�DPODFQUJPO�PG�QFSTPOT�BT�SFMBUJPOBM � SBUIFS�UIBO�BT�UIF�TFMG�TVóDJFOU�JOEFQFOEFOU�JOEJWJEVBMT�PG�UIF�EPNJOBOU�NPSBM�UIFPSJFT�12
7JSHJOJB�)FME� The Ethics of Care
“"e ethics of care confirms the priority that we naturally give to our family and friends, and so it seems a more plausible conception.”
—James Rachels
DETAILS
Ethics Terminology ethics (moral philosophy) "e study of morality using the methods of philosophy. (Chapter 11)
morality Beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character. (Chapter 11)
moral theory A theory that explains why an action is right or wrong or why a person or a person’s character is good or bad. (Chapter 11)
virtue A disposition to behave in line with a standard of excellence. (Chapter 5)
deontological (or nonconsequentialist) theory A moral theory in which the rightness of actions is determined not solely by their consequences but partly or entirely by their intrinsic nature. (Chapter 11)
consequentialist theory A moral theory in which the rightness of actions depends solely on their consequences or results. (Chapter 11)
utilitarianism "e consequentialist view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved. (Chapter 13)
'FNJOJTU�1FSTQFDUJWFT�PO�,OPXMFEHF� 381
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 381 05/09/17 06:05 PM
To these concessions many moral philosophers would add a cautionary note: the ethics of care is not the whole of morality, and to view it that way is a mistake. To decide on the right action, we often cannot avoid applying the concepts of justice and rights. Sometimes impartiality is the best (or only) policy, without which our moral decisions would be misguided, even tragic. And abstract principles or rules, though unwieldy in many cases, may be essential to reconciling conflicting obliga- tions or intuitions.
So should plausible moral theories try to accommodate both an ethic of obliga- tion and an ethic of care? Many theorists, including several writing from a feminist perspective, think so. Annette Baier, for example, says that
"OOFUUF�$��#BJFS��i5IF�/FFE�GPS�.PSF�5IBO�+VTUJDFw�
�������UIF�CFTU�NPSBM�UIFPSZ�IBT�UP�CF�B�DPPQFSBUJWF�QSPEVDU�PG�XPNFO�BOE�NFO �IBT�UP�IBSNP� OJ[F�KVTUJDF�BOE�DBSF��5IF�NPSBMJUZ�JU�UIFPSJ[FT�BCPVU�JT�BGUFS�BMM�GPS�BMM�QFSTPOT �GPS�NFO�BOE� GPS�XPNFO �BOE�XJMM�OFFE�UIFJS�DPNCJOFE�JOTJHIUT��"T�(JMMJHBO�TBJE �XIBU�XF�OFFE�OPX�JT�B� ANBSSJBHF��PG�UIF�PME�NBMF�BOE�UIF�OFXMZ�BSUJDVMBUFE�GFNBMF�JOTJHIUT�13
16.4 FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON KNOWLEDGE
Feminist epistemology focuses most of its attention on the “situated knower” and “situated knowledge”—that is, on how knowledge arises from the unique perspec- tives and practices of those involved in knowing. "e basic claim is that gender has skewed traditional epistemology toward the dominant male perspective and has thus adversely a!ected women and other disadvantaged groups. Feminist philosophers say the remedy is to develop theories of knowledge based on alternative conceptions of gender and power, banishing the ill e!ects of the traditional view in the process. According to Elizabeth Anderson:
“"e most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our ac- tions can give beauty and dignity to life.”
—Albert Einstein
&MJ[BCFUI�"OEFSTPO��i'FNJOJTU�&QJTUFNPMPHZ�BOE�1IJMPTPQIZ�PG�4DJFODFw�
7BSJPVT�QSBDUJUJPOFST�PG�GFNJOJTU�FQJTUFNPMPHZ�BOE�QIJMPTPQIZ�PG�TDJFODF�BSHVF�UIBU�EPN� JOBOU�LOPXMFEHF�QSBDUJDFT�EJTBEWBOUBHF�XPNFO�CZ� � �FYDMVEJOH�UIFN�GSPN�JORVJSZ � � � EFOZJOH�UIFN�FQJTUFNJD�BVUIPSJUZ � � �EFOJHSBUJOH�UIFJS�iGFNJOJOFw�DPHOJUJWF�TUZMFT�BOE� NPEFT�PG�LOPXMFEHF � � �QSPEVDJOH�UIFPSJFT�PG�XPNFO�UIBU�SFQSFTFOU�UIFN�BT�JOGFSJPS � EFWJBOU �PS�TJHOJöDBOU�POMZ�JO�UIF�XBZT�UIFZ�TFSWF�NBMF�JOUFSFTUT � � �QSPEVDJOH�UIFPSJFT� PG�TPDJBM�QIFOPNFOB�UIBU�SFOEFS�XPNFO�T�BDUJWJUJFT�BOE�JOUFSFTUT �PS�HFOEFSFE�QPXFS� SFMBUJPOT � JOWJTJCMF � BOE� � � QSPEVDJOH� LOPXMFEHF� TDJFODF� BOE� UFDIOPMPHZ � UIBU� JT� OPU� VTFGVM� GPS� QFPQMF� JO� TVCPSEJOBUF� QPTJUJPOT � PS� UIBU� SFJOGPSDFT� HFOEFS� BOE� PUIFS� TPDJBM� IJFSBSDIJFT�14
382 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 382 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Eve Browning Cole, another feminist philosopher, characterizes traditional epis- temology like this:
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF��Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
<5>IFSF�JT�XJEFTQSFBE�BHSFFNFOU�UIBU�UIF�EPNJOBOU�UIFPSJFT�PG�LOPXMFEHF�QSPWJEFE�CZ� UIF�8FTUFSO�QIJMPTPQIJDBM�USBEJUJPO�IBWF�GPDVTFE�PO�B�TQFDJöD� kind�PG�LOPXMFEHF�XIJDI� JT �BT�-PSSBJOF�$PEF�IBT�EFTDSJCFE�JU �iB�DPNNPEJUZ�PG�QSJWJMFHF�w�"TLJOH�TVDI�RVFTUJPOT�BT� i)PX�EP�*�LOPX�UIBU�UIFSF�JT�B�DBU�PO�UIF�NBU w�BTTVNFT�UIBU�BOZ�i*w�NJHIU�CF�TVCTUJUVUFE�GPS� BOZ�PUIFS �UIBU�DPOEJUJPOT�PG�LOPXJOH�BSF�IPNPHFOFPVT�BOE�DBO�CF�HFOFSBMMZ�TQFDJöFE��"MM� QPUFOUJBM�LOPXFST�IBWF�B�QSFTVNFE�FRVBM�BDDFTT�UP�UIF�WJFX�PG�UIF�DBU �BOE�UIF�FQJTUFNPMP� HJTU�T�KPC�JT�UP�FYQMBJO�XIBU�JT�HPJOH�PO�JO�UIFJS�WJFXJOH�BOE�XIFUIFS�JU�BNPVOUT�UP�LOPXM� FEHF�PS�TPNFUIJOH�FMTF��#VU�UIF�GBDU�PG�UIF�NBUUFS�JT�UIBU�JEFBM�WJFXJOH�DPOEJUJPOT�TJNQMZ�EP� OPU�PCUBJO�GPS�BMM�QPUFOUJBM�WJFXFST��JO�PVS�TPDJFUZ �LOPXMFEHF�DPOEJUJPOT�BSF�WBTUMZ�EJòFSFOU� GPS�NFNCFST�PG�HSPVQT�EJòFSFOUJBUFE�CZ�HFOEFS �SBDF �DMBTT �BHF �FDPOPNJD�TUBUVT �BOE�TP� GPSUI��"O�BHFE�XPNBO�XIP�DBOOPU�HFU�PVU�UP�TFF�IFS�TPDJBM�XPSLFS �PS�XIP�GFBST�HPJOH� EPXOUPXO�PO�UIF�CVT�BMPOF �XJMM�CF�JHOPSBOU�PG�JNQPSUBOU�CFOFöUT�UP�XIJDI�TIF�NBZ�CF� FOUJUMFE��JO�UIJT�TFOTF �TIF�XJMM�OPU�CF�JO�B�QPTJUJPO�UP�WJFX�UIBU�QBSUJDVMBS�DBU�PO�JUT�NBU��5SBEJ� UJPOBM�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT�IBWF�OPU�SFHBSEFE�TVDI�TJUVBUJPOT�BT�QSPCMFNBUJD�PS�JOUFSFTUJOH��UIFZ� IBWF�OPU�SFHBSEFE�UIFN�BU�BMM��:FU�TVSFMZ�UIFTF�BSF�TJUVBUJPOT�JO�XIJDI�UIF�TPDJBM�BOE�TJUV� BUJPOBM�di!erences�BNPOH�LOPXFST�BSF�DSVDJBM�GPS�EFUFSNJOJOH�UIF�LJOE�PG�LOPXJOH�UIBU�DBO� UBLF�QMBDF��&QJTUFNPMPHJFT�UIBU�EP�OPU�IBWF�SPPN�GPS�UIFTF�EJòFSFODFT�EPPN�UIFNTFMWFT�UP� JSSFMFWBODF�BU�CFTU �BOE�BU�XPSTU�UIFZ�QFSQFUVBUF�JOKVTUJDF�GPS �BT�XF�IBWF�BMSFBEZ�TUSFTTFE � LOPXMFEHF�is�QPXFS���
6.�8IBU�JT�$PMF�T�NBJO� QPJOU�JO�UIF�QSFDFEJOH� QBTTBHF �%P�ZPV�BHSFF� XJUI�IFS �
To develop alternatives to traditional theories of knowledge, feminist thinkers have explored three epistemological paths: feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and feminist postmodernism. Feminist empiricism is probably the least con- troversial. It doesn’t want to abolish established theories; instead it calls for a deeper, more rigorous application of empiricism, a theory with a long history. As Cole says:
0OF�XBZ�UP�SFBDU�UP�BMM�UIJT�JT�UIBU�QSFTDSJCFE�CZ�UIF�GFNJOJTU�FNQJSJDJTU �XIP�TVHHFTUT�UIBU� QIJMPTPQIZ�T�TIPSUDPNJOHT�XJUI�SFHBSE�UP�XIJUF�XPNFO �UP�XPNFO�BOE�NFO�PG�DPMPS �UP� MFTCJBOT �BOE�UP�BMM�UIF�OPOQSJWJMFHFE �DBO�CF�SFNFEJFE�CZ�B�NPSF�DBSFGVM�BEIFSFODF�UP�XIBU� JT�BGUFS�BMM�QIJMPTPQIZ�T�TUBUFE�NJTTJPO��UIF�QVSTVJU�PG�XJTEPN �UIF�TFBSDI�GPS�USVUI��8IBU�IBT� QSPEVDFE�UIF�MBNFOUBCMZ�øBXFE�IJTUPSZ�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ�IBT�CFFO�B�QBUUFSO�PG�GBJMVSFT�UP�MJWF� VQ�UP�UIF�CBTJD�TDFOBSJP�PG�FNQJSJDJTU�LOPXJOH��UIF�VOCJBTFE�PCTFSWBUJPO�PG�UIF�GBDF�PG�UIF� VOJWFSTF��1SFKVEJDF�BOE�CJBT�IBWF�CFFO�BMM�UPP�DMFBSMZ�QSFTFOU �DMPVEJOH�UIF�KVEHNFOU�PG�UIF� QIJMPTPQIFS�BOE�TLFXJOH�UIF�SFTVMUBOU�EFTDSJQUJPO�
5P�HJWF�KVTU�POF�GBNPVT�FYBNQMF��"SJTUPUMF �XIPTF�BMMFHJBODF�UP�DBSFGVM�FNQJSJDBM�PC� TFSWBUJPO�JT�TUBUFE�BOE�FWJODFE�FWFSZXIFSF�JO�IJT�XPSL �JT�JODPSSFDU�BCPVU�UIF�OVNCFS�PG� UFFUI�XPNFO�IBWF��)F�BTTFSUT�UIBU�UIF�BEVMU�NBO�IBT�UIJSUZ�UXP�UFFUI�CVU�UIF�BEVMU�XPNBO�
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF�� Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
'FNJOJTU�1FSTQFDUJWFT�PO�,OPXMFEHF� 383
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 383 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Feminist standpoint theory says that di!erent social groups have distinctive kinds of knowledge acquired through unique experiences and that some of these groups may enjoy epistemological advantages over others. In particular, the type of knowledge derived from women’s experiences may be just as good as or better than knowledge acquired by the dominant knowledge-producing group—that is, white, middle-class men of science. Cole explains:
POMZ�UXFOUZ�FJHIU��/PX �UIJT�DBOOPU�IBWF�CFFO�B�GVODUJPO�PG�UIF�EJóDVMUZ�PG�PCTFSWBUJPO � BT�XPNFO�XJUI�DPVOUBCMF�UFFUI�FYJTUFE�JO�QMFOUZ�UIFO�BT�OPX��3BUIFS �TDIPMBST�IBWF�IZ� QPUIFTJ[FE�UIBU�"SJTUPUMF�DPVOUFE�UIF�UFFUI�JO�UIF�NBMF�KBX�BOE �JO�UIF�HSJQ�PG�B�QPXFS� GVM�QSFKVEJDF �TVCUSBDUFE�GPVS�UP�BSSJWF�BU�UIF�OVNCFS�JO�B�XPNBO�T� TNBMMFS �KBX��"OPUIFS� QPTTJCJMJUZ�JT�UIBU�IF�PCTFSWFE�UIF�EFOUJUJPO�PG�B�XPNBO�XIP�IBE�OP�XJTEPN�UFFUI��*O� FJUIFS�DBTF �"SJTUPUMF�T�NJTUBLF�JT�B�SFTVMU�PG�GBJMJOH�UP�CF�B�good enough empiricist�SBUIFS�UIBO� TPNFUIJOH�FOEFNJD�UP�UIF�NFUIPE�PG�PCTFSWBUJPO�JUTFMG�
5IF�GFNJOJTU�FNQJSJDJTU�NBJOUBJOT�UIBU�QIJMPTPQIFST�BOE�TDJFOUJTUT�OFFE�UP�CF�UPME�UP� i-PPL�BHBJO�w�SBUIFS�UIBO�UP�öOE�B�XIPMMZ�OFX�XBZ�PG�MPPLJOH��5IF�QSPTQFDUT�GPS�B�CFUUFS� QIJMPTPQIJDBM�VOEFSTUBOEJOH�PG�IVNBO�FYJTUFODF�BOE�JUT�TVSSPVOEJOHT�XJMM�JNQSPWF�BT� MBSHFS� OVNCFST� PG� XPNFO� FOUFS� UIF� EPNBJOT� JO� XIJDI� iSFDFJWFE� LOPXMFEHFw� JT� QSP� DFTTFE��VOJWFSTJUJFT �MBCPSBUPSJFT �QVCMJTIJOH�IPVTFT �KPVSOBM�FEJUPSJBM�CPBSET �BOE�GVOE� JOH�BHFODJFT��5IFTF�XPNFO�XJMM�CF�QMBDFE�XFMM�UP�QPJOU�PVU�NJTUBLFT�JO�UIF�PCTFSWBUJPOT� PG�UIFJS�DPMMFBHVFT�BOE�UP�TFU�VQ�SFTFBSDI�BHFOEBT�UIBU�QSPNJTF�UP�BWPJE�UIF�NJTUBLFT�PG� UIF�QBTU�16
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that di!erentiate me from a doormat.”
