PHILLY-FinalD678
JohnStud
Week7Reading.docxWeek 7, Reading Section 7.1: Introduction
I. Introduction
The Late-1960s and 1970s witnessed the arising of the Feminist Movements. One of the key causative factors, but by no means the only one, was the publication in the Late-1940s of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. De Beauvoir, a Philosopher, Existentialist, and colleague and intimate of Jean Paul Sartre, wrote the book, because she recognized what she considered an odd phenomenon: when she was associated with Sartre and his work, she was respected by their colleagues. But when she ventured out, on her intellectual own, in non-collaborative works, she was not respected by those same colleagues.
Deciding she wanted to examine the possible reasons for this discrepancy, she delved deeply, researched, came to certain conclusions, and wrote the book. And WHAT a BOOK!
After investigating ancient and modern cultures, she concluded that the definition of what it meant to be “human” was set, in modern, paternalistic cultures by a male standard. In her words, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” She argued that woman was always “the Other,” “the Outsider,” to these male definitions of “human.” Put another way, men decided what it meant to be a woman. De Beauvoir argued for women’s equality with men.
Twenty+ years after the publication of The Second Sex, a new Women’s Movement, referred to variously, as Second- or Third-Wave Feminism arose, first, in Europe and the United States, then in other parts of the World. Theorists re-examined, and, in the words of the French Philosopher, Jacques Derrida, “deconstructed” the major sub-fields of Philosophy, including Epistemology, Metaphysics, Cosmology, Ethics/Moral Philosophy, Social and Political Philosophies, Philosophy of Natural Sciences, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of the Mind (Psychology), Philosophy of Religion.
The variety and richness of the theories of Feminism are beyond the scope of this brief module. Rather, we shall focus on one or two particular forms of Feminist Ethics. (Like all other areas of Philosophy, there is not only one form of Feminist Ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, or Social or Political Philosophy, or of the other branches of Philosophy.) One of the theories we shall see is called the Ethics of Care, whose principal theorists are Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. The other theory is the Capabilities Theory of Martha Nussbaum. Below is a link to an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives an excellent overview of Feminist Ethical theories, in general.
Resource: Feminist Ethics
Week 7, Reading Section 7.2: The Ethics of Care
II. The Ethics of Care
Ethics and Moral Philosophy, since the earliest Greek theories until David Hume, have been founded on the premise that Reason provides the foundation of all ethical thought. From Plato and Aristotle, until Hume, Emotions have been viewed as inadequate bases of any of the branches of Philosophy, but most especially Moral and Ethical Thought. Since Aristotle’s views had been imported into Western Thought by Aquinas, it was Aristotle’s viewpoint on the preference of Reason, over Emotions or Passions, in Philosophy.
With David Hume, as we have seen, that orientation was reversed. Hume argued that Compassion should be the basis of Moral thought, since Reason could not provide the definitive answer to ethical/moral problems. Kant revisited this issue and re-asserted the primacy of Reason. Since Kant, until Feminist Theories arose in the Later-20th Century, Reason was once more predominant.
A. Carol Gilligan
A more recent theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, developed a 6-stage moral development framework. Levels 5 and 6 were the highest stages of moral developmental status, with each based on Reason. From his research, Kohlberg relegated women to a highest level of 3 or 4, because the women in his studies often acted on Empathy, Sympathy, or similar, Emotion-based systems. Kohlberg’s research assistant, Carol Gilligan, once free of the dangers of “disagreeing with the boss,” did research of her own, and reached very different conclusions.
Gilligan concluded young women and men were socialized differently, and, therefore, thought differently, especially, but not only, in ethical/moral matters. Men operated from a more dispassionate, so-called “objective” and Reason-based viewpoint, while women considered the needs of others, not based on Reason, but rather on Compassion and Caring, in making moral decisions. In addition, she concluded that, in fact, women and men looked at moral issues, differently and instinctively, in general. As male theorists had been setting the standards, for centuries, on “the right thing to do,” they relegated women’s approaches to “inferior” status, most especially because those approaches were based on Emotions and Caring.
In her paradigm-shifting text, In a Different Voice, Gilligan laid out the differences between women’s and men’s approaches to ethics and morality. Different approaches did not mean one was “better” than the other. She thereby laid claim to a position of equality for women’s views, for the first time. Other Feminist theorists would build on Gilligan’s work. Still others would take different paths.