—Rebecca West
8F�OPUFE�������UIBU�QIJMPTPQIZ�T�IJTUPSZ�IBT�JTTVFE�QSFEPNJOBOUMZ�GSPN�UIF�NJOET�PG�QSJWJ� MFHFE�XIJUF�NBMFT��*U�XBT�TVHHFTUFE�UIBU�UIFJS�QPTJUJPO �UIFJS�TUBOEQPJOU �IBT�IBE�B�EFDJTJWF� JOøVFODF�PO�UIF�TIBQF�IJTUPSZ�IBT�UBLFO��5IPVHI�NBOZ�QIJMPTPQIFST�IBWF�QSFTVNFE�UP� TQFBL�GPS�BMM�iNBOLJOE w�GPS�i3FBTPO�JUTFMG w�PS�FWFO�GPS�i"CTPMVUF�4QJSJU w�BOE�UP�CF�EJTDVTTJOH� UIF�HFOFSBM�i/BUVSF�PG�.JOE w�iDPOEJUJPOT�GPS�LOPXMFEHF w�BOE�iUIF�IVNBO�HPPE w�GFNJOJTU� DSJUJDT�IBWF�TIPXO�BOE�DPOUJOVF�UP�TIPX�UIF�MJNJUBUJPOT�PG�TVDI�TQVSJPVTMZ�VOJWFSTBM�EJT� DPVSTF �BOE�UP�QPJOU�PVU�MBSHF�QPSUJPOT�PG�IVNBO�FYQFSJFODF�BT�ZFU�VOESFBNU�PG�JO�UIFJS� QIJMPTPQIZ�
5IJT� TQFDJöDJUZ�PG�UIF� USBEJUJPOBM� TUBOEQPJOU� IBT�MFE�TPNF� GFNJOJTU� QIJMPTPQIFST�UP� FYQMPSF�UIF�QPUFOUJBM�PG�CBTJOH�BO�FQJTUFNPMPHZ�JO�B�GFNJOJTU� TPNFUJNFT�JO�B�XPNFO�T � TUBOEQPJOU�� 5IF� CBTJD� BTTVNQUJPO � PSJHJOBUJOH� JO� B� )FHFMJBO� PS� .BSYJBO� WJFX� UIBU� UIF� IVNBO�TFMG�JT�FTTFOUJBMMZ�TIBQFE�CZ�JUT�NBUFSJBM�BDUJWJUJFT�BOE�TJUVBUJPO �JT�UIBU�XPNFO�T�MJWFT� IBWF�EJòFSFE�GSPN�NFO�T�MJWFT�JO�XBZT�UIBU�XPVME�DPOTUSVDU�DMFBS�EJòFSFODFT�JO�UIFJS�SF� TQFDUJWF�XPSME�WJFXT�BOE�TFMG�DPODFQUT��4JODF�UIF�NBLJOH�BOE�USBOTNJUUJOH�PG�LOPXMFEHF� BSF�DSVDJBMMZ�JNQPSUBOU�IVNBO�BDUJWJUJFT �XPNFO�T�iXBZT�PG�LOPXJOHw�NBZ�CF�FYQFDUFE� UP�CF�OP�MFTT�SFBM�UIBO�NFO�T �CVU�UIFZ�BSF�BMTP�RVJUF�MJLFMZ�UP�CF�WFSZ�EJòFSFOU�GSPN�XIBU� USBEJUJPOBM�FQJTUFNPMPHZ�IBT�TVQQMJFE�GSPN�UIF�XIJUF�NFO�T�TUBOEQPJOU�
'FNJOJTU�TUBOEQPJOU�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT�TFFL�UP�VODPWFS�BOE�EFTDSJCF�XPNFO�T�LOPXMFEHF� NBLJOH�BDUJWJUJFT�BT�UIFTF�IBWF�PSJHJOBUFE�JO�BOE�CFFO�TIBQFE�CZ�XPNFO�T�EBJMZ�XPSL�BOE� XPNFO�T�WBMVFT�������
/PX �TUBOEQPJOU�UIFPSJTUT�JO�GFNJOJTU�FQJTUFNPMPHZ�MPPL�BU�IPX�UIFTF�EJòFSFOU�XPSL� TJUVBUJPOT� XPNFO�T�EVBM�TQIFSF�XPSL�SFTQPOTJCJMJUJFT �NFO�T�TJOHMF�TQIFSF�XPSL�SFTQPO� TJCJMJUJFT � TIBQF� QFSTPOBMJUZ� BOE� DIBSBDUFS� BMPOH� HFOEFS�TQFDJöD� MJOFT�� 8PNFO � UP� CF�
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF�� Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
384 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 384 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Critics, however, have argued that standpoint theory undermines itself. "e theory says that the feminist perspective is privileged (for example, better than tradi- tional theories) and that every perspective is both limited and validated by a group’s experiences. But there are many di!erent groups and perspectives—how then can the feminist view be better or less limited than any other?
In philosophy, postmodernism is a distrust or rejection of some of the most in- fluential epistemological ideas of modernity: objective or scientific truth, objective reality or fact, universal propositions, foundational knowledge, ultimate justifica- tion, and traditional conceptions of rationality. Feminist postmodernism is simi- larly skeptical of these notions and sets about systematically “deconstructing” them (critically analyzing and debunking them). Feminist postmodernists refuse to accept a basic tenet of feminist standpoint theory: that there can be a single privileged perspective from which to acquire knowledge. Instead they insist on the existence of countless perspectives, a plurality of viewpoints, with none able to claim any epis- temological advantage over the others. None can be called objectively true, because there is no perspective-neutral standard by which to judge objective truth. Cole characterizes feminist postmodernism like this:
QSPöDJFOU�XPSLFST�JO�CPUI�UIFJS�EPNBJOT �NVTU�CFDPNF�DPOWFSTBOU�XJUI�UXP�EJòFSFOU�TFUT� PG�CFIBWJPS�QSFTDSJQUJPOT��UIPTF�BQQSPQSJBUF�UP�UIF�EPNFTUJD �QFSTPOBM�TJUVBUJPOT�JO�XIJDI� UIFZ�BSF�DBSFHJWFST�BOE�NBJOUBJOFST�PG�MJGF �BOE�UIPTF�BQQSPQSJBUF�UP�UIF�NPSF�QVCMJD�BOE� NBMF�EPNJOBUFE�MPDBUJPOT�JO�XIJDI�UIFZ�BMTP�MBCPS��#FIBWJPSBMMZ �UIFO �BOE�FQJTUFNJDBMMZ � UIFZ�NVTU�CF�BCMF�UP�TQFBL�UXP�MBOHVBHFT �BWBJM�UIFNTFMWFT�PG�UXP�EJòFSFOU�SFQFSUPJSFT�PG� SVMFT�EJDUBUJOH�BQQSPQSJBUF�BDUJWJUZ�������
5IJT�CSJOHT�PVU�BO�JNQPSUBOU�QPJOU�DPODFSOJOH�TUBOEQPJOU�UIFPSJFT��5IPTF�XIP�BEWP� DBUF�UIF�DPOTUSVDUJPO�PG�B�GFNJOJTU�TUBOEQPJOU�FQJTUFNPMPHZ�EP�OPU�NFSFMZ�NBJOUBJO�UIBU� iBEEJOH�JOw�UIJT�TUBOEQPJOU �EFSJWFE�GSPN�XPNFO�T�FYQFSJFODFT�BOE�QSBDUJDFT�USBEJUJPOBMMZ� FYDMVEFE�GSPN�QIJMPTPQIZ�T�QVSWJFX �XJMM�QSPEVDF�CFUUFS�QIJMPTPQIZ �TDJFODF �QPMJUJDT �FUD��� UIFZ�HP�GVSUIFS�BOE�BSHVF�UIBU�UIF�GFNJOJTU�TUBOEQPJOU�IBT�DFSUBJO�JOIFSFOU�FQJTUFNJD�BE� WBOUBHFT�PWFS�BOESPDFOUSJD�<NBMF�DFOUFSFE>�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT�XIJDI�NBLF�JU�B�CFUUFS�QMBDF� UP�TUBOE �TP�UP�TQFBL �XIFO�FOHBHFE�JO�UIF�NBLJOH�PG�LOPXMFEHF����
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF�� Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
'FNJOJTU�QPTUNPEFSO�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT�BSF�UIVT�FTTFOUJBMMZ�DSJUJDBM��0OMZ�UISPVHI�B�UIPSPVHI� HPJOH�EFDPOTUSVDUJPO�PG�iPVS�JOUFMMFDUVBM�IFSJUBHFw� FWFSZ�XPSE�PG�XIJDI�QISBTF�TIPVME�CF� RVFTUJPOFE �BO�BCKVSJOH�PG�QSJWJMFHFE�TUBOEQPJOUT�BOE�DMBJNT�UP�PCKFDUJWF�USVUI �BOE�B�SF� MFOUMFTT�DSJUJRVF�PG�UIF�SFMBUJPO�CFUXFFO�LOPXMFEHF�NBLJOH�BOE�QPXFS�HVBSEJOH�DBO�B�MJC� FSBUPSZ�GFNJOJTU�UIJOLJOH�BOE�QSBDUJDF�QSPDFFE�
*O�UIF�BCTFODF�PG�PCKFDUJWF�USVUI �FQJTUFNJDBMMZ�QSJWJMFHFE�TUBOEQPJOUT �NFUIPEPMP� HJFT�MFHJUJNBUFE�CZ�FYQFSUT �BOE�BMM�UIF�PUIFS�BQQBSBUVT�PG�USBEJUJPOBM�LOPXMFEHF�TFFL� JOH �XIBU�XJMM�NBLF�BOZ�LOPXMFEHF�DMBJN�NPSF�SFMJBCMF�UIBO�BOZ�PUIFS �*T�UIJT�FQJTUFNJD� BOBSDIJTN � B� TJUVBUJPO� JO� XIJDI� BMM� DMBJNT � OP� NBUUFS� IPX� CJ[BSSF� PS� DPOUSBEJDUPSZ � BSF� FRVBMMZ�WBMJE �1PTUNPEFSO�GFNJOJTU�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT�NBJOUBJO�UIBU�LOPXMFEHF�DMBJNT�XJMM� öOE�BMM�UIF�MFHJUJNBUJPO�UIFZ�OFFE�JO�iMPDBMJ[FE�QSBDUJDFT w�JO�UIF�BQQMJDBUJPO�UIFZ�öOE�JO� DPOUFYUT�TPDJBMMZ�BOE�IJTUPSJDBMMZ�TQFDJöD �GPS�XIJDI�UIFZ�XFSF�EFTJHOFE��5IVT�XIBU�XJMM�
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF�� Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
“And seeing ignorance is the curse of God, Knowl- edge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.”
—William Shakespeare
7.�8IJDI�WJFX�TUSJLFT�ZPV� BT�NPSF�QMBVTJCMF�GFNJ� OJTU�FNQJSJDJTN�PS�GFNJOJTU� TUBOEQPJOU�UIFPSZ � &YQMBJO��
'FNJOJTU�1FSTQFDUJWFT�PO�,OPXMFEHF� 385
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 385 05/09/17 06:05 PM
Cole also notes the criticisms that have been lodged against the theory by femi- nists themselves:
FNFSHF�JT�B�LJOE�PG� epistemic pluralism,�TJNJMBS�UP�UIBU�TFFO�JO�<MFTCJBO�FQJTUFNPMPHJFT>�� UIF�LOPXMFEHF�*�OFFE�XJMM�CF�NBEF�CZ�NF �BOE�UIPTF�JNNFEJBUFMZ�TVSSPVOEJOH�NF �JO� UIF�XPSL�XF�EP��JU�XJMM�CF�DJSDVMBUFE�UP�UIF�FYUFOU�UIBU�PUIFST��QSBDUJDFT�FODPVSBHF�TVDI� JOUFSBDUJPO �BOE�XJMM�HSPX�PS�DIBOHF�JO�UIJT�JOUFSBDUJWF�QSPDFTT��8IBU�*�NVTU�OPU�EP�JT�EJD� UBUF�JO�BEWBODF�UIF�TIBQF�UIJT�LOPXMFEHF�NVTU�UBLF� SBUJPOBM �FNQJSJDBM �KVTUJöBCMF�VOEFS� DPVOUFSGBDUVBM�UFTU �FUD� �PS�JNQPTF�UIJT�LOPXMFEHF�PO�BOZPOF�FMTF�JO�TPNF�LJOE�PG�JOUFM� MFDUVBM�JNQFSJBMJTU�GSFO[Z���
4PNF� GFNJOJTU� QIJMPTPQIFST� FYQSFTT� TFSJPVT� DPODFSOT� BCPVU� QPTUNPEFSOJTN� BT� B� WJBCMF� CBTJT� GPS� FQJTUFNPMPHZ� PS� GPS� GFNJOJTU� QPMJUJDT� JO� HFOFSBM�� *G� B� SBEJDBM� EFDPOTUSVDUJPO� PG� HFOEFS�DBUFHPSJFT�JT�DBSSJFE�PVU �XIFSF�JT�UIF�CBTJT�GPS�UIF�DMBJN�UIBU�XPNFO�BT�TVDI�IBWF� BOZUIJOH�JO�DPNNPO �*G�HFOEFS�JEFOUJUZ�JT�SFWFBMFE�UP�CF�BO�FOUJSFMZ�TPDJBM�DPOTUSVDU �B�NZUI� UPME�UP�TFSWF�UIF�JOUFSFTUT�PG�UIF�MPSET�PG�DVMUVSF �XIFSF�JT�UIF�CBTJT�GPS�GFNJOJTU�UIJOLJOH �4JT� UFSIPPE�JT�not�QPXFSGVM�JG�JU�JT�NFSFMZ�B�CBE�ESFBN�DBVTFE�CZ�TPNF�GPVM�DPHOJUJWF�TVCTUBODF� XF�JOHFTUFE�MBTU�NJMMFOOJVN�
4BOESB� )BSEJOH� IBT� FYQSFTTFE� DPODFSO� UIBU� UIF� XJMMJOHOFTT� UP� SFTJHO� PCKFDUJWJUZ� BOE�JOEJWJEVBM�BVUPOPNZ�UP�UIF�EVTUCJO�PG�PVUNPEFE�PCTFTTJPOT�JT�QFSIBQT�B�MVYVSZ� NBOZ� GFNJOJTUT� XPVME� OPU� BòPSE�� 8FTUFSO� BDBEFNJD� XPNFO� IBWF� iIBE� BDDFTT� UP� UIF� CFOFöUT� PG� UIF� &OMJHIUFONFOUw� BOE� UIVT� NJHIU� HJWF� UIFN� VQ� NPSF� FBTJMZ� UIBO� PUIFS� XPNFO �FTQFDJBMMZ�UIJSE�XPSME�XPNFO �XIP�IBWF�ZFU�UP�BDIJFWF�UIF�QPMJUJDBM�BVUPOPNZ � TVòSBHF�BOE�MFHBM�SJHIUT �BOE�EFHSFF�PG�BDDFTT�UP�UIF�CFOFöUT�PG�TDJFODF�UIFJS�8FTUFSO� TJTUFST�FOKPZ��5IVT�JU�JT�BMM�UPP�FBTZ�GPS�8FTUFSO�GFNJOJTUT�UP�DSJUJDJ[F�UIF�QIJMPTPQIJDBM� GPVOEBUJPOT�PO�XIJDI�MJCFSBMJTN�BOE�NPEFSO�TDJFODF�SFTU��TVDI�DSJUJDBM�MBUJUVEF�JT�CPSO� PG�QSJWJMFHF�
5IFSF� BSF� BMTP� HPPE� SFBTPOT� GPS� DBVUJPO� BCPVU� UIF� SFMJORVJTIJOH� PG� UIF� DPODFQU� PG� PCKFDUJWJUZ�BT�VOEFSTUPPE�CZ�8FTUFSO�TDJFODF��.BOZ�PG�UIF�NPTU�TJHOJöDBOU�BEWBODFT�JO� XPNFO�T�QPMJUJDBM�IJTUPSZ�IBWF�CFFO�BDIJFWFE�UISPVHI�TVDDFTTGVMMZ�QVUUJOH�BDSPTT�UIF�BS� HVNFOU�UIBU�CBSSJFST�UP�XPNFO�T�GSFFEPN�BSF�CBTFE�POMZ�PO�QSFKVEJDF �B�NJTUBLFO�BOE� TVCKFDUJWF�BUUJUVEF��"QQFBMT�UP�GBJSOFTT �KVTUJDF �BOE�EJTQBTTJPOBUF�PCKFDUJWJUZ�IBWF�CFFO� QPXFSGVM�FMFNFOUT�JO�UIJT�BSHVNFOU��.PTU�PG�VT�CFMJFWF�UIBU�TFYJTN �SBDJTN �IFUFSPTFYJTN � BOE�PUIFS�QFSOJDJPVT�BUUJUVEFT�BSF�OPU�PCKFDUJWFMZ�EFGFOTJCMF �BSF�CBTFE�JO�QBSU�PO�GBMTF� CFMJFGT�BOE�CBE�GBJUI�PS�NPSBM�JODPOTJTUFODZ��*G�XF�OP�MPOHFS�IBWF�B�TUBOEQPJOU�GSPN�XIJDI� UP�NBLF�UIFTF�DMBJNT �XJUI�XIBU�KVTUJöDBUJPO�DBO�XF�DPOUJOVF�UP�EFDSZ�UIF�BUUJUVEFT �8F� PVHIU�SBUIFS�UP�TFFL�UP�SFDPODFJWF�UIF�OPUJPOT�PG�PCKFDUJWJUZ �KVTUJDF �BOE�USVUI�UIBO�UP�EJT� DBSE�UIFN�BOE�MFBWF�PVSTFMWFT�SIFUPSJDBMMZ�IFMQMFTT���
&WF�#SPXOJOH�$PMF�� Philosophy and Feminist Criticism
8.�%P�ZPV�UIJOL�GFNJOJTU� QPTUNPEFSOJTN�VOEFS� NJOFT�JUTFMG�JO�UIF�XBZT� UIBU�$PMF�TVHHFTUT �
386 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 386 05/09/17 06:05 PM
WRITING AND REASONING CHAPTER 16
1. What kind of education for women did the men of Mary Wollstone- craft’s day prefer? According to her, what were the results of such an education? Do you agree with her analysis? Explain.
2. Do you think women should be granted the same rights, privileges, and opportunities that men have—or do you believe women should be treated di!erently and provided with opportunities that are more fitting to their gender? Justify your answer.
3. Do you agree with Beauvoir that woman has been defined by a male- skewed society as the Other and that this has had a damaging e!ect on women? Why or why not?
4. What features of the ethics of care do you find plausible? Are there any important elements missing? If so, what elements?
5. Do you think there are innate di!erences between men and women in the ways they think about morality or moral issues? Are there culturally engrained di!erences in moral thinking?
3&7*&8�/05&4
16.1 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT t� .BSZ�8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�XBT�BO�FBSMZ�GFNJOJTU�BOE�TPDJBM�DSJUJD�XIP�XSPUF�BCPVU�XPN-
en’s rights and rejected the common assumption that “women exist for the sake of men.”
t� *O�A Vindication of the Rights of Women she envisions a society of equals freed from the tyranny of unreason and spurious authority. Such a society requires the full development of the moral and rational faculties of both men and women. For too long, she says, women have had their powers of reason obstructed by men who be- lieve that reason is the domain of males and who define women in ways that serve men.
t� 8PMMTUPOFDSBGU�BSHVFT�UIBU�IVNBOJUZ�T�USVF�IBQQJOFTT�BOE�VMUJNBUF�QFSGFDUJPO�MJF� in the development of reason, virtue, and knowledge. In women, however, these human capacities have been deliberately stunted.
16.2 SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR t� .BOZ�PG�UIF�DIBOHFT�JO�NPEFSO�TPDJFUZ�T�BUUJUVEFT�UPXBSE�XPNFO�DBO�CF�USBDFE�
back to the French philosopher, novelist, and feminist Simone de Beauvoir. t� 4IF�XSPUF�FTTBZT �QIJMPTPQIJDBM�XPSLT �OPWFMT �BOE�CJPHSBQIZ �BOE�CFDBNF�GBNPVT�
with the publication of !e Second Sex, her influential study of the inequality and injustice that defines the female condition.
3FWJFX�/PUFT� 387
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 387 05/09/17 06:05 PM
t� 4IF�BTTFSUT�UIBU�iPOF�JT�OPU�CPSO �CVU�SBUIFS�CFDPNFT �B�XPNBOw�BOE�UIBU�UIJT�TP- cially determined becoming is shaped by male expectations and prerogative. "us woman has been defined by a male-skewed society as the Other. "roughout his- tory the male has been thought of as the epitome of a human, as the embodiment of humanity—the One. Woman, however, has been cast as the Other, a creature defined in relation to man.
t� #FBVWPJS�TBZT�UIBU�FSBEJDBUJOH�UIF�PQQSFTTJPO�PG�XPNFO�SFRVJSFT�SFBM�GSFFEPN�BOE� true equality of both men and women—equality in education, working conditions and salaries, sexuality, marriage, motherhood, the care of children, and more.
16.3 FEMINIST ETHICS t� 'FNJOJTU�FUIJDT�JT�BO�BQQSPBDI�UP�NPSBMJUZ�BJNFE�BU�BEWBODJOH�XPNFO�T�JOUFSFTUT �
underscoring their distinctive experiences and characteristics, and advancing the obvious truth that women and men are morally equal. It is defined by a distinctive focus on these issues, rather than by a set of doctrines or common ideology among feminists.
t� 'FNJOJTU�FUIJDT�HFOFSBMMZ�EPXOQMBZT�UIF�SPMF�PG�NPSBM�QSJODJQMFT�BOE�USBEJUJPOBM� ethical concepts, insisting instead that moral reflection must take into account social realities—the relevant social practices, relationships, institutions, and power arrangements.
t� ɨF�FUIJDT�PG�DBSF�JT�B�NPSBM�QFSTQFDUJWF�UIBU�BSPTF�PVU�PG�GFNJOJTU�DPODFSOT�BOE� grew to challenge core elements of most other moral theories. "is approach shifts the focus from abstract principles and rules to the unique demands of specific situations and to the virtues and feelings that are central to close personal relation- ships. "e heart of the moral life is feeling for and caring for those with whom you have a special, intimate connection.
16.4 FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON KNOWLEDGE t� 'FNJOJTU�QIJMPTPQIZ�JT�BO�BUUFNQU�UP�BEESFTT�UIF�EJTQBSBHFNFOU�PS�TVCPSEJOBUJPO�
of women in philosophy and related fields, and feminist epistemology tries to do the same in theories of knowledge.
t� "DDPSEJOH� UP� &WF� #SPXOJOH� $PMF � GFNJOJTUT� CFMJFWF� UIBU� EPNJOBOU� LOPXMFEHF� practices disadvantage women by (1) excluding them from inquiry, (2) denying them epistemic authority, (3) denigrating their “feminine” cognitive styles, (4) producing theories of women that represent them as inferior, deviant, or signifi- cant only in the ways they serve male interests, (5) producing theories of social phenomena that render women’s activities and interests invisible, and (6) produc- ing knowledge (science and technology) that is not useful for people in subordi- nate positions or that reinforces gender and other social hierarchies.
t� 'FNJOJTU�FNQJSJDJTN�DBMMT�GPS�B�EFFQFS �NPSF�SJHPSPVT�BQQMJDBUJPO�PG�FNQJSJDJTN�� Feminist standpoint theory says that di!erent social groups have distinctive kinds of knowledge acquired through unique experiences and that some of these groups may enjoy epistemological advantages over others. Feminist postmodernism is
388 CHAPTER 16 'FNJOJTU�1IJMPTPQIFST
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 388 05/09/17 06:05 PM
skeptical of such notions as objective or scientific truth, objective reality or fact, universal propositions, foundational knowledge, ultimate justification, and tradi- tional conceptions of rationality. Feminist postmodernists are devoted to decon- structing these ideas.
t� 4PNF� GFNJOJTUT� XPSSZ� UIBU� B� EFDPOTUSVDUJPO� PG� USBEJUJPOBM� BTTVNQUJPOT� BCPVU� knowledge and truth could undermine feminist philosophy itself and take away an important tool for dismantling barriers to women’s freedom.
,&:�5&3.4 FUIJDT�PG�DBSF GFNJOJTU�FUIJDT
/PUFT 1. Alison Ainley, “Feminist Philosophy,” !e Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed.
Ted Honderich (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 273. 2. Louise M. Antony, “Embodiment and Epistemology,” !e Oxford Handbook of
Epistemology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 465. 3. Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, ed. Deidre Shauna
Lynch (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009), 8–9. 4. Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 21–24, 37, 49. 5. Judith "urman, Introduction to !e Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir
(New York: Vintage Books, 2011), ix. 6. Simone de Beauvoir, !e Second Sex (New York: Vintage Books, 2011), 4–6,
9–11. 7. Beauvoir, !e Second Sex, 760–761, 763. 8. Alison Jaggar, “Feminist Ethics,” in Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Lawrence Becker
and Charlotte Becker (New York: Garland, 1992), 364. 9. Jan Crosthwaite, “Gender and Bioethics,” in A Companion to Bioethics, eds.
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), 32–40. 10. Crosthwaite, “Gender and Bioethics,” 37. 11. Carol Gilligan, In a Di"erent Voice: Psychological !eory and Women’s Develop-
ment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). 12. Virginia Held, !e Ethics of Care (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006),
10–13. 13. Annette C. Baier, “"e Need for More "an Justice,” Canadian Journal of Phi-
losophy, suppl. vol. 13 (1988): 56. 14. Elizabeth Anderson, “Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science,” !e
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
15. Eve Browning Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism: An Introduction (New York: Paragon House, 1993), 83–84.
16. Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism, 84–85. 17. Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism, 88–90. 18. Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism, 94–95. 19. Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism, 95–96.
'PS�'VSUIFS�3FBEJOH� 389
vau28703_ch16_365-389.indd 389 05/09/17 06:05 PM
'PS�'VSUIFS�3FBEJOH G. E. M. Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Philosophy 33, no. 124 (January 1958).
Simone de Beauvoir, !e Second Sex (New York: Bantam, 1961).
Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Eve Browning Cole, Philosophy and Feminist Criticism: An Introduction (New York: Paragon House, 1993).
Philippa Foot, “Virtues and Vices,” in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).
Virginia Held, ed., Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics (Oxford: Westview Press, 1995).
Rosalind Hursthouse, “Virtue Ethics,” !e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003), Edward N. Zalta, ed., http:plato.stanford/archives/fa112003/entries/ ethics-virtue/.
Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Onora O’Neill, “Kantian Ethics,” in A Companion to Ethics, ed. Peter Singer (Cam- bridge: Blackwell, 1993), 175–185.
Russ Shafer-Landau, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2004).
Margaret A. Simons, ed., Simone de Beauvoir: Philosophical Writings (Chicago: Uni- versity of Illinois, 2004).
Claire Tomalin, !e Life and Death of Mary Wollstonecraft (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1974).
Lewis Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009).
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 390 05/09/17 06:06 PM
17.1 WIT TGENSTEIN t�%FöOF�picture theory of meaning�BOE�language-game. t�6OEFSTUBOE�XIZ�8JUUHFOTUFJO�UIJOLT�UIBU�BMM�UIF�NBKPS�QSPCMFNT�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ� DBO�CF�TPMWFE�JO�POF�JOTJHIUGVM�TUSPLF�
t�,OPX�XIZ�IF�TBZT�UIBU�iXIBU�DBO�CF�TBJE�BU�BMM�DBO�CF�TBJE�DMFBSMZ �BOE�XIBU� XF�DBOOPU�UBML�BCPVU�XF�NVTU�QBTT�PWFS�JO�TJMFODF�w
t�&YQMBJO�XIBU�IF�NFBOT�CZ�UIF�iDPSSFDU�NFUIPE�JO�QIJMPTPQIZ�w t�&YQMBJO�IJT�QJDUVSF�UIFPSZ�PG�NFBOJOH� t�4VNNBSJ[F�IJT�WJFX�PG�IPX�MBOHVBHF�HFUT�JUT�NFBOJOH�
����� %&33*%"�"/%�$*9064 t�%FöOF�%FSSJEB�T�OPUJPO�PG�logocentrism. t�&YQMBJO�IJT�DPODFQU�PG�EFDPOTUSVDUJPO�BOE�XIBU�EFDPOTUSVDUJOH�UFYUT�JT�NFBOU� UP�EJTDMPTF�
t�6OEFSTUBOE�UIF�QSPDFTT�PG�EJTNBOUMJOH�iCJOBSZ�PQQPTJUJPOT�w t�,OPX�XIBU�$JYPVT�NFBOT�CZ�iGFNJOJOF�XSJUJOHw�BOE�XIZ�TIF�UIJOLT�JU�T� JNQPSUBOU�
����� 3"8-4 t�%FöOF�social contract theory, liberalism, libertarianism,�BOE�welfare liberalism. t�4VNNBSJ[F�BOE�DSJUJDBMMZ�FWBMVBUF�3BXMT�T�UIFPSZ�PG�KVTUJDF� t�&YQMBJO�IPX�IF�VTFT�UIF�iVTFGVM�öDUJPOw�PG�B�TPDJBM�DPOUSBDU�UP�EFWFMPQ�IJT� UIFPSZ�
t�$POUSBTU�UIF�DFOUSBM�JEFB�PG�3BXMT�T�UIFPSZ�XJUI�UIBU�PG�MJCFSUBSJBOJTN� t�6OEFSTUBOE�UIF�JNQMJDBUJPOT�UIBU�3BXMT�T�UIFPSZ�IBT�GPS�UIF�BMMPDBUJPO�PG� IFBMUI�DBSF�
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
!e Contemporary Period
CHAPTER 17
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 391 05/09/17 06:06 PM
5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE� 391
If you have read most of this book from the beginning, then you know that philoso- phy has come a long way in its 2,500-year history. You may also have guessed that philosophy has come a long way recently—in the last one hundred years or so. In this span some major theories have arisen, and some have fallen. !e big, di"cult ques- tions (God, mind, freedom, morality, knowledge, etc.) have endured, although phi- losophers have refined them, weeded out some of the weakest answers, and o#ered better analyses of the problems. Philosophy has also expanded its scope, diversifying its subject areas and becoming more specialized in all its branches.
We cannot hope to cover all this ground in one book or even a thousand books. But we can survey a small, diverse sample of philosophers who have recently added their voices to this vexing, inspiring, unsettling, enlightening chorus known as philosophy.
����� "11*") t�%FöOF�cosmopolitanism�BOE�cultural relativism. t�6OEFSTUBOE�XIZ�"QQJBI�UIJOLT�DPTNPQPMJUBOJTN�NBZ�IFMQ�BOTXFS�UIF�TPDJBM� BOE�FUIJDBM�RVFTUJPOT�UIBU�BSJTF�GSPN�UIF�EJòFSFODFT�BNPOH�DVMUVSFT�
t�4UBUF�BOE�FWBMVBUF�"QQJBI�T�WJFXT�PO�DVMUVSBM�SFMBUJWJTN� t�&YQMBJO�XIZ�"QQJBI�JOTJTUT�UIBU�XF�TIPVMEO�U�FYQFDU�FWFSZPOF�UP�CFDPNF� DPTNPQPMJUBO�
����� /644#"6. t�6OEFSTUBOE�/VTTCBVN�T�QSJODJQMF�PG�FRVBM�NPSBM�SFTQFDU�GPS�BMM�JOEJWJEVBMT � BOE�JMMVTUSBUF�IPX�TIF�BQQMJFT�JU�UP�UIF�QSPCMFN�PG�SFMJHJPVT�JOUPMFSBODF�
t�(JWF�FYBNQMFT�PG�SFMJHJPVT�QSFKVEJDF�BOE�GFBS�UIBU�IBWF�BSJTFO�JO�UIF�6OJUFE� 4UBUFT�
t�4VNNBSJ[F�UIF�UISFF�JOHSFEJFOUT�UIBU�/VTTCBVN�CFMJFWFT�TIPVME�CF�QBSU�PG� PVS�BQQSPBDI�UP�SFMJHJPVT�UPMFSBODF�BOE�JOUPMFSBODF�
����� ."35*/�-65)&3�,*/( �+3� t�(JWF�BO�PWFSWJFX�PG�UIF�TFHSFHBUJPOJTU�4PVUI�JO�UIF�����T �BOE�EFUBJM�TPNF�PG� JUT�DJWJM�SJHIUT�BCVTFT�
t�5FMM�UIF�TUPSZ�PG�3PTB�1BSLT�T�DPVSBHFPVT�TUBOE�BHBJOTU�SBDJBM�TFHSFHBUJPO�BOE� EJTDSJNJOBUJPO�
t�3FWJFX�,JOH�T�QIJMPTPQIZ�PG�OPOWJPMFOU�QSPUFTU �FYQMBJOJOH�JUT�LFZ�GFBUVSFT�
392 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 392 05/09/17 06:06 PM
17.1 WITTGENSTEIN
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) may be the most interest- ing, gifted, and influential philosopher of the last one hundred years. So say many contemporary thinkers. Whether that’s true or not, both his defenders and critics must admit that his ideas dra- matically altered the direction of philosophical inquiry. His work has been called cryptic, di"cult, beautiful, and groundbreaking. But no one doubts that it is a product of genius.
Wittgenstein’s career is usually partitioned into his early and late periods. !e former ends in 1929 and is distinguished by the publication of his first masterpiece—Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus. !e latter begins where the former leaves o# and ends at his death; this period yields his other masterwork, Philosophical Investigations. Both these books center on a philo- sophical analysis of language and on what light such an exami- nation may shed on logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and the entire philosophical enterprise.
We have seen that the history of philosophy is a story of bril- liant men and women who try to solve philosophical problems,
the intellectual (but very real) puzzles concerning knowledge, free will, God, truth, morality, existence, and mind. In his early period, Wittgenstein takes up this same challenge, but unlike almost all other philosophers, he thinks all these problems can be solved in one stroke, and he sets out in the Tractatus to show how it’s done.
He believes that the true aim of philosophy is not to wrestle with the tradi- tional puzzles or to build extravagant systems of thought but to come to a proper understanding of the nature of language. For him, the problems of philosophy arise precisely because we are confused about the logical structure of language. Once we have a correct understanding of how language functions, the problems will dissolve. At the outset of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein explains his purpose:
Figure 17.1 -VEXJH�8JUUHFOTUFJO� ����o���� �PO� B������"VTUSJBO�QPTUBHF�TUBNQ�
“[!e proper task of philosophy is] to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give meaning to certain signs in his propositions.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein
-VEXJH�8JUUHFOTUFJO��Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
5IF�CPPL�EFBMT�XJUI�UIF�QSPCMFNT�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ �BOE�TIPXT �*�CFMJFWF �UIBU�UIF�SFBTPO�XIZ� UIFTF�QSPCMFNT�BSF�QPTFE�JT�UIBU�UIF�MPHJD�PG�PVS�MBOHVBHF�JT�NJTVOEFSTUPPE��5IF�XIPMF� TFOTF�PG�UIF�CPPL�NJHIU�CF�TVNNFE�VQ�JO�UIF�GPMMPXJOH�XPSET��XIBU�DBO�CF�TBJE�BU�BMM�DBO� CF�TBJE�DMFBSMZ �BOE�XIBU�XF�DBOOPU�UBML�BCPVU�XF�NVTU�QBTT�PWFS�JO�TJMFODF�1
When we understand the logical structure of language, Wittgenstein believes, we understand what can be said plainly and without confusion and what cannot be said in this way. And by comprehending what can and cannot be said, we comprehend
“!e most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.”
—Albert Einstein
8JUUHFOTUFJO� 393
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 393 05/09/17 06:06 PM
PORTR AIT
A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 1996), 12.
Wittgenstein Ludwig Josef Johan Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was born in Vienna and raised Catholic in a large, wealthy family. He was, as we might say now, homeschooled until age fourteen, when he began three years of instruction at a secondary school in Linz. A fellow student was a boy of the same age who later became known to the world as Adolf Hitler.
Wittgenstein then studied aeronautical engineering in Man- chester, England. His interest in engineering was the starting point for a path that led eventually to philosophy: a focus on engineering design led him to think about the mathematics in- volved, which led to an interest in mathematics, which led to a curiosity about the philosophy of mathematics, which led to a study of broader philosophical subjects, including the philosophy of language.
In 1912 he came to Cambridge University and studied logic and philosophy with the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell, who was enormously impressed with him. In 1914 he enlisted in the Austrian army and served in the First World War. He was taken prisoner by the Italians and remained a captive until 1919. It was as a prisoner of war that he transformed his philosophical notes into his great work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It was published in 1921 and turned out to be his only philosophy book published while he lived.
After the war, he occupied himself with tasks other than philosophy (designing and building a house, for example), but in 1929 he went back to Cambridge. !ere he studied, lectured, wrote, and refined his main philosophical ideas. In 1947 he left Cambridge and lived in Ireland, where he finished his Philosophical Investigations (published in 1953, two years after his death). He returned to Britain in 1949, and died of cancer in 1951.
A. C. Grayling, a Wittgenstein scholar, says that in numerous memoirs and reminis- cences, Wittgenstein “appears as a powerful, restless, dominant individual, an intense and complicated man, to whom people responded either with adulation or aversion.” He has been called the most charismatic figure of twentieth-century philosophy.