B. Nel Noddings
Another Feminist theorist, Nancy Chodorow, had argued that little girls and little boys learned different ways of relating to others and to the world, based on contemporary child-rearing techniques. Little girls were encouraged to foster a relational connectedness, while little boys developed, based on separation and autonomy. Interestingly, Chodorow faulted these facts and suggested a solution, based on women’s and men’s equal responsibilities for child-rearing and providing for the family. Carol Gilligan’s work drew from Chodorow’s, in identifying the different ways in which women and men approach moral issues, as noted.
Philosopher Nel Noddings refined those approaches more specifically. She identified a “Caring” instinct in women’s methods of confronting and resolving moral situations. Men, as noted, rely upon Abstract concepts and principles, based on Reason. It is from this “Caring Instinct,” that the system of the Ethics of Care is derived.
Rather than a set of specific principles for dealing with all moral situations, the Ethics of Care suggest a methodology, based on evaluating the needs of others in the given situation. Here is a common example.
Suppose that you are working in a nursing home, which caters to Dementia and Alzheimer’s patients. One afternoon you see one of the patients, an elderly man, ostensibly having a very animated conversation with the figures in a painting on the wall. You have a moral dilemma. Should you tell him, based on a Reasoned approach, that his conversation is not truly taking place? Or should you leave him, alone? (Important fact: his actions are not disturbing any of the other patients or the staff and those actions are not threatening anyone’s wellbeing.)
What should you do? The Ethics of Care would suggest that, after determining that he is not harming anyone else by his actions, nor placing himself in any physical danger, you should leave him to enjoy a conversation that he thinks is taking place and that is adding to his happiness, even though you know that the figures in the painting are not answering him, as be believes they are. There is no (Abstract) Duty, in that situation, to tell him the truth.
Put another way, the Ethics of Care suggest the decision-maker take into account the other person’s needs, on a care-giving level, rather than on a dispassionate, reasoned basis. For her part, Noddings found the Ethics of Care a better approach to Abstract Reason and Application of so-called Objective Principles, divorced from situational factors.
Please note that, generally, the Philosophers we have seen so far, including the Feminist theorists, have been addressing ethical and moral issues from the perspective of how individual, human beings should confront and resolve such issues. Conversely, as we shall see in the next section, Martha Nussbaum takes a more systemic, and societal approach.
Week 7, Reading Section 7.3: Capabilities Theory: Martha Nussbaum
III. Capabilities Theory: Martha Nussbaum
One of the more well-known Philosophers, in a popular sense, is Martha Nussbaum, who has written on a wide variety of subjects and issues. She began from a classical, Aristotelian vantage. And she has written extensively on women’s rights, collaborating with Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, on socio-economic development issues.
Recognizing that modern Philosophy had inadequately addressed the problems of inequality of treatment for women and people with disabilities, she has developed a more societally-based and systemic approach to women’s rights and to rights in general. That is the Capabilities Approach, which is founded on two premises: (1) Freedom is essential to the development of all human beings, and (2) to insure maximum freedom for all members of society, society and government must provide each member the capabilities to develop her/her freedom. Renowned Historian James McPherson has referred to the latter as “Positive Liberty.”
What Nussbaum means by “capabilities,” are certain skills and attributes, which individuals need, in order to live and enjoy life. There are certain capacities that are necessary for this to be realized, on a large-scale. Thus, she concludes it is the role/duty of society and government, to ensure that each individual is provided with these capacities, to facilitate her/his pursuit of the use of her/his gifts, to be productive and moral agents and to contribute to society.
Resource: The Capability Approach
Resource: Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
In this way, she broaches the separation between so-called Economic Libertarianism, as pronounced and espoused by Robert Nozick, and Communitarianism and the work of John Rawls. In effect, she also removes the oversight in Rawls’ work, which makes it more directly of assistance to women and people with disabilities. Rawls’ original orientations had been toward the poor and cultural minorities.
As you approach and delve into this week’s substantive topic and issues, Cloning and forms of Artificial Reproductive Technologies, apply the Ethics of Care and Capabilities Theories to those issues.