Figure 17.2 5IF�IPVTF� EFTJHOFE�CZ�-VEXJH� 8JUUHFOTUFJO �����o�����
what can and cannot be thought, for the limits of language coincide with the limits of thought. Outside these limits, nothing can be coherently and meaningfully said or thought. Outside these limits, there is only nonsense. !e problem is, Wittgenstein asserts, philosophers operate in this sphere of nonsense. !e questions of philosophy emerge because philosophers try to say, write, or think what cannot possibly be said, written, or thought. Truly meaningful propositions—all the true ones—are those
394 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 394 05/09/17 06:06 PM
!is may sound as if Wittgenstein is completely rejecting metaphysics, religion, and ethics, but actually he is not. He does not dismiss these things as nonsense; he maintains only that trying to assert something about them is nonsense. !ey cannot be expressed in words; they can only be shown. And because they are ine#able, he does not say anything about them. He simply observes that they are more important than the concerns of science. “!ey are,” he says, “what is mystical.”3
Wittgenstein devotes most of the Tractatus to showing how the logical structure of language is related to the world. His central idea is that language is made up of propositions, and propositions have a logical structure, a way that their compo- nents are linked to one another. Moreover, this structure corresponds to the world’s structure—that is, to the facts, or “states of a#airs,” of reality. In this way true prop- ositions picture the facts; they say how things are. Just as a musical score pictures the sound structure of a piece of music, so true propositions mirror the architecture of the world. !is view, as you might suspect, is known as the picture theory of meaning.
!is theory helps Wittgenstein explain why trying to say or think something about metaphysics, religion, or ethics is a nonsensical exercise. He says that propositions can picture the facts in the material world (that is, the domain of science), but they cannot picture the facts of ethics, for example, because ethical facts cannot be pictured. As he puts it, “It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.”4
Few doubt that Wittgenstein’s theory of language as expressed in the Tractatus is both impressive and compelling. It secured his reputation as a great intellect and a highly original philosopher. But he was also an honest thinker who was not afraid to admit his philosophical errors. After years of serious reexamination of his views, he eventually came to the conclusion that his masterpiece was fundamentally flawed and that he really could not solve all philosophical problems at once. In Philosophical Investigations he reconsiders and fearlessly critiques the core doctrines of the Tractatus.
In the Tractatus Wittgenstein had claimed that language possesses an essence, a property common to all propositions that defines what language is. And this essence is characterized by the picture theory of meaning: a proposition is a picture, a single logical structure that corresponds exactly to a particular structure in the world. !e smallest elements of a proposition are correlated with the smallest elements of an object in reality. But now he thinks there is no essence of language, because language has many functions, and propositions do not come in a single form but in many forms used for di#erent reasons. As he explains in Investigations:
1.�)PX�EPFT�8JUUHFOTUFJO� QSPQPTF�UP�SFTPMWF�BMM� QIJMPTPQIJDBM�RVFTUJPOT� JO̓POF�TUSPLF �
“1. !e world is all that is the case. 1.01 !e world is the total- ity of facts, not of things. 2. What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of a#airs. 2.01 A state of a#airs (a state of things) is a combi- nation of objects (things). 2.02 Objects are simple.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein
2.�8IBU�JT�UIF�QJDUVSF� UIFPSZ�PG�NFBOJOH �"D- DPSEJOH�UP�8JUUHFOTUFJO � IPX�EPFT�JU�IFMQ�FYQMBJO� XIZ�USZJOH�UP�TBZ�PS�UIJOL� TPNFUIJOH�BCPVU�NFUB- QIZTJDT �SFMJHJPO �PS�FUIJDT� JT�B�OPOTFOTJDBM�FYFSDJTF
used in the natural sciences. Nonsense propositions occur in metaphysics, religion, and ethics. As Wittgenstein says:
picture theory of meaning !e view that the logical structures of language mirror the struc- tures of the world.
5IF�DPSSFDU�NFUIPE�JO�QIJMPTPQIZ�XPVME�SFBMMZ�CF�UIF�GPMMPXJOH��UP�TBZ�OPUIJOH�FYDFQU�XIBU� DBO�CF�TBJE �J�F��QSPQPTJUJPOT�PG�OBUVSBM�TDJFODF�J�F��TPNFUIJOH�UIBU�IBT�OPUIJOH�UP�EP�XJUI� QIJMPTPQIZ�BOE�UIFO �XIFOFWFS�TPNFPOF�FMTF�XBOUFE�UP�TBZ�TPNFUIJOH�NFUBQIZTJDBM �UP� EFNPOTUSBUF�UP�IJN�UIBU�IF�IBE�GBJMFE�UP�HJWF�B�NFBOJOH�UP�DFSUBJO�TJHOT�JO�IJT�QSPQPTJUJPOT�� "MUIPVHI�JU�XPVME�OPU�CF�TBUJTGZJOH�UP�UIF�PUIFS�QFSTPO�IF�XPVME�OPU�IBWF�UIF�GFFMJOH� UIBU�XF�XFSF�UFBDIJOH�IJN�QIJMPTPQIZ�this�NFUIPE�XPVME�CF�UIF�POMZ�TUSJDUMZ�DPSSFDU�POF�2
-VEXJH�8JUUHFOTUFJO�� Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
8JUUHFOTUFJO� 395
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 395 05/09/17 06:06 PM
-VEXJH�8JUUHFOTUFJO��Philosophical Investigations
#VU�IPX�NBOZ�LJOET�PG�TFOUFODF�BSF�UIFSF �4BZ�BTTFSUJPO �RVFTUJPO �BOE�DPNNBOE �5IFSF� BSF�countless�LJOET��DPVOUMFTT�EJòFSFOU�LJOET�PG�VTF�PG�XIBU�XF�DBMM�iTZNCPMT w�iXPSET w�iTFO- UFODFT�w�"OE�UIJT�NVMUJQMJDJUZ�JT�OPU�TPNFUIJOH�öYFE �HJWFO�PODF�GPS�BMM��CVU�OFX�UZQFT�PG� MBOHVBHF �OFX�MBOHVBHF�HBNFT �BT�XF�NBZ�TBZ �DPNF�JOUP�FYJTUFODF �BOE�PUIFST�CFDPNF� PCTPMFUF�BOE�HFU�GPSHPUUFO�������
)FSF�UIF�UFSN�iMBOHVBHF�gamew�JT�NFBOU�UP�CSJOH�JOUP�QSPNJOFODF�UIF�GBDU�UIBU�UIF� speaking�PG�MBOHVBHF�JT�QBSU�PG�BO�BDUJWJUZ �PS�PG�B�GPSN�PG�MJGF�5
Wittgenstein’s reference to language-games is relevant to his larger point: language gets its meaning not from some mysterious essence, but from how it is used in a particular context. A language-game is a pattern of human activity in which words play a crucial role and derive their meaning from how they are used in the activity. To prove his point, Wittgenstein lists examples of the “multiplicity of language- games”: giving orders, describing an object, reporting an event, speculating about an event, making up a story, play-acting, guessing riddles, making a joke, asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying, and many others.
language-game A pat- tern of social activity in which words play a crucial role and derive their meaning from how they are used in the activity.
The Telling Gesture !e story goes that after being presented with a rude hand gesture (comparable to the pro- truding middle finger), Wittgenstein abandoned his idea that propositions are pictures. Here’s an account of the incident:
One day (they were riding, I think, on a train) when Wittgenstein was insist- ing that a proposition and that which it describes must have the same “logi- cal form,” the same “logical multiplicity,” Sra#a made a gesture, familiar to Neapolitans as meaning something like disgust or contempt, of brushing the underneath of his chin with an outward sweep of the fingertips of one hand. And he asked: “What is the logical form of that?” Sra#a’s example produced in Wittgenstein the feeling that there was an absurdity in the insistence that a proposition and what it describes must have the same “form.” !is broke the hold on him of the conception that a proposition must literally be a “picture” of the reality it describes.
DETAILS
%PFT�4SBòB�T�HFTUVSF�SFBMMZ�EFNPOTUSBUF�UIBU�QSPQPTJUJPOT�DBOOPU�CF�QJDUVSFT �4UBUF� UIJT�BMMFHFE�SFGVUBUJPO�JO�BSHVNFOU�GPSN��*T�UIF�BSHVNFOU�TPVOE
Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), 69.
396 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 396 05/09/17 06:06 PM
Just as games have no common feature or essence, he says, language has no common feature, no underlying logical structure that is the unmistakable mark of language:
$POTJEFS�GPS�FYBNQMF�UIF�QSPDFFEJOHT�UIBU�XF�DBMM�iHBNFT�w�*�NFBO�CPBSE�HBNFT �DBSE� HBNFT �CBMM�HBNFT �0MZNQJD�HBNFT �BOE�TP�PO��8IBU�JT�DPNNPO�UP�UIFN�BMM �%PO�U�TBZ�� i5IFSF�must�CF�TPNFUIJOH�DPNNPO �PS�UIFZ�XPVME�OPU�CF�DBMMFE�AHBNFT��w�CVU�look and see�XIFUIFS�UIFSF�JT�BOZUIJOH�DPNNPO�UP�BMM��'PS�JG�ZPV�MPPL�BU�UIFN�ZPV�XJMM�OPU�TFF� TPNFUIJOH�UIBU�JT�DPNNPO�UP�all,�CVU�TJNJMBSJUJFT �SFMBUJPOTIJQT �BOE�B�XIPMF�TFSJFT�PG�UIFN� BU�UIBU�������
"OE�UIF�SFTVMU�PG�UIJT�FYBNJOBUJPO�JT��XF�TFF�B�DPNQMJDBUFE�OFUXPSL�PG�TJNJMBSJUJFT� PWFSMBQQJOH� BOE� DSJTT�DSPTTJOH�� TPNFUJNFT� PWFSBMM� TJNJMBSJUJFT � TPNFUJNFT� TJNJMBSJUJFT� PG�EFUBJM��
-VEXJH�8JUUHFOTUFJO�� Philosophical Investigations
17.2 DERRIDA AND CIXOUS
Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was a French philosopher whose ideas greatly influ- enced philosophy in Europe and profoundly altered literary criticism in the English- speaking world. He was born in Algeria, a French colony at the time, and attended school in Paris, where he studied philosophy at the distinguished École Normale Supérieure. He published his most important works between 1967 and 1972, includ- ing his best-known book Of Grammatology.
Derrida is most famous for his method of dissecting language known as decon- struction. It’s a way of unpacking a text (philosophical, literary, or other) to reveal hidden assumptions and contradictions that subvert the ostensible meaning. Although deconstructionists may pore over particular literary or philosophical works, their ultimate target is what Derrida terms logocentrism, the preoccupation with truth, logic, and rationality that characterizes the Western intellectual tradition.
What is it about language that deconstruction is supposed to disclose? Derrida says it reveals that, contrary to what most of us assume, the meanings we think are in the words we use are not static or fixed. Language is fluid, meanings are slippery, ephemeral. Words and their meanings are not firmly moored to the world; they are free-floating and changeable. So there can be no final or conclusive interpretation of a text; there can be no stable, changeless linguistic system. !e problem is that a word’s meaning arises out of a web of relationships with similar words, related objects in the world, human activity, and all the situations in which the word is used. A word’s meaning, Derrida says, is shaped continually by traces of all these relationships. From these fleeting residues, meaning arises and changes, and we can never pin it down or lock it in place. And because our understanding and thinking depend on language, they too fall into a web of relationships that undercuts defini- tive meaning.
Deconstruction can be done in many ways. One well-known strategy is to disman- tle the “binary oppositions” that Derrida believes have for centuries warped Western
deconstruction A way of unpacking a text (philo- sophical, literary, or other) to reveal hidden assump- tions and contradictions that subvert the ostensible meaning.
3.�8IBU�JT�B�MBOHVBHF� HBNF �"DDPSEJOH�UP� 8JUUHFOTUFJO �IPX�EPFT� UIF�OPUJPO�PG�B�MBOHVBHF� HBNF�FYQMBJO�XIFSF�B�MBO- HVBHF�HFUT�JUT�NFBOJOH �
“A proposition is a picture of reality.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein
“!ere is nothing outside the text.”
—Jacques Derrida
“!e question to ask about our beliefs is not whether they are about reality or merely about appearance, but simply whether they are the best habits of action for grati- fying our desires.”
—Richard Rorty
%FSSJEB�BOE�$JYPVT� 397
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 397 05/09/17 06:06 PM
thought. !ey are, he says, the handiwork of logocentrism: male/female, master/slave, white/black, truth/fiction, reality/ appearance, speech/writing, literal/metaphorical, and others. In the Western tradition, the left-hand term is supposed to be primary or superior (“privileged”), and the right-hand term is secondary and inferior, dependent on the first. !e decon- structionist uncovers these pairs (implicit or explicit) in the text and tries to show that logocentrism has it wrong—that the right-hand term is actually superior or primary or some- how the true source of the left-hand term. !e overall strat- egy is to turn a philosophical or literary text against itself.
Derrida was not alone in trying to get the world to think di#erently about language and to resist the pull of logocen- trism. He was mentor and friend to another thinker with similar goals, the French feminist and writer Hélène Cixous (b. 1937). Like Derrida, she was born in Algeria and came to France, where she showed herself to be an excellent student. She received her doctorate in 1968 and promptly founded Europe’s first doctoral program in women’s studies at the University of Paris.
Reading Cixous is a challenge because in her writing she blends genres and disciplines, often mixing philosophy, autobiography, feminist literary theory, drama, poetry, and several forms of nonfiction. Her range of topics and issues is vast, covering serious questions in philosophy, birth and
4.�)PX�NJHIU�B�EFDPO- TUSVDUJPOJTU�EJTNBOUMF� UIF̓CJOBSZ�PQQPTJUJPO� PG̓NBMF�GFNBMF �
Figure 17.3̓Jacques Derrida (1930–2004).
Figure 17.4̓)ÏMÒOF�$JYPVT�XJUI�IFS�GSJFOE�BOE�NFOUPS�+BDRVFT�%FSSJEB�
398 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 398 05/09/17 06:06 PM
death, love lost and found, internal experience, psychoanalysis, embodiment, moth- erhood, patriarchy, myths, and more.
A large part of her work is devoted to examining the philosophical and psy- chological implications of the act of writing. Cixous, for example, draws attention to a unique kind of female or bisexual writing, songlike and focused on female sexuality. Susan Sellers, also a writer and feminist, describes this aspect of Cixous’s thinking:
“Language enrobes us and inspires us and launches us beyond ourselves, it is ours and we are its, it is our master and our mistress.”
—Hélène Cixous
4VTBO�4FMMFST��The Hélène Cixous Reader
$JYPVT��OBNF�JT�NPTU�PGUFO�BTTPDJBUFE�XJUI�UIBU�PG�écriture féminine�iGFNJOJOF�XSJUJOH�w�'PS� $JYPVT�TVDI�B�XSJUJOH�JT�GFNJOJOF�JO�UXP�TFOTFT��'JSTU �XIJMF�$JYPVT�TVHHFTUT�UIBU�GFNJOJOF� XSJUJOH�JT�QPUFOUJBMMZ�UIF�QSPWJODF�PG�CPUI�TFYFT �TIF�CFMJFWFT�XPNFO�BSF�DVSSFOUMZ�DMPTFS�UP� B�GFNJOJOF�FDPOPNZ�<UIPVHIU�BOE�CFIBWJPS>�UIBO�NFO��"T�B�SFTVMU�TIF�TFFT�JO�XPNFO�T�XSJU- JOH�UIF�QPUFOUJBM�UP�DJSDVNWFOU�BOE�SFGPSNVMBUF�FYJTUJOH�TUSVDUVSFT�UISPVHI�UIF�JODMVTJPO� PG�PUIFS�FYQFSJFODF��������4FDPOE �TJODF�B�GFNJOJOF�TVCKFDU�QPTJUJPO�SFGVTFT�UP�BQQSPQSJBUF�PS� BOOJIJMBUF�UIF�PUIFS�T�EJòFSFODF�JO�PSEFS�UP�DPOTUSVDU�UIF�TFMG�JO�B� NBTDVMJOF �QPTJUJPO�PG� NBTUFSZ �$JYPVT�TVHHFTUT�UIBU�B�GFNJOJOF�XSJUJOH�XJMM�CSJOH�JOUP�FYJTUFODF�BMUFSOBUJWF�GPSNT� PG�SFMBUJPO �QFSDFQUJPO�BOE�FYQSFTTJPO��*U�JT�JO�UIJT�TFOTF�UIBU�$JYPVT�CFMJFWFT�XSJUJOH�JT�SFW- PMVUJPOBSZ��/PU�POMZ�DBO�XSJUJOH�FYDFFE�UIF�CJOBSZ�MPHJD�UIBU�JOGPSNT�PVS�QSFTFOU�TZTUFN� BOE�UIVT�DSFBUF�UIF�GSBNFXPSL�GPS�B�OFX�iMBOHVBHFw�BOE�DVMUVSF �CVU �TIF�TUSFTTFT �UISPVHI� JUT�USBOTGPSNBUJPOT �GFNJOJOF�XSJUJOH�XJMM�JOJUJBUF�DIBOHFT�JO�UIF�TPDJBM�BOE�QPMJUJDBM�TQIFSF� UP�DIBMMFOHF�UIF�WFSZ�GPVOEBUJPO�PG�UIF�QBUSJBSDIBM�BOE�DBQJUBMJTU�TUBUF��'FNJOJOF�XSJUJOH�JT� <BDDPSEJOH�UP�$JYPVT>�
B�QMBDF� ������� �XIJDI�JT�OPU�FDPOPNJDBMMZ�PS�QPMJUJDBMMZ�JOEFCUFE�UP�BMM�UIF� WJMFOFTT�BOE�DPNQSPNJTF��5IBU�JT�OPU�PCMJHFE�UP�SFQSPEVDF�UIF�TZTUFN�� 5IBU�JT�XSJUJOH��*G�UIFSF�JT�B�TPNFXIFSF�FMTF�UIBU�DBO�FTDBQF�UIF�JOGFSOBM� SFQFUJUJPO �JU�MJFT�JO�UIBU�EJSFDUJPO �XIFSF�it�XSJUFT�JUTFMG �XIFSF�it�ESFBNT � XIFSF�it�JOWFOUT�OFX�XPSMET�6
17.3 RAWLS
John Rawls (1921–2002) was probably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century, especially among Anglo-American thinkers. He was born in Baltimore and educated at Princeton, where he also joined the faculty. He went on to teach at Cornell, MIT, and Harvard. His masterpiece in political philosophy, A !eory of Justice, appeared in 1971 and influenced all the serious political thought that came after it.
In Chapter 10 we saw that theories of justice define the fundamental structures of political systems. !at is, theories of justice embody principles that define fair distributions (of jobs, income, rights, etc.) that explain what people are due and why. Distributions can be based on principles of merit, utility, need, entitlement,
“[In] my own tradition I have never conceived of poetic writing as separate from philosophy.
—Hélène Cixous
3BXMT� 399
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 399 05/09/17 06:06 PM
or equality. A theory built on the latter principle says that there are no morally relevant di#erences among persons, so everyone should be apportioned an equal share of society’s benefits. John Rawls proposes this kind of theory, arguing that since people’s character and behavior are accidents of nature, no one really deserves any particular allotment of benefits or burdens—and so equality is the most reasonable basis for distribution of goods. A staunch egalitarianism de- mands that the supposedly deserving, undeserving, needy, and self-su"cient receive the same size slice of society’s pie, and the portions cannot be adjusted on grounds of utility.
Many who resist the idea of distributions based on equality do so by appealing to a principle of entitlement. !ey argue that even if people don’t deserve the goods they have, they nevertheless may be entitled to them. We are en- titled, for example, to self-ownership of our own bodies even though we have done nothing to deserve having them. !is entitlement idea is part of the political theory known as lib- ertarianism, the view that government should be small and limited to night-watchman functions—to the protection of society and free economic systems from coercion and fraud. All other social or economic benefits are the responsibility of individuals. Perhaps the most famous libertarian theory of justice is that of Robert Nozick (1938–2002). He argues that if we rightfully possess any goods, they are ours only because we are entitled to them—entitled because we ac- quired them legitimately, not because we got them through appeals to equality or desert.
Rawls’s view is a kind of social contract theory, which says that justice is se- cured, and the state is made legitimate, through an agreement among citizens of the state or between the citizens and the rulers of the state (see Chapter 10). David Hume, whom we met in earlier chapters, was a severe critic of social contract theory as o#ered by Hobbes and Locke. He declared that social contracts are historical fictions—no such contracts have existed in reality. Governments have been estab- lished by conquest and force, not by agreements among equals in a state of nature. !is criticism did not matter much to many later theorists because they viewed the theories of Locke, Hobbes, and others not as historical facts but mostly as expla- nations of how states could be formed and justified. Nevertheless, Hume’s attack dampened interest in social contract theories of justice for two centuries—until the work of Rawls.
Rawls also thinks of social contracts as fictions—but very useful fictions. He believes they give us a way to explore the requirements of distributive justice. He asks, in e#ect: What kind of social contract would best ensure a fair distribution of rights, duties, and advantages of social cooperation? To answer this question, he proposes an ingenious thought experiment. Imagine we are living in a state of nature
5.�)PX�XPVME�B�MJCFSUBSJBO� GFFM�BCPVU�VOJWFSTBM� IFBMUI�DBSF�PS�HVBSBOUFFE� NJOJNVN�JODPNF�GPS�BMM� DJUJ[FOT
social contract theory !e view that justice is secured, and the state is made legitimate, through an agreement among citizens of the state or between the citizens and the rulers of the state.
Figure 17.5 +PIO�3BXMT� ����o���� �
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
—P. J. O’Rourke
400 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 400 05/09/17 06:06 PM
and want to devise a social contract that ensures that everyone is treated fairly. What kind of state would we all agree to? Specifically, by what principles should our just society structure itself? His response is that the required principles are those that people would agree to under hypothetical conditions that ensure fair and unbiased choices. He holds that if the starting point for the social contract is fair—if the ini- tial conditions and bargaining process for producing the principles are fair—then the principles themselves will be just and will define the essential makeup of a just society. As Rawls says:
+PIO�3BXMT��A Theory of Justice
<5IF>�HVJEJOH�JEFB�JT�UIBU�UIF�QSJODJQMFT�PG�KVTUJDF�GPS�UIF�CBTJD�TUSVDUVSF�PG�TPDJFUZ�BSF�UIF� PCKFDU�PG�UIF�PSJHJOBM�BHSFFNFOU��5IFZ�BSF�UIF�QSJODJQMFT�UIBU�GSFF�BOE�SBUJPOBM�QFSTPOT�DPO- DFSOFE�UP�GVSUIFS�UIFJS�PXO�JOUFSFTUT�XPVME�BDDFQU�JO�BO�JOJUJBM�QPTJUJPO�PG�FRVBMJUZ�BT�EFöOJOH� UIF�GVOEBNFOUBM�UFSNT�PG�UIFJS�BTTPDJBUJPO��5IFTF�QSJODJQMFT�BSF�UP�SFHVMBUF�BMM�GVSUIFS�BHSFF- NFOUT��UIFZ�TQFDJGZ�UIF�LJOET�PG�TPDJBM�DPPQFSBUJPO�UIBU�DBO�CF�FOUFSFE�JOUP�BOE�UIF�GPSNT�PG� HPWFSONFOU�UIBU�DBO�CF�FTUBCMJTIFE�7
At the hypothetical starting point—what Rawls calls the “original position”—a group of normal, self-interested, rational individuals come together to choose the principles that will determine their basic rights and duties and their share of society’s benefits and burdens. But to ensure that their decisions are as fair and impartial as possible, they must meet behind a metaphorical “veil of ignorance.” Behind the veil, no one knows his or her own social or economic status, class, race, sex, abilities, talents, level of intelligence, or psychological makeup. Rawls thinks that since the participants are rational and self-interested but ignorant of their situation in society, they will not agree to principles that will put any particular group at a disadvantage, because they might very well be members of that group. !ey will choose principles that are unbiased and nondiscriminatory. !e assumption is that since the negotiat- ing conditions in the original position are fair, the agreements reached will also be fair—the principles will be just.
Rawls contends that given the original position, the participants would agree to arrange their social relationships according to these fundamental principles:
“Why has government been instituted at all? Be- cause the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and jus- tice without constraint.”
—Alexander Hamilton
+PIO�3BXMT�� A Theory of Justice
'*345�13*/$*1-& &BDI�QFSTPO�JT�UP�IBWF�BO�FRVBM�SJHIU�UP�UIF�NPTU�FYUFOTJWF�UPUBM�TZTUFN�PG�FRVBM�CBTJD�MJCFS- UJFT�DPNQBUJCMF�XJUI�B�TJNJMBS�TZTUFN�PG�MJCFSUZ�GPS�BMM�
4&$0/%�13*/$*1-& 4PDJBM�BOE�FDPOPNJD�JOFRVBMJUJFT�BSF�UP�CF�BSSBOHFE�TP�UIBU�UIFZ�BSF�CPUI�
� B � UP�UIF�HSFBUFTU�CFOFöU�PG�UIF�MFBTU�BEWBOUBHFE �������BOE
� C � BUUBDIFE�UP�PóDFT�BOE�QPTJUJPOT�PQFO�UP�BMM�VOEFS�DPOEJUJPOT�PG�GBJS�FRVBMJUZ�PG� PQQPSUVOJUZ���
3BXMT� 401
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 401 05/09/17 06:06 PM
!e first principle—the equal liberty principle—says that everyone is entitled to the most political freedom possible in exercising basic rights and duties (for example, the right to vote and hold o"ce and freedom of speech, assembly, and thought). Each person should get a maximum degree of basic liberties but no more than anyone else. !is principle takes precedence over all other considerations (including the second principle) so that basic political liberties cannot be reduced or cancelled just to im- prove economic well-being. !is stipulation, of course, directly contradicts utilitar- ian views of the matter.
!e second principle concerns social and economic goods such as income, wealth, opportunities, and positions of authority. Rawls recognizes that some social and economic inequalities in society are unavoidable as well as beneficial. !ose who work harder or devise a better mousetrap deserve to reap greater benefits for their e#orts. Such inequality provides incentives for extraordinary productivity, which in turn will be to the good of society as a whole. (!is kind of unequal social arrange- ment contrasts with systems that aim at a much greater degree of equality, as in socialist societies.) So Rawls asserts in part (a) that social and economic inequalities are not unjust if they work to everyone’s benefit, especially to the benefit of the least well o# in society. “[!ere] is no injustice,” he says, “in the greater benefits earned by a few provided that the situation of persons not so fortunate is thereby improved.”9 For Rawls, such a policy is far more just than one in which some people are made to su#er for the greater good of others: “it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper.”
But Rawls also maintains that although economic inequalities are allowed, and not everyone will obtain the greater rewards, everyone should at least have an equal opportunity to acquire them. !is is the message of part (b). Every person is entitled to an equal chance to try to acquire basic goods. No one is guaranteed an equal share of them, but opportunities to obtain these benefits must be open to all, regardless of social standing.
In Rawls’s program, the demands of the first principle must be satisfied before satisfying the second, and the requirements of part (b) must be met before those of part (a). In any just distribution of benefits and burdens, then, the first priority is to ensure equal basic political liberties for all concerned, then equality of social and economic opportunity, then the arrangement of any inequalities to the benefit of the least advantaged.
Rawls’s theory of justice has significant implications for the allocation of soci- ety’s resources. Consider, for example, the hotly debated resource of health care. One prominent line of argument goes like this: As Rawls claims, everyone is en- titled to fair equality of opportunity, and adequate (basic) health care enables fair equality of opportunity (by ensuring “normal species functioning”). !erefore, ev- eryone is entitled to adequate health care, which includes all appropriate measures for eliminating or compensating for the disadvantages of disease and impairment.10 In such a system, there would be universal access to a basic level of health care, while more elaborate or elective services would be available to anyone who could a#ord them.
6.�"SF�ZPV�NPSF�TZNQB- UIFUJD�UP�MJCFSUBSJBOJTN� PS�UP�XFMGBSF�MJCFSBMJTN � 8IZ
“Government does not solve problems; it subsi- dizes them.”
—Ronald Reagan
402 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 402 05/09/17 06:06 PM
Figure 17.6 *T�XFMGBSF�MJCFSBMJTN�SJHIU �*T�FWFSZPOF�FOUJUMFE�UP�BEFRVBUF�IFBMUI�DBSF�PS�B�HVBSBOUFFE� NJOJNVN�JODPNF
THEN AND NOW
Political Terminology !e main political theories have been around for a long time, but some of their terminology has changed. liberalism (in the broadest sense) !e political theory that emphasizes the liberty and rights of individuals against encroachments by the state. In this sense, both those on the right and those on the left are liberals. But nowadays in the United States liberalism is a narrower term, most often associated with the Democratic but not the Republican Party. welfare liberalism (often just called liberalism today) !e view that a just society aims to preserve individual liberties while ensuring the general welfare of the citizenry. libertarianism (also known as classical liberalism) !e doctrine that emphasizes personal freedoms and the right to pursue one’s own social and economic well-being in a free market without interference from others. socialism !e political and economic view that the means of production (property, facto- ries, businesses) should be owned and controlled by the state for the general welfare. capitalism A socioeconomic system in which wealth goes to anyone who can acquire it in a free marketplace.
8IJDI�EP�ZPV�UIJOL�JT�B�NPSF�KVTU�TZTUFN�PG�HPWFSONFOU�XFMGBSF�MJCFSBMJTN�PS�MJCFS- UBSJBOJTN �8IZ �8IJDI�JT�CFUUFS�DBQJUBMJTN�PS�TPDJBMJTN �8IZ �
"QQJBI� 403
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 403 05/09/17 06:06 PM
Rawls’s proposal is a form of liberalism, what has been called welfare liberalism. Liberalism, in its broadest sense, is the political theory that puts primary emphasis on the liberty and rights of individuals against encroachments by the state. It is at the heart of political outlooks that today are given the vague labels of liberalism and conservatism; both ideologies take for granted that basic individual liberties and rights should be protected against unacceptable government intrusion. (Liberalism is now generally used in a much narrower sense.) !e aim of welfare liberalism is to preserve individual liberties while ensuring the general welfare of the citizenry. It requires redistributing resources (for example, taxing the better o# to provide benefits to the less well o# )—a scheme that libertarians would never countenance. !e libertarian says that government should not be in the business of helping the socially or eco- nomically disadvantaged, for that would require violating people’s liberty by taking resources from the haves to give to the have-nots.
17.4 APPIAH
As we have seen, philosophy can be abstract and theoretical (as in, say, Plato and Wittgenstein), and it can be more concrete and readily applicable to everyday life (as in, for example, Epictetus and John Stuart Mill). In contemporary philosophy, good work is being done all along this continuum, from the abstruse technicalities in phi- losophy of mind to the real-life problems of applied ethics. Some philosophers excel in both the technical and the practical and are broadening the focus of philosophy in the process. A good example is Kwame Anthony Appiah (b. 1957).
He was born in London, reared in Ghana, and educated mostly in Britain, ul- timately taking his BA and PhD degrees in philosophy at Cambridge University in England. He began his philosophy career at the deep end, exploring recondite prob- lems in the philosophy of language (specifically, probabilistic semantics) and in the philosophy of mind. !is work led to the publication of Assertion and Conditionals (2008) and For Truth in Semantics (1986). His interests broadened gradually from theory to practice as he wrote about African and African-American cultural life and the ethics of iden- tity, culture, race, politics, and global citizenship. On this path he wrote an introduction to philosophy (!inking It !rough), co-edited the Dictionary of Global Culture, and published three novels (Aveng- ing Angel, Nobody Likes Letitia, and Another Death in Venice). He is now a professor of philosophy and law at New York University.
A major focus of Appia h ’s work is the socia l and ethical questions that arise from the collision of cultures in a shrinking world. Answers are imperative because globalism is upon us, because countries, communities, tribes, and clans often chafe against Figure 17.7 ,XBNF�"OUIPOZ�"QQJBI�
“In philosophy we often find that what we nor- mally take for granted— the ‘commonsense’ point of view—gets in the way of a proper under- standing of the issues.”
—Kwame Anthony Appiah
404 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 404 05/09/17 06:06 PM
each other; their di#erences bringing a high risk of mutual misunderstandings, mis- trust, intolerance, and violence. His prescription for the inevitable friction that comes from six billion strangers trying to coexist is cosmopolitanism. !e word comes from the Cynics and Stoics of the ancient world who took cosmopolitan to mean “citizen of the cosmos,” a recognition of the oneness of humanity, of universal kinship beyond the narrow concerns of a single group. For Appiah, cosmopolitanism is the idea that we have significant moral duties to all persons, even those outside our family and community. As he says:
cosmopolitanism !e idea that we have moral duties to all persons, even those outside our family and community.
,XBNF�"OUIPOZ�"QQJBI��Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers
<8>F�IBWF�PCMJHBUJPOT�UP�PUIFST �PCMJHBUJPOT�UIBU�TUSFUDI�CFZPOE�UIPTF�UP�XIPN�XF�BSF�SF- MBUFE�CZ�UIF�UJFT�PG�LJUI�BOE�LJOE �PS�FWFO�UIF�NPSBM�GPSNBM�UJFT�PG�B�TIBSFE�DJUJ[FOTIJQ��������<8> F�UBLF�TFSJPVTMZ�UIF�WBMVF�OPU�KVTU�PG�IVNBO�MJGF�CVU�PG�QBSUJDVMBS�IVNBO�MJWFT �XIJDI�NFBOT� UBLJOH�BO�JOUFSFTU�JO�UIF�QSBDUJDFT�BOE�CFMJFGT�UIBU�MFOE�UIFN�TJHOJöDBODF�11
Cosmopolitanism in this sense, however, has had its detractors, Appiah says. Some have declared their love of humanity in the abstract while renouncing all local loyalties and commitments. Others—including many murderous tyrants—have de- manded exclusive allegiance to their preferred slice of the human race, disdaining any cosmopolitan sentiments. Both these views are unfounded. Regarding the latter, Appiah says that “the one thought that cosmopolitans share is that no local loyalty can ever justify forgetting that each human being has responsibilities to every other.”12
So cosmopolitans see humankind as one family with common interests, but they also respect human di#erences:
7.�%P�ZPV�UIJOL�DVMUVSBM� SFMBUJWJTN�JT�USVF �%P�ZPV� UIJOL�JU�FOUBJMT�TPDJBM�UPMFS- BODF �8IZ�PS�XIZ�OPU �
,XBNF�"OUIPOZ� "QQJBI�� Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers
$PTNPQPMJUBOJTN�JT�BO�BEWFOUVSF�BOE�BO�JEFBM��CVU�ZPV�DBO�U�IBWF�BOZ�SFTQFDU�GPS�IVNBO� EJWFSTJUZ�BOE�FYQFDU�FWFSZPOF�UP�CFDPNF�DPTNPQPMJUBO��5IF�PCMJHBUJPOT�PG�UIPTF�XIP�XJTI� UP�FYFSDJTF�UIFJS�MFHJUJNBUF�GSFFEPN�UP�BTTPDJBUF�XJUI�UIFJS�PXO�LJOE�UP�LFFQ�UIF�SFTU�PG�UIF� XPSME�BXBZ�BT�UIF�"NJTI�EP�JO�UIF�6OJUFE�4UBUFT�BSF�POMZ�UIF�TBNF�BT�UIF�CBTJD�PCMJHBUJPOT� XF�BMM�IBWF��UP�EP�GPS�PUIFST�XIBU�NPSBMJUZ�SFRVJSFT��4UJMM �B�XPSME�JO�XIJDI�DPNNVOJUJFT�BSF� OFBUMZ�IJWFE�Pò�GSPN�POF�BOPUIFS�TFFNT�OP�MPOHFS�B�TFSJPVT�PQUJPO �JG�JU�FWFS�XBT�13
For many, the notion of respecting other cultures and their di#erences leads naturally to cultural relativism, the view that the truth about something depends on what cultures believe. Cultures, in other words, make truth. But Appiah thinks this is a mistake.
cultural relativism !e view that the truth about something depends on what cultures believe.