Week 7, Reading Section 7.4: Cloning and Artificial (or Assisted) Reproductive Technologies
IV. Cloning and Artificial (or Assisted) Reproductive Technologies
These are not new topics and issues. However, due to their complexities and subtleties, they are ones, on which we do not have only one or two moral/ethical consensus. In the Mid-1970s, it was announced that the first “test-tube baby” had been born. What that sound-byte head-line meant was that conception/fertilization of the newborn had taken place, outside the parents’ “natural” milieus; i.e., what we now know as “In vitro” fertilization had been done. Today, it is an expensive, if also more commonly offered, medical practice, sought by couples, who, for one reason or another, desire to have a family, but cannot conceive on their own.
Resources:
Assisted Reproductive Technology and sociology. (UMUC Library One Search)Wienclaw, Ruth A. Research Starters: Sociology (Online Edition), 2015. 6p., Database: Research Starter
In the Mid-1990s, headlines around the world announced that British scientists had produced a fully “cloned,” whole animal, Dolly the Sheep. For the first time, Science Fiction had become Science Fact. The Science Fiction and Thriller genres of popular fiction had been dealing with cloning or artificial production of human beings and animals, for many decades, but was relegated by Mainstream society, to niche pop-culture or kitschy aficionado constituencies, like Rocky Horror Picture Show or Doctor Who. Imagination is one thing. Fact is quite another.
As research into both subjects will show, there are more types of both Cloning and Artificial Reproductive Technologies, than the two illustrated examples. For instance, there are Reproductive Cloning, Research Cloning, Therapeutic Cloning, Stem-Cell Cloning, and Full-organism (including Full-human) Cloning. So far, the only, general consensus, internationally, that has been emerging over the past twenty years is that full-human cloning ought to be banned. (But a full, international treaty or covenant has not yet been finalized.)
Stem Cells, Nuclear Transfer and Respect for Embryos. (UMUC Library One Search) Clausen, Jens. Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics. Mar2010, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p48-59. 12p. DOI: 10.1558/hrge.v16i1.48.
For other types of Cloning, controversy continues, because one key source for experimental material, stem cells, is from human embryos, often abandoned in cryogenics banks. Advocates, for and against the use of human embryonic stem cells, have been voicing their positions for the past 15-20 years.
Resource: Ethics of Stem Cell Research
Stem Cell Research and Technology . (UMUC Library One Search) Zneimer, Susan M., Ph.D. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science, January, 2014. 4p., Database: Research Starters
As In Vitro Fertilization has shown, there are also commercial, socio-economic, and business aspects of these issues. Should stem cells, or any human material be bought and sold? Consider the treatment of organ transplant issues, in this context. Should the mythical creature, “the market” make our determinations for us? Should governments, since they are (at least theoretically) accountable to their publics.
In the Early-2000s, it was also announced that the Human Genome Project, supported by U.S. and UK Governments’ and Wellcome Trust grants, had completed the first, full mapping of the human genome, a/k/a DNA. (Interestingly, the HGP beat a private consortium, supported by for-profit corporate funding.) Research into the Genome/DNA continues.
For some segments of publics around the Globe, the “mad scientist” scenario of horror literature and films seemed just on the horizon. In approaching these issues, please keep one thing in mind: Natural Scientists, in general, for a wide variety of reasons and causative factors, tend not to be “made scientists.” Due to the nature of the Natural Scientific Method, they tend to be cautious. Thus, the Medical Ethicists have played and continue to play an important role in this entire process. And many Medical Ethicists are also Lawyers. For Law is the place, where Moral, Ethical,
Human Cloning: Three Mistakes and an Alternative (UMUC Library One Search) Baylis, Françoise. Journal of Medicine & Philosophy. Jun 2002, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p319. 19p.
In the world of Dolly, when does a human embryo acquire respect? (UMUC Library One Search) Cameron, C.; Williamson, R.; Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics, Vol 31(4), Apr, 2005 pp. 215-220. Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group; Database: PsycINFO
There are no easy answers to these questions and issues. Nor should there be. They are complex, not reducible to quick, easy, disposable, and unquestioned answers. At the same time, they are not unanswerable. It will be that there are more than a few possible, good answers. . . The decision on your answer, for yourself, lies with you, in a reasoned and well-supported Argument, based on the theorists and theories we have seen. . . [Remember Weeks 1-3.]