,XBNF�"OUIPOZ� "QQJBI� Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers
"T�*�MM�CF�BSHVJOH �JU�JT�BO�FSSPS�UP�XIJDI�XF�EXFMMFST�JO�B�TDJFOUJöD�BHF�BSF�QFDVMJBSMZ�QSPOF� UP�SFTJTU�UBML�PG�iPCKFDUJWFw�WBMVFT��������*�XBOU�UP�IPME�PO�UP�BU�MFBTU�POF�JNQPSUBOU�BTQFDU�PG� UIF�PCKFDUJWJUZ�PG�WBMVFT��UIBU�UIFSF�BSF�TPNF�WBMVFT�UIBU�BSF �BOE�TIPVME�CF �VOJWFSTBM �KVTU� BT�UIFSF�BSF�MPUT�PG�WBMVFT�UIBU�BSF �BOE�NVTU�CF �MPDBM�������
'PS�JG�SFMBUJWJTN�BCPVU�FUIJDT�BOE�NPSBMJUZ�XFSF�USVF �UIFO �BU�UIF�FOE�PG�NBOZ�EJTDVT- TJPOT �XF�XPVME�FBDI�IBWF�UP�FOE�VQ�TBZJOH �i'SPN�XIFSF�*�TUBOE �*�BN�SJHIU��'SPN�XIFSF�
/VTTCBVN� 405
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 405 05/09/17 06:06 PM
ZPV�TUBOE �ZPV�BSF�SJHIU�w�"OE�UIFSF�XPVME�CF�OPUIJOH�GVSUIFS�UP�TBZ��'SPN�PVS�EJòFSFOU� QFSTQFDUJWFT � XF� XPVME� CF� MJWJOH� FòFDUJWFMZ� JO� EJòFSFOU� XPSMET�� "OE� XJUIPVU� B� TIBSFE� XPSME �XIBU�JT�UIFSF�UP�EJTDVTT �1FPQMF�PGUFO�SFDPNNFOE�SFMBUJWJTN�CFDBVTF�UIFZ�UIJOL�JU� XJMM�MFBE�UP�UPMFSBODF��#VU�JG�XF�DBOOPU�MFBSO�GSPN�POF�BOPUIFS�XIBU�JU�JT�SJHIU�UP�UIJOL�BOE� GFFM�BOE�EP �UIFO�DPOWFSTBUJPO�CFUXFFO�VT�XJMM�CF�QPJOUMFTT��3FMBUJWJTN�PG�UIBU�TPSU�JTO�U�B� XBZ�UP�FODPVSBHF�DPOWFSTBUJPO��JU�T�KVTU�B�SFBTPO�UP�GBMM�TJMFOU�14
17.5 NUSSBAUM
Among contemporary philosophers, there are few who are as thought-provoking, erudite, and distinctive as Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947). She has been called “the most prominent female philosopher in America,” but because of her intellectual accomplishments and her impact on debates in both everyday life and academia, she has become more than that: she is one of America’s most important thinkers.
She began her academic career in theater and the classics at New York University but was soon drawn into philosophy and went on to teach at Harvard, Brown, and Oxford. Today she is a professor of law and ethics in the law school and philosophy department of the University of Chicago. She is also an associate professor in the divinity school and the political science and classics departments.
Despite these lofty a"liations, she is no ivory-tower academic. She believes that phi- losophy should be honest, well argued, and—especially—applicable to real life. It’s sup- posed to be genuinely useful in the hard and necessary work of making sense of social and moral issues. She says, “For any view you put forward, the next question simply has to be, ‘What would the world be like if this idea were actually taken up?’ . . . It’s what happens in the long haul that really matters. You just never know where or how your ideals will be realized.”15
So she has taken on some of the most serious social concerns of our times—sex and social justice, feminism, religious intolerance, gay rights, race and international develop- ment, moral relativism, democracy, education, and others. And she has also not been shy about debating these issues in magazines and journals with other well-known writ- ers, including Allan Bloom, Noam Chomsky, John Rawls, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Susan Moller Okin.
Compared to most other philosophers, her range of interests is extraordinarily wide, as we can see from the titles of some of her books: !e Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (1986); For Love of Coun- try (1996); Cultivating Humanity: A Classical De- fense of Reform in Liberal Education (1997); Women and Human Development (2000); Upheavals of !ought: !e Intelligence of Emotions (2001); Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (2006); Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality (2008); From Disgust
,XBNF�"OUIPOZ� "QQJBI� Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers
8.�%P�ZPV�CFMJFWF�XF� IBWF�NPSBM�PCMJHBUJPOT� UP�QFPQMF�MJWJOH�JO�"GSJDB � *G�TP �XIBU�LJOE�PG�NPSBM� PCMJHBUJPOT �*G�OPU �XIZ� OPU �
“Each person you know about and can a#ect is someone to whom you have responsibilities: to say this is just to a"rm the very idea of morality.”
—Kwame Anthony Appiah
“[P]rejudice and occasional violence have never been absent from the U.S. scene.”
—Martha Nussbaum
Figure 17.8 .BSUIB�/VTTCBVN�
406 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 406 05/09/17 06:06 PM
to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law (2010); and Creating Capa- bilities: !e Human Development Approach (2011).
A theme that runs through much of Nussbaum’s work is the overriding impor- tance of equal moral respect for all individuals, regardless of the attributes bestowed on them by biology and society (such as race, class, and gender). Nussbaum declares that
.BSUIB�/VTTCBVN��The New Religious Intolerance
. . . BMM�IVNBO�CFJOHT�QPTTFTT�IVNBO�EJHOJUZ �BOE�XJUI�SFTQFDU�UP�UIBU�EJHOJUZ �UIFZ�BSF�FRVBM�� 1FPQMF�NBZ�CF�VOFRVBM�JO�XFBMUI �DMBTT �UBMFOU �TUSFOHUI �BDIJFWFNFOU �PS�NPSBM�DIBSBDUFS� CVU�BMM�BSF�FRVBM�BT�CFBSFST�PG�BO�JOBMJFOBCMF�CBTJD�IVNBO�EJHOJUZ�UIBU�DBOOPU�CF�MPTU�PS� GPSGFJUFE�16
In !e New Religious Intolerance, she applies this principle to the worldwide prob- lem of prejudice and hatred toward religions, all of which are feared and misunder- stood by some group or other. !is loathsome problem, she says, is real, prevalent, and dangerous, and Western countries (including the United States) have long been guilty of this kind of intolerance:
</>P�SFBTPOBCMF�QFSTPO�DPVME�EFOZ�UIBU�SFMJHJPVT�QSFKVEJDF�BOE�GFBS �JO�UIF�GPSN�PG�BOUJ� $BUIPMJDJTN�BOE�iOBUJWJTN w�BOUJ�4FNJUJTN �BOE�B�IPTU�PG�PUIFS�QSFKVEJDFT�BHBJOTU�iTUSBOHFw� NJOPSJUJFT �IBWF�CFFO�B�QFSTJTUFOU�CMPU�PO�PVS�TPDJFUZ��8F�OFFE�POMZ�SFNFNCFS �GPS�FYBNQMF � UIBU�OPU�VOUJM�UIF�����T�EJE�iXIJUF�TIPFw�MBX�öSNT�CFHJO�UP�IJSF�+FXT�JO�BOZ�TJHOJöDBOU�OVN- CFST �BOE�UIBU�POMZ�JO�WFSZ�SFDFOU�UJNFT�DPVME�B�NBKPSJUZ�PG�UIF�4VQSFNF�$PVSU�CF�DPNQPTFE� PG�3PNBO�$BUIPMJDT�XJUIPVU�QVCMJD�PVUSBHF �JO�PSEFS�UP�GFFM�IVNJMJUZ�BCPVU�PVS�PXO�SFDPSE� BT�BO�BMMFHFEMZ�UPMFSBOU�BOE�SFTQFDUGVM�DVMUVSF��4UJMM �UIF�TFMG�JNBHF�PG�6�4��DJUJ[FOT�JO�SFDFOU� ZFBST�IBT�CFFO�UIBU�XF�BSF�B�XFMDPNJOH�BOE�EJWFSTJUZ�GSJFOEMZ�TPDJFUZ�UIBU�IBT�PVUHSPXO�UIF� QSFKVEJDFT�PG�UIF�QBTU�
5PEBZ�XF�IBWF�NBOZ�SFBTPOT�UP�EPVCU�UIJT�DPNQMBDFOU�TFMG�BTTFTTNFOU��0VS�TJUVBUJPO� DBMMT�VSHFOUMZ�GPS�TFBSDIJOH�DSJUJDBM�TFMG�FYBNJOBUJPO �BT�XF�USZ�UP�VODPWFS�UIF�SPPUT�PG�VHMZ� GFBST�BOE�TVTQJDJPOT�UIBU�DVSSFOUMZ�EJTöHVSF�BMM�8FTUFSO�TPDJFUJFT�17
.BSUIB�/VTTCBVN�� The New Religious Intolerance
“Fear is implicated in most bad behavior in the area of religion.”
—Martha Nussbaum
Nussbaum points out that many recent cases of religious intolerance have in- volved anti-Muslim sentiments. For example, some European countries have banned in public places the wearing of the burqa and niqab (face and body coverings worn by some Muslim women). A few communities in the United States, thinking that Muslim sharia law could be imposed on them, have introduced legislation against that possibility. And in New York City, numerous protests were launched against the building of an alleged mosque near Ground Zero. Yet, she says, all these re- actions to Muslim interests are based on misunderstandings, misinformation, and poor reasoning.
9.�6QPO�XIBU�NPSBM� QSJODJQMF�EPFT�/VTTCBVN� CBTF�IFS�WJFX�PG�SFMJHJPVT� UPMFSBODF �
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S�� 407
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 407 05/09/17 06:06 PM
To the equal-respect principle, she adds some important qualifications:
8IBUFWFS�FMTF�HPWFSONFOUT�EP �UIFZ�NBZ�OPU�WJPMBUF�UIBU�FRVBM�EJHOJUZ �BOE�JO�HFOFSBM�UIFZ� PVHIU�UP�TIPX�respect�GPS�PVS�FRVBMJUZ�BOE�EJHOJUZ��5IF�XIPMF�JEFB�UIBU�HPWFSONFOUT�NBZ� OPU�WJPMBUF�CBTJD�IVNBO�SJHIUT�JT�BO�FMBCPSBUFE�GPSN�PG�UIJT�QSFNJTF�������
8F� OPX� BEE� B� GVSUIFS� QSFNJTF�� UIBU� UIF� GBDVMUZ� XJUI� XIJDI� QFPQMF� TFBSDI� GPS� MJGF�T� VMUJNBUF� NFBOJOH�GSFRVFOUMZ� DBMMFE� iDPOTDJFODFw�JT� B� WFSZ� JNQPSUBOU� QBSU� PG� QFPQMF � DMPTFMZ�SFMBUFE�UP�UIFJS�EJHOJUZ �PS�BO�BTQFDU�PG�JU��������*O�PUIFS�XPSET �UP�WJPMBUF�DPOTDJFODF�JT� UP�DPOEVDU�BO�BTTBVMU�PO�IVNBO�EJHOJUZ�������
8F�UIFO�BEE�POF�GVSUIFS�QSFNJTF �XIJDI�XF�NJHIU�DBMM�UIF�WVMOFSBCJMJUZ�QSFNJTF��UIJT� GBDVMUZ�DBO�CF�TFSJPVTMZ�JNQFEFE�CZ�CBE�XPSMEMZ�DPOEJUJPOT��*U�DBO�CF�TUPQQFE�GSPN�CF- DPNJOH�BDUJWF �BOE�JU�DBO�FWFO�CF�WJPMBUFE�PS�EBNBHFE�XJUIJO�� 5IF�öSTU�TPSU�PG�EBNBHF � XIJDI�TFWFOUFFOUI�DFOUVSZ�"NFSJDBO�QIJMPTPQIFS�3PHFS�8JMMJBNT�DPNQBSFE�UP�JNQSJTPO- NFOU �PDDVST�XIFO�QFPQMF�BSF�QSFWFOUFE�GSPN�DPOEVDUJOH�PVUXBSE�PCTFSWBODFT�SFRVJSFE� CZ�UIFJS�CFMJFGT��5IF�TFDPOE�TPSU �XIJDI�8JMMJBNT�DBMMFE�iTPVM�SBQF w�PDDVST�XIFO�QFPQMF�BSF� GPSDFE�UP�BóSN�DPOWJDUJPOT�UIBU�UIFZ�NBZ�OPU�IPME� ������
5IF� WVMOFSBCJMJUZ� QSFNJTF � UIFO � NFBOT� UIBU� HJWJOH� FRVBM� SFTQFDU� UP� DPOTDJFODF� SF- RVJSFT�UBJMPSJOH�XPSMEMZ�DPOEJUJPOT�TP�BT�UP�QSPUFDU�CPUI�GSFFEPN�PG�CFMJFG�BOE�GSFFEPN�PG� FYQSFTTJPO�BOE�QSBDUJDF��*U�BMTP�TVHHFTUT�UIBU�GSFFEPN�TIPVME�CF�RVJUF�BNQMF��CFJOH�BCMF�UP� XIJTQFS�QSBZFST�JO�ZPVS�IPNF�JT�IBSEMZ�FOPVHI�GPS�HFOVJOF�SFMJHJPVT�MJCFSUZ �BOE�XF�KVEHF � SJHIUMZ �UIBU�B�TPDJFUZ�MJLF�$IJOB �XIJDI�GPSDFT�NBOZ�SFMJHJPVT�QFPQMF�UP�LFFQ�UIFJS�SFMJHJPVT� CFMJFGT�BOE�BDUT�IJEEFO �IBT�OPU�BEFRVBUFMZ�QSPUFDUFE�SFMJHJPVT�GSFFEPN �FWFO�UIPVHI�XF� LOPX�UIBU�NBOZ�$IJOFTF�QFPQMF�EP�IPME�SFMJHJPVT�CFMJFGT �BOE�WFSZ�MJLFMZ�BDU�PO�UIFN�JO�UIF� QSJWBDZ�PG�UIFJS�IPNFT �JOTPGBS�BT�UIFZ�IBWF�QSJWBDZ����
.BSUIB�/VTTCBVN�� The New Religious Intolerance
10.�%P�ZPV�UIJOL�JU� MJLFMZ�UIBU�/VTTCBVN� XPVME�BQQSPWF�PG�BOZ� LJOE�PG�SBDJBM�QSPöMJOH �*G� TP �VOEFS�XIBU�DJSDVN- TUBODFT�XPVME�TIF�CF� MJLFMZ�UP�EP�UIJT �*G�OPU �PO� XIBU�HSPVOET�XPVME�TIF� EJTBQQSPWF �
17.6 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968) is known for his central, galvanizing role in the American civil rights movement and for his compelling calls for justice and equality, pleas that challenged the country to live up to its democratic ideals. He is also rec- ognized for developing the philosophical underpinnings of his nonviolent activism.
“By itself, fear contracts the spirit.”
—Martha Nussbaum
Can philosophy help free us from these evils? Nussbaum thinks so:
"U� UIJT� UJNF� XF� CBEMZ� OFFE� BO� BQQSPBDI� JOTQJSFE� CZ� FUIJDBM� QIJMPTPQIZ� JO� UIF� TQJSJU� PG� 4PDSBUFT �BO�BQQSPBDI�UIBU�DPNCJOFT�UISFF�JOHSFEJFOUT�
� t� 1PMJUJDBM�QSJODJQMFT�FYQSFTTJOH�FRVBM�SFTQFDU�GPS�BMM�DJUJ[FOT �BOE�BO�VOEFS- TUBOEJOH�PG�XIBU�UIFTF�QSJODJQMFT�FOUBJM�GPS�UPEBZ�T�DPOGSPOUBUJPOT�XJUI� SFMJHJPVT�EJòFSFODF�� 5IFTF�QSJODJQMFT�BMSFBEZ�JOIFSF�JO�UIF�QPMJUJDBM�USBEJUJPOT� PG�CPUI�&VSPQF�BOE �FTQFDJBMMZ �UIF�6OJUFE�4UBUFT�
� t� 3JHPSPVT�DSJUJDBM�UIJOLJOH�UIBU�GFSSFUT�PVU�BOE�DSJUJDJ[FT�JODPOTJTUFODJFT �QBS- UJDVMBSMZ�UIPTF�UIBU�UBLF�UIF�GPSN�PG�NBLJOH�BO�FYDFQUJPO�GPS�POFTFMG �OPUJOH� UIF�iNPUFw�JO�TPNFPOF�T�FMTF�T�FZF�XIJMF�GBJMJOH�UP�OPUF�UIF�MBSHF�QMBOL�JO� POF�T�PXO�FZF�
� t� "�TZTUFNBUJD�DVMUJWBUJPO�PG�UIF�iJOOFS�FZFT w�UIF�JNBHJOBUJWF�DBQBDJUZ�UIBU� NBLFT�JU�QPTTJCMF�GPS�VT�UP�TFF�IPX�UIF�XPSME�MPPLT�GSPN�UIF�QPJOU�PG�WJFX�PG� B�QFSTPO�EJòFSFOU�JO�SFMJHJPO�PS�FUIOJDJUZ����
.BSUIB�/VTTCBVN�� The New Religious Intolerance
408 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 408 05/09/17 06:06 PM
His speeches and writings often had a religious flavor (he was a minister and the son and grandson of a minister), but he directed his arguments to the religious and nonreligious alike and appealed to what he took to be universal values. He alluded to biblical sto- ries and metaphors while citing the moral courage and insight of Socrates, Aquinas, and Augustine. He was inspired by the work and words of Gandhi, the modern world’s greatest and most successful practitioner of nonviolent activism, and he in turn inspired future generations who would seek social change through peaceful means.
He was born in Atlanta and attended elementary and second- ary schools there, skipped two grades in high school, and attended Morehouse College, earning a bachelor’s degree in sociology. He went on to get a bachelor’s degree from Crozer !eological Semi- nary in Pennsylvania and earned his doctorate in theology from Boston University. In 1954 he became the pastor of a prestigious Baptist church in Montgomery, Alabama.
King’s achievement seems all the more remarkable when we consider the powerful social forces that he was up against. He con- centrated most of his e#orts in the South, where the norm was
segregation, an entrenched system that was invariably accompanied by unequal and abusive treatment of African-Americans in countless areas of life. In response to those who thought he should indefinitely postpone attempts to change the status quo, King presented a sad litany of such injustices:
Figure 17.9 .BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S� ����o���� �
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S� �JO�A Testament of Hope
#VU�XIFO�ZPV�IBWF�TFFO�WJDJPVT�NPCT�MZODI�ZPVS�NPUIFST�BOE�GBUIFST�BU�XJMM�BOE�ESPXO� ZPVS�TJTUFST�BOE�CSPUIFST�BU�XIJN��XIFO�ZPV�IBWF�TFFO�IBUF�öMMFE�QPMJDFNFO�DVSTF �LJDL � CSVUBMJ[F�BOE�FWFO�LJMM�ZPVS�CMBDL�CSPUIFST�BOE�TJTUFST�XJUI�JNQVOJUZ��XIFO�ZPV�TFF�UIF� WBTU�NBKPSJUZ�PG�ZPVS�UXFOUZ�NJMMJPO�/FHSP�CSPUIFST�TNPUIFSJOH�JO�BO�BJSUJHIU�DBHF�PG� QPWFSUZ�JO�UIF�NJETU�PG�BO�BõVFOU�TPDJFUZ��XIFO�ZPV�TVEEFOMZ�öOE�ZPVS�UPOHVF�UXJTUFE� BOE�ZPVS�TQFFDI�TUBNNFSJOH�BT�ZPV�TFFL�UP�FYQMBJO�UP�ZPVS�TJY�ZFBS�PME�EBVHIUFS�XIZ� TIF�DBO�U�HP�UP�UIF�QVCMJD�BNVTFNFOU�QBSL�UIBU�IBT�KVTU�CFFO�BEWFSUJTFE�PO�UFMFWJTJPO � BOE� TFF� UFBST� XFMMJOH� VQ� JO� IFS� MJUUMF� FZFT� XIFO� TIF� JT� UPME� UIBU� 'VOUPXO� JT� DMPTFE� UP� DPMPSFE�DIJMESFO �BOE�TFF�UIF�EFQSFTTJOH�DMPVET�PG�JOGFSJPSJUZ�CFHJO�UP�GPSN�JO�IFS�MJUUMF� NFOUBM�TLZ �BOE�TFF�IFS�CFHJO�UP�EJTUPSU�IFS�MJUUMF�QFSTPOBMJUZ�CZ�VODPOTDJPVTMZ�EFWFMPQ- JOH�B�CJUUFSOFTT�UPXBSE�XIJUF�QFPQMF��XIFO�ZPV�IBWF�UP�DPODPDU�BO�BOTXFS�GPS�B�öWF� ZFBS�PME� TPO� BTLJOH� JO� BHPOJ[JOH� QBUIPT�� i%BEEZ � XIZ� EP� XIJUF� QFPQMF� USFBU� DPMPSFE� QFPQMF�TP�NFBO w��XIFO�ZPV�UBLF�B�DSPTT�DPVOUSZ�ESJWF�BOE�öOE�JU�OFDFTTBSZ�UP�TMFFQ� OJHIU� BGUFS� OJHIU� JO� UIF� VODPNGPSUBCMF� DPSOFST� PG� ZPVS� BVUPNPCJMF� CFDBVTF� OP� NPUFM� XJMM�BDDFQU�ZPV��XIFO�ZPV�BSF�IVNJMJBUFE�EBZ�JO�BOE�EBZ�PVU�CZ�OBHHJOH�TJHOT�SFBEJOH� iXIJUFw�BOE�iDPMPSFEw��XIFO�ZPVS�öSTU�OBNF�CFDPNFT�iOJHHFSw�BOE�ZPVS�NJEEMF�OBNF� CFDPNFT�iCPZw� IPXFWFS�PME�ZPV�BSF �BOE�ZPVS�MBTU�OBNF�CFDPNFT�i+PIO w�BOE�XIFO� ZPVS�XJGF�BOE�NPUIFS�BSF�OFWFS�HJWFO�UIF�SFTQFDUFE�UJUMF�i.ST�w��XIFO�ZPV�BSF�IBSSJFE�
“It is di"cult to appreci- ate King’s achievement if we do not understand that his dilemma was that he saw both the need for and the danger of nationalism.”
—James Melvin Washington
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S�� 409
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 409 05/09/17 06:06 PM
CZ�EBZ�BOE�IBVOUFE�CZ�OJHIU�CZ�UIF�GBDU�UIBU�ZPV�BSF�B�/FHSP �MJWJOH�DPOTUBOUMZ�BU�UJQUPF� TUBODF�OFWFS�RVJUF�LOPXJOH�XIBU�UP�FYQFDU�OFYU �BOE�QMBHVFE�XJUI�JOOFS�GFBST�BOE�PVUFS� SFTFOUNFOUT��XIFO�ZPV�BSF�GPSFWFS�öHIUJOH�B�EFHFOFSBUJOH�TFOTF�PG�iOPCPEJOFTTw��UIFO� ZPV�XJMM�VOEFSTUBOE�XIZ�XF�öOE�JU�EJóDVMU�UP�XBJU����
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH � +S� �JO�A Testament of Hope
In 1954 in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools throughout the land must be desegregated. !e backlash in the South was immediate and ferocious. !e Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other racist groups stepped up violence against blacks, and several African-American males were lynched, including—in the most infamous case—a fourteen-year-old boy named Emmett Till.
A year later in Birmingham, Alabama, a black seamstress named Rosa Parks became a symbol of courageous resistance to racial segregation and discrimination. On a public bus, she was ordered by the bus driver to give up her seat to a white man, in accordance with Alabama and Birmingham law. She refused. So she was arrested, booked, and jailed, and her ordeal became the rallying cry of the 1960s civil rights movement. For 381 days, King and his followers staged a nonviolent boycott against Montgomery’s public bus system. Ultimately they won: in 1956 the Supreme Court a"rmed a decision of a lower court that had ruled against the Alabama segregation laws. But winning in the courts did not ensure victory in the cities and towns. Seven years went by before buses in the South were desegregated.
!rough the next decade, King and his followers participated in many other boycotts, sit-ins, prayer pilgrimages, mass marches, and mass meetings—all of them nonviolent in accordance with King’s philosophy of nonviolent direct action. Like the struggle for desegregated buses, these protests were harrow- ing and risky, often drawing the outrage, ridicule, and hatred of whites. Frequently protesters were subjected to beatings, arrests, threats, bombings, and arson. King was threatened many times, his house was bombed, and he was stabbed. Progress was slow: it took years for courtroom successes to a#ect the racial segregation and discrimination in people’s lives. It was not until 1964 that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act; even then the struggle was far from over.
On August 28, 1963, King gave his historic “I Have a Dream” speech to hundreds of thousands who attended the March on Washington (and to thousands more who watched the event on television). In 1964 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And on April 4, 1968, during a visit to Memphis, Tennessee, to give support and encouragement to striking sanitation workers, he was assassinated.
King’s philosophy of nonviolent protest is coherent and thor- ough. He argues that nonviolent direct action is the wise middle road between the paths of militant violence and nonviolent in- action. !e nonviolent way works, and “violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”21
11.�0O�XIBU�NPSBM�QSJO- DJQMFT�EPFT�,JOH�CBTF�IJT� PCKFDUJPOT�UP�TFHSFHBUJPO
“Violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more compli- cated ones.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
Figure 17.10 .BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S��JO�UIF�#JSNJOH- IBN�KBJM�
410 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 410 05/09/17 06:06 PM
12.�*T�,JOH�B�NPSBM� SFMBUJWJTU �8IZ�PS�XIZ� OPU �%PFT�IF�CFMJFWF�JO� VOJWFSTBM�WBMVFT �*G�TP � XIBU�WBMVFT�EPFT�IF�UIJOL� BSF�VOJWFSTBM
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S���i/POWJPMFODF�BOE�3BDJBM�+VTUJDFw�
5IF�BMUFSOBUJWF�UP�WJPMFODF�JT�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUBODF��5IJT�NFUIPE�XBT�NBEF�GBNPVT�CZ�.P- IBOEBT�,��(BOEIJ �XIP�VTFE�JU�UP�GSFF�*OEJB�GSPN�UIF�EPNJOBUJPO�PG�UIF�#SJUJTI�FNQJSF��'JWF� QPJOUT�DBO�CF�NBEF�DPODFSOJOH�OPOWJPMFODF�BT�B�NFUIPE�JO�CSJOHJOH�BCPVU�CFUUFS�SBDJBM� DPOEJUJPOT�
'JSTU �UIJT�JT�OPU�B�NFUIPE�GPS�DPXBSET��JU�does�SFTJTU��5IF�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUFS�JT�KVTU�BT� TUSPOHMZ�PQQPTFE�UP�UIF�FWJM�BHBJOTU�XIJDI�IF�QSPUFTUT�BT�JT�UIF�QFSTPO�XIP�VTFT�WJPMFODF�� )JT�NFUIPE�JT�QBTTJWF�PS�OPOBHHSFTTJWF�JO�UIF�TFOTF�UIBU�IF�JT�OPU�QIZTJDBMMZ�BHHSFTTJWF� UPXBSE�IJT�PQQPOFOU��#VU�IJT�NJOE�BOE�FNPUJPOT�BSF�BMXBZT�BDUJWF �DPOTUBOUMZ�TFFLJOH�UP� QFSTVBEF�UIF�PQQPOFOU�UIBU�IF�JT�NJTUBLFO��5IJT�NFUIPE�JT�QBTTJWF�QIZTJDBMMZ�CVU�TUSPOHMZ� BDUJWF�TQJSJUVBMMZ��JU�JT�OPOBHHSFTTJWF�QIZTJDBMMZ�CVU�EZOBNJDBMMZ�BHHSFTTJWF�TQJSJUVBMMZ�
"�TFDPOE�QPJOU�JT�UIBU�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUBODF�EPFT�OPU�TFFL�UP�EFGFBU�PS�IVNJMJBUF�UIF� PQQPOFOU �CVU�UP�XJO�IJT�GSJFOETIJQ�BOE�VOEFSTUBOEJOH��5IF�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUFS�NVTU�PGUFO� FYQSFTT�IJT�QSPUFTU�UISPVHI�OPODPPQFSBUJPO�PS�CPZDPUUT �CVU�IF�SFBMJ[FT�UIBU�OPODPPQFSB- UJPO�BOE�CPZDPUUT�BSF�OPU�FOET�UIFNTFMWFT��UIFZ�BSF�NFSFMZ�NFBOT�UP�BXBLFO�B�TFOTF�PG� NPSBM�TIBNF�JO�UIF�PQQPOFOU��5IF�FOE�JT�SFEFNQUJPO�BOE�SFDPODJMJBUJPO��5IF�BGUFSNBUI�PG� OPOWJPMFODF�JT�UIF�DSFBUJPO�PG�UIF�CFMPWFE�DPNNVOJUZ �XIJMF�UIF�BGUFSNBUI�PG�WJPMFODF�JT� USBHJD�CJUUFSOFTT�
"�UIJSE�DIBSBDUFSJTUJD�PG�UIJT�NFUIPE�JT�UIBU�UIF�BUUBDL�JT�EJSFDUFE�BHBJOTU�GPSDFT�PG�FWJM� SBUIFS� UIBO� BHBJOTU� QFSTPOT� XIP� BSF� DBVHIU� JO� UIPTF� GPSDFT�� *U� JT� FWJM� XF� BSF� TFFLJOH� UP� EFGFBU �OPU�UIF�QFSTPOT�WJDUJNJ[FE�CZ�FWJM��5IPTF�PG�VT�XIP�TUSVHHMF�BHBJOTU�SBDJBM�JOKVTUJDF� NVTU�DPNF�UP�TFF�UIBU�UIF�CBTJD�UFOTJPO�JT�OPU�CFUXFFO�SBDFT��"T�*�MJLF�UP�TBZ�UP�UIF�QFPQMF�
Figure 17.11 4FHSFHBUJPOJTUT�JO�.POUHPNFSZ �"MBCBNB �QSPUFTUJOH�BHBJOTU�EFTFHSFHBUJOH�UIF�QVCMJD� TDIPPMT ������
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S�� 411
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 411 05/09/17 06:06 PM
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH � +S���i/POWJPMFODF�BOE� 3BDJBM�+VTUJDFw
JO�.POUHPNFSZ �"MBCBNB��i5IF�UFOTJPO�JO�UIJT�DJUZ�JT�OPU�CFUXFFO�XIJUF�QFPQMF�BOE�/FHSP� QFPQMF��5IF�UFOTJPO�JT�BU�CPUUPN�CFUXFFO�KVTUJDF�BOE�JOKVTUJDF �CFUXFFO�UIF�GPSDFT�PG�MJHIU� BOE�UIF�GPSDFT�PG�EBSLOFTT��"OE�JG�UIFSF�JT�B�WJDUPSZ�JU�XJMM�CF�B�WJDUPSZ�OPU�NFSFMZ�GPS�öGUZ� UIPVTBOE�/FHSPFT �CVU�B�WJDUPSZ�GPS�KVTUJDF�BOE�UIF�GPSDFT�PG�MJHIU��8F�BSF�PVU�UP�EFGFBU� JOKVTUJDF�BOE�OPU�XIJUF�QFSTPOT�XIP�NBZ�IBQQFO�UP�CF�VOKVTU�w
"�GPVSUI�QPJOU�UIBU�NVTU�CF�CSPVHIU�PVU�DPODFSOJOH�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUBODF�JT�UIBU�JU� BWPJET�OPU�POMZ�FYUFSOBM�QIZTJDBM�WJPMFODF�CVU�BMTP�JOUFSOBM�WJPMFODF�PG�TQJSJU��"U�UIF�DFOUFS� PG�OPOWJPMFODF�TUBOET�UIF�QSJODJQMF�PG�MPWF��*O�TUSVHHMJOH�GPS�IVNBO�EJHOJUZ�UIF�PQQSFTTFE� QFPQMF�PG�UIF�XPSME�NVTU�OPU�BMMPX�UIFNTFMWFT�UP�CFDPNF�CJUUFS�PS�JOEVMHF�JO�IBUF�DBN- QBJHOT��5P�SFUBMJBUF�XJUI�IBUF�BOE�CJUUFSOFTT�XPVME�EP�OPUIJOH�CVU�JOUFOTJGZ�UIF�IBUF�JO�UIF� XPSME��"MPOH�UIF�XBZ�PG�MJGF �TPNFPOF�NVTU�IBWF�TFOTF�FOPVHI�BOE�NPSBMJUZ�FOPVHI�UP�DVU� Pò�UIF�DIBJO�PG�IBUF��5IJT�DBO�CF�EPOF�POMZ�CZ�QSPKFDUJOH�UIF�FUIJDT�PG�MPWF�UP�UIF�DFOUFS�PG� PVS�MJWFT�������
'JOBMMZ �UIF�NFUIPE�PG�OPOWJPMFODF�JT�CBTFE�PO�UIF�DPOWJDUJPO�UIBU�UIF�VOJWFSTF�JT�PO� UIF�TJEF�PG�KVTUJDF��*U�JT�UIJT�EFFQ�GBJUI�JO�UIF�GVUVSF�UIBU�DBVTFT�UIF�OPOWJPMFOU�SFTJTUFS�UP� BDDFQU�TVòFSJOH�XJUIPVU�SFUBMJBUJPO��)F�LOPXT�UIBU�JO�IJT�TUSVHHMF�GPS�KVTUJDF�IF�IBT�DPTNJD� DPNQBOJPOTIJQ��5IJT�CFMJFG�UIBU�(PE�JT�PO�UIF�TJEF�PG�USVUI�BOE�KVTUJDF�DPNFT�EPXO�UP�VT� GSPN�UIF�MPOH�USBEJUJPO�PG�PVS�$ISJTUJBO�GBJUI��5IFSF�JT�TPNFUIJOH�BU�UIF�WFSZ�DFOUFS�PG�PVS� GBJUI�XIJDI�SFNJOET�VT�UIBU�(PPE�'SJEBZ�NBZ�SFJHO�GPS�B�EBZ �CVU�VMUJNBUFMZ�JU�NVTU�HJWF� XBZ�UP�UIF�USJVNQIBOU�CFBU�PG�UIF�&BTUFS�ESVNT��&WJM�NBZ�TP�TIBQF�FWFOUT�UIBU�$BFTBS�XJMM� PDDVQZ�B�QBMBDF�BOE�$ISJTU�B�DSPTT �CVU�POF�EBZ�UIBU�TBNF�$ISJTU�XJMM�SJTF�VQ�BOE�TQMJU�IJTUPSZ� JOUP�"�%��BOE�#�$� �TP�UIBU�FWFO�UIF�MJGF�PG�$BFTBS�NVTU�CF�EBUFE�CZ�IJT�OBNF��4P�JO�.POU- HPNFSZ�XF�DBO�XBML�BOE�OFWFS�HFU�XFBSZ �CFDBVTF�XF�LOPX�UIBU�UIFSF�XJMM�CF�B�HSFBU�DBNQ� NFFUJOH�JO�UIF�QSPNJTFE�MBOE�PG�GSFFEPN�BOE�KVTUJDF�22
In 1963 King was jailed in Birmingham for taking part in nonviolent demon- strations. While incarcerated, he wrote his famous essay, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” to respond to white clergymen who had urged him to let the courts handle the question of racial integration and to stop his nonviolent protests. In this section of the “Letter,” King defends the theory and practice of civil disobedience:
13.�8IBU�JT�,JOH�T�UIFPSZ� PG�DJWJM�EJTPCFEJFODF � &YQMBJO�XIZ�ZPV�UIJOL� IJT�UIFPSZ�JT�TPVOE� PS� VOTPVOE ��
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S���i-FUUFS�GSPN�B�#JSNJOHIBN�+BJMw�
:PV�FYQSFTT�B�HSFBU�EFBM�PG�BOYJFUZ�PWFS�PVS�XJMMJOHOFTT�UP�CSFBL�MBXT��5IJT�JT�DFSUBJOMZ�B�MF- HJUJNBUF�DPODFSO��4JODF�XF�TP�EJMJHFOUMZ�VSHF�QFPQMF�UP�PCFZ�UIF�4VQSFNF�$PVSU�T�EFDJTJPO� PVUMBXJOH�TFHSFHBUJPO�JO�UIF�QVCMJD�TDIPPMT �JU�JT�SBUIFS�TUSBOHF�BOE�QBSBEPYJDBM�UP�öOE�VT� DPOTDJPVTMZ�CSFBLJOH�MBXT��0OF�NBZ�XFMM�BTL �i)PX�DBO�ZPV�BEWPDBUF�CSFBLJOH�TPNF�MBXT� BOE�PCFZJOH�PUIFST w�5IF�BOTXFS�JT�GPVOE�JO�UIF�GBDU�UIBU�UIFSF�BSF�UXP�UZQFT�PG�MBXT��UIFSF� BSF�just�MBXT�BOE�UIFSF�BSF�unjust�MBXT��*�XPVME�BHSFF�XJUI�4BJOU�"VHVTUJOF�UIBU�i"O�VOKVTU� MBX�JT�OP�MBX�BU�BMM�w
/PX�XIBU�JT�UIF�EJòFSFODF�CFUXFFO�UIF�UXP �)PX�EPFT�POF�EFUFSNJOF�XIFO�B�MBX� JT�KVTU�PS�VOKVTU �"�KVTU�MBX�JT�B�NBONBEF�DPEF�UIBU�TRVBSFT�XJUI�UIF�NPSBM�MBX�PS�UIF�MBX� PG�(PE��"O�VOKVTU�MBX�JT�B�DPEF�UIBU�JT�PVU�PG�IBSNPOZ�XJUI�UIF�NPSBM�MBX��"OZ�MBX�UIBU� VQMJGUT�IVNBO�QFSTPOBMJUZ�JT�KVTU��"OZ�MBX�UIBU�EFHSBEFT�IVNBO�QFSTPOBMJUZ�JT�VOKVTU��"MM�
412 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 412 05/09/17 06:06 PM
TFHSFHBUJPO�TUBUVUFT�BSF�VOKVTU�CFDBVTF�TFHSFHBUJPO�EJTUPSUT�UIF�TPVM�BOE�EBNBHFT�UIF� QFSTPOBMJUZ��*U�HJWFT�UIF�TFHSFHBUPS�B�GBMTF�TFOTF�PG�TVQFSJPSJUZ �BOE�UIF�TFHSFHBUFE�B�GBMTF� TFOTF�PG�JOGFSJPSJUZ��5P�VTF�UIF�XPSET�PG�.BSUJO�#VCFS �UIF�HSFBU�+FXJTI�QIJMPTPQIFS �TFHSF- HBUJPO�TVCTUJUVUFT�BO�i*�JUw�SFMBUJPOTIJQ�GPS�UIF�i*�UIPVw�SFMBUJPOTIJQ �BOE�FOET�VQ�SFMFHBUJOH� QFSTPOT�UP�UIF�TUBUVT�PG�UIJOHT��4P�TFHSFHBUJPO�JT�OPU�POMZ�QPMJUJDBMMZ �FDPOPNJDBMMZ�BOE�TPDJP- MPHJDBMMZ�VOTPVOE �CVU�JU�JT�NPSBMMZ�XSPOH�BOE�TJOGVM��1BVM�5JMMJDI�IBT�TBJE�UIBU�TJO�JT�TFQBSBUJPO�� *TO�U�TFHSFHBUJPO�BO�FYJTUFOUJBM�FYQSFTTJPO�PG�NBO�T�USBHJD�TFQBSBUJPO �BO�FYQSFTTJPO�PG�IJT� BXGVM�FTUSBOHFNFOU �IJT�UFSSJCMF�TJOGVMOFTT �4P�*�DBO�VSHF�NFO�UP�EJTPCFZ�TFHSFHBUJPO�PSEJ- OBODFT�CFDBVTF�UIFZ�BSF�NPSBMMZ�XSPOH�������
*�IPQF�ZPV�DBO�TFF�UIF�EJTUJODUJPO�*�BN�USZJOH�UP�QPJOU�PVU��*O�OP�TFOTF�EP�*�BEWPDBUF� FWBEJOH�PS�EFGZJOH�UIF�MBX�BT�UIF�SBCJE�TFHSFHBUJPOJTU�XPVME�EP��5IJT�XPVME�CF�BOBSDIZ�� 0OF�XIP�CSFBLT�BO�VOKVTU�MBX�NVTU�EP�JU�openly, lovingly� OPU�IBUFGVMMZ�BT�UIF�XIJUF�NPUIFST� EJE�JO�/FX�0SMFBOT�XIFO�UIFZ�XFSF�TFFO�PO�UFMFWJTJPO�TDSFBNJOH �iOJHHFS �OJHHFS �OJHHFSw � BOE�XJUI�B�XJMMJOHOFTT�UP�BDDFQU�UIF�QFOBMUZ��*�TVCNJU�UIBU�BO�JOEJWJEVBM�XIP�CSFBLT�B�MBX� UIBU�DPOTDJFODF�UFMMT�IJN�JT�VOKVTU �BOE�XJMMJOHMZ�BDDFQUT�UIF�QFOBMUZ�CZ�TUBZJOH�JO�KBJM�UP� BSPVTF�UIF�DPOTDJFODF�PG�UIF�DPNNVOJUZ�PWFS�JUT�JOKVTUJDF �JT�JO�SFBMJUZ�FYQSFTTJOH�UIF�WFSZ� IJHIFTU�SFTQFDU�GPS�UIF�MBX�23
.BSUJO�-VUIFS�,JOH �+S��� i-FUUFS�GSPN�B� #JSNJOHIBN�+BJMw
WRITING & REASONING $)"15&3���
1. What is Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning? Do you think it is true? Why or why not?
2. What is Nussbaum’s overriding principle of tolerance? Do you accept this principle? It would apparently allow such actions as, say, building a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Do you agree with this implication? Explain.
3. Do you think Appiah’s cosmopolitanism is right about our social and cultural relations—that is, do we have a duty to take an interest in the practices and beliefs of people who live outside our own community?
4. Was the United States founded according to the principles of classical liberalism, welfare liberalism, or something else? Has the country stayed true to its origins? Explain.
5. Is libertarianism a better theory of justice than welfare liberalism? Sup- port your answer with reasons.
3&7*&8�/05&4
17.1 WITTGENSTEIN t� *O�IJT�FBSMZ�QFSJPE �8JUUHFOTUFJO�UIJOLT�UIBU�BMM�UIF�QSPCMFNT�PG�QIJMPTPQIZ�DBO�CF�
solved at one stroke. He believes that the true aim of philosophy is not to wrestle with the traditional puzzles or to build extravagant systems of thought but to come to a
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 413 05/09/17 06:06 PM
3FWJFX�/PUFT� 413
proper understanding of the nature of language. For him, the problems of philosophy arise precisely because we are confused about the logical structure of language.
t� )F�BTTFSUT�UIBU�USVMZ�NFBOJOHGVM�QSPQPTJUJPOT�BMM�UIF�USVF�POFT�BSF�UIPTF�VTFE� in the natural sciences. Nonsense propositions occur in metaphysics, religion, and ethics. But he does not dismiss these domains themselves as nonsense; he main- tains only that trying to state something about them is nonsense.
t� )JT�NBJO�JEFB�JT�UIBU�MBOHVBHF�JT�NBEF�VQ�PG�QSPQPTJUJPOT �BOE�QSPQPTJUJPOT�IBWF� a logical structure, a way that their components are linked to one another. !is structure corresponds to the world’s structure—that is, to the facts, or “states of af- fairs,” of reality. In this way true propositions picture the facts—which is the main idea of his picture theory of meaning.
t� *O�IJT�MBUFS�QFSJPE �8JUUHFOTUFJO�BSHVFT�UIBU�MBOHVBHF�HFUT�JUT�NFBOJOH�OPU�GSPN�TPNF� mysterious essence, but from how it is used in a particular context, in a language-game.
17.2 DERRIDA AND CIXOUS t� %FSSJEB�JT�NPTU�GBNPVT�GPS�IJT�NFUIPE�PG�EJTTFDUJOH�MBOHVBHF�LOPXO�BT�EFDPO-
struction. It’s a way of unpacking a text (philosophical, literary, or other) to reveal hidden assumptions and contradictions that subvert the ostensible meaning.
t� %FSSJEB�T� VMUJNBUF� UBSHFU� JT� XIBU� IF� DBMMT� MPHPDFOUSJTN � UIF� QSFPDDVQBUJPO� XJUI� truth, logic, and rationality that characterizes the Western intellectual tradition.
t� "�MBSHF�QBSU�PG�$JYPVT�T�XPSL�JT�EFWPUFE�UP�FYBNJOJOH�UIF�QIJMPTPQIJDBM�BOE�QTZ- chological implications of the act of writing. She draws attention to a unique kind of female or bisexual writing—“feminine writing”—songlike and focused on female sexuality.
17.3 RAWLS t� 3BXMT�TBZT�UIF�KVTU�TUBUF�JT�CBTFE�PO�QSJODJQMFT�UIBU�QFPQMF�XPVME�BHSFF�UP�VOEFS�
hypothetical conditions that ensure fair and unbiased choices. He holds that if the starting point for the social contract is fair—if the initial conditions and bargain- ing process for producing the principles are fair—then the principles themselves will be just and will define the essential makeup of a just society.
t� -JCFSBMJTN� JO�JUT�CSPBEFTU�TFOTF �JT�UIF�QPMJUJDBM�EPDUSJOF�UIBU�QVUT�QSJNBSZ�FN- phasis on the liberty and rights of individuals against encroachments by the state. Classical liberalism (libertarianism) is the view that the state should protect per- sonal freedoms as well as the right to pursue one’s own social and economic well- being in a free market without interference from others. Welfare liberalism is the view that a just society aims to preserve individual liberties while ensuring the general welfare of the citizenry.
17.4 APPIAH t� "QQJBI� GPDVTFT� PO� UIF� TPDJBM� BOE� FUIJDBM� RVFTUJPOT� UIBU� BSJTF� GSPN� UIF� DPMMJTJPO�
of cultures in a shrinking world. His prescription for the inevitable friction that comes from six billion strangers trying to coexist is cosmopolitanism. For Appiah,
414 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 414 05/09/17 06:06 PM
cosmopolitanism is the idea that we have significant moral duties to all persons, even those outside our family and community. Each individual has responsibilities to every other.
t� "QQJBI�UIJOLT�DVMUVSBM�SFMBUJWJTN�JT�B�NJTUBLF��)F�TBZT �iUIFSF�BSF�TPNF�WBMVFT�UIBU� are, and should be, universal, just as there are lots of values that are, and must be, local.”
17.5 NUSSBAUM t� /VTTCBVN�TUSFTTFT�UIF�PWFSSJEJOH�JNQPSUBODF�PG�FRVBM�NPSBM�SFTQFDU�GPS�BMM�JOEJ-
viduals, regardless of the attributes bestowed on them by biology and society (such as race, class, and gender).
t� 4IF�BQQMJFT�UIF�FRVBM�SFTQFDU�QSJODJQMF�UP�UIF�XPSMEXJEF�QSPCMFN�PG�QSFKVEJDF�BOE� hatred toward religions. !e problem, she says, is real, prevalent, and dangerous, and Western countries (including the United States) have long been guilty of this kind of intolerance.
t� 4IF�NBJOUBJOT�UIBU�HPWFSONFOUT�NVTU�TIPX�SFTQFDU�GPS�PVS�FRVBMJUZ�BOE�EJHOJUZ�� to violate conscience is to conduct an assault on human dignity. Moreover, con- science can be seriously impeded by bad worldly conditions. It can be stopped from becoming active, and it can even be violated or damaged within.
t� 5P�DPNCBU�SFMJHJPVT�JOUPMFSBODF �TIF�TBZT �XF�OFFE�UISFF�UIJOHT�� � �QPMJUJDBM�QSJO- ciples expressing equal respect for all citizens, and an understanding of what these principles entail for today’s confrontations with religious di#erence; (2) rigorous critical thinking that ferrets out and criticizes inconsistencies, particularly those that take the form of making an exception for oneself; and (3) a systematic cultivation of the “inner eyes,” the imaginative capacity that makes it possible for us to see how the world looks from the point of view of a person di#erent in religion or ethnicity.
17.6 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. t� *O�UIF�����T �,JOH�T�mHIU�GPS�KVTUJDF�GBDFE�WFSZ�TUSPOH�BOUJ�JOUFHSBUJPO�QSFKVEJDFT��
In the South, the norm was segregation; it was an entrenched system that was in- variably accompanied by unequal and abusive treatment of African-Americans in countless areas of life.
t� *O������JO�#JSNJOHIBN �"MBCBNB �B�CMBDL�TFBNTUSFTT�OBNFE�3PTB�1BSLT�CFDBNF� a symbol of courageous resistance to racial segregation and discrimination. On a public bus, she was ordered by the bus driver to give up her seat to a white man, but she refused and was arrested and jailed. For over a year, King and his follow- ers staged a nonviolent boycott against Montgomery’s public bus system. In 1956 the Supreme Court a"rmed a decision of a lower court that had ruled against the Alabama segregation laws.
t� ,JOH�EFWFMPQFE�B�DPIFSFOU�QIJMPTPQIZ�PG�OPOWJPMFOU�QSPUFTU��)F�BSHVFE�UIBU�OPO- violent direct action is the wise middle road between the paths of militant violence and nonviolent inaction. !e nonviolent way works, and “violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”
/PUFT� 415
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 415 05/09/17 06:06 PM
t� )F�NBJOUBJOT�UIBU�OPOWJPMFOU�BDUJPO� � �JT�OPU�QBTTJWF�CVU�JT�B�XBZ�UP�SFTJTU�� � � does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding; (3) is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces; (4) avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit; and (5) is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is this deep faith in the future that causes the nonviolent resister to accept su#ering without retaliation.
/PUFT 1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F.
McGuiness (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1921), preface. 2. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness,
6.53 (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961). 3. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness,
6.522 (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961). 4. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness,
6.421 (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961). 5. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (New York:
Pearson, 1953, 1973). 6. Susan Sellers, ed., !e Hélène Cixous Reader (Oxford: Routledge, 1994), xxix. 7. John Rawls, A !eory of Justice, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 10. 8. Rawls, A !eory of Justice, 266. 9. Rawls, A !eory of Justice, 13. 10. Norman Daniels, “Health Care Needs and Distributive Justice,” in Justice and
Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 11. Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (New York:
W. W. Norton, 2006), xv. 12. Appiah, Cosmopolitanism, xvi. 13. Appiah, Cosmopolitanism, xx. 14. Appiah, Cosmopolitanism, xxi, 30–31. 15. Martha Nussbaum, quoted in Robert S. Boynton, “Who Needs Philosophy?: A
Profile of Martha Nussbaum,” New York Times Magazine, November 21, 1999. 16. Martha Nussbaum, !e New Religious Intolerance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2012), 61. 17. Nussbaum, !e New Religious Intolerance, 2. 18. Nussbaum, !e New Religious Intolerance, 67–68.
,&:�5&3.4
capitalism cosmopolitanism cultural relativism
deconstruction language-game liberalism
libertarianism picture theory of meaning
social contract theory socialism welfare liberalism
416 CHAPTER 17 5IF�$POUFNQPSBSZ�1FSJPE
vau28703_ch17_390-416.indd 416 05/09/17 06:06 PM
19. Nussbaum, !e New Religious Intolerance, 2–3. 20. Martin Luther King, Jr., in A Testament of Hope, ed. James Melvin Washington
(Cambridge: Harper & Row, 1986), 292–293. 21. King, Jr., “Violence and Racial Justice,” ed. Washington, 7. 22. King, Jr., “Violence and Racial Justice,” ed. Washington, 8–9. 23. King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” ed. Washington, 293–294.
'PS�'VSUIFS�3FBEJOH Kwame Anthony Appiah, !inking It !rough (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
M. Black, A Companion to Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964).
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. IX: Modern Philosophy from the French Revolution to Sartre, Camus, and Levi-Straus (New York: Doubleday, 1994).
Simon Critchley, Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
Peggy Kamuf, ed., A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).
Anthony Kenny, Philosophy in the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Anthony Kenny, Wittgenstein (New York: Penguin Books, 1973).
Brian Leiter and Michael Rosen, ed., !e Oxford Companion to Continental Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Martha C. Nussbaum, !e New Religious Intolerance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).
Susan Sellers, ed., !e Hélène Cixous Reader (Oxford: Routledge, 1994).
James Melvin Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope: !e Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986).