Ethics and Gender Roles

Sandra LaFave

• Time and change are important in the contract model insofar as contracts generally specify a timeframe for the completion of contractual tasks, and a timeframe for the start date and duration of the contract. In contracts, the emphasis is generally on the completion of tasks, so tasks whose completion time is relatively fuzzy ("you will do -- or refrain from doing -- X by the end of summer") are artifically assigned completion dates ("you will do X by September 30"), whether or not summer is "over" by September 30. In addition, a good contract attempts to foresee and control change. For example, contracts usually make it difficult for either party to withdraw from the agreement -- changes in one party's state (plague, death, natural disasters, etc.) do not automatically void the deal. The more a contract takes possible contingencies into account, the better.
  
  
• Guy morality uses theoretical, deductive methods: what's moral follows logically from application of general rules and principles. E.g., from "All abortion is sinful" it follows deductively that "Mary's abortion is sinful," and that's the end of the moral analysis. Utilitarianism is particularly problematic here. Utilitarianism dictates that the right action is the one that produces the greatest hapopiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism initially sounds fine and reasonable, but it means, for example, that if you are in a terrible emergency situation -- you can save five strangers or save your own child -- you must save the five strangers, and that's the end of the moral analysis. Your child does not count more than anyone else. There is no room for "special duties": duties owed to some people but not others, e.g., duties to family as opposed to duties to strangers, because guy morality assumes a rigid notion of human equality.
  
  
• Moral reasoning in the most common non-religious ethical theories -- utilitarianism and Kantianism -- is thought to apply in every culture in all appropriate situations and at all times. The utilitarian pattern: the right action is the one that produces the greatest good of the greatest number. The moral agent's task is to discern as far as possible which act will produce the greatest good of the greatest number, using the best tools at her disposal (usually scientific method). Time and change enter the picture only insofar as situations change. The Kantian pattern uses a logical approach: the moral agent is supposed to ask: if I do X, would a contradiction result if everyone did X? If yes -- if there is a contradiction -- then X is not moral. If no contradiction, X is permissible. Since logical rules are (supposedly) timeless, time and change don't matter.
  
  
• Since women do not typically reason about moral matters in this way, "guy morality" usually downgrades women's moral capacity. E.g. both Schopenhauer and Freud (not to mention some versions of Christianity) say that females are morally childlike, inferior, and in need of moral guidance from men.
  
  
• Guy morality emphasizes "clean hands" -- decency vs excellence, casuistry, hair-splitting. The big question is: can I justify my behavior in terms of some rule? If yes, then I've done all I need to do. There's no need to strive for more moral excellence than is required by the rules of my contract with society.
  
  
• In spite of the emphasis on liberty, guy morality sees no problem with interfering (sometimes violently) in people's lives in order to change/convert people who are "ignorant" or "bad" -- for their own good!

• For women, no one exists in complete isolation or "independence"; "every self is embedded in a series of relationships." (p.73) Morality concerns individuals, no two of which are exactly alike, and all of whom have individual histories and faces. Time and change matter. For women, people's individual histories are very relevant in making moral judgments about them. Because men typically saw domestic matters -- raising children, preparing food, caring for the sick and elderly, etc. -- as "women's work" -- secondary to the real business of life (competition, war, power, deal-making, etc.) -- men tend to be less familiar with the families and life histories of the "invisible" people around them (children, servants, the sick, etc.). On the other hand, because women typically dealt with familiar people -- whose families and life histories are known to them (as they would be in any small-village setting), -- women tend to see more clearly than men the importance of families and upbringing and social circumstances to behavior. Because women are tuned into the daily changing life of the community, women see clearly how careless upbringing, poverty, and unexpected misfortune, over time, can produce "bad" behaviors. Women know that as a rule, well-brought-up people in good health and material advantages -- people with "moral luck" -- tend to have better lives, both morally and materially. Guy morality sometimes seems blind to this obvious fact.
  
  
• The world is full of disparities of power and rational capacity. Poor people are less powerful than rich people, children are less powerful and less rational than adults, women in many cultures are far less powerful than men, old people sometimes cannot function autonomously, etc. Women see these disparities of power very clearly because women tend to be the ones responsible for taking care of the other less powerful people: children, the sick, the old. These disparities of power mean that women know that you can't just leave some people alone (e.g., babies). So women are apt to find the male obsession with "liberty" -- construed as the right to be left alone -- as laughably naive. Men seem to conveniently forget that women cared for them when they were babies and women will probably take care of them when they are sick or old.
  
  
• Concepts of rights and equality must therefore be balanced by concerns for those who simply cannot participate fully in contracts. "Gal morality" emphasizes rights of recipience, as opposed to rights of non-interference. I.e., women tend to be more aware of positive duties of care, as opposed to negative duties to leave alone.
  
  
• In "gal morality", moral judgments are not necessarily arrived at deductively: sometimes morality requires creative, integrative responses that preserve relationships, even at the expense of "principle" or "consistency". There are general rules and duties, of course -- e.g., do the best you can for your children -- but there are no detailed prescriptions for how to carry out these rules. Consider the rule that parents should do the best they can for their children. The contract model -- the guy model -- is useless as applied to young children. Young children don't really understand contracts, and parents have far more power than young children, so there is no equality of capacity. The contract model might be more appropriate for older children -- "If child does X, parents will do Y" -- but whether it works obviously depends to a very large degree on the individual parents and children in question. For example, if Child1 is responsible and mature, a parent might have no problem allowing Child1 to drive. If Child2, a less mature and responsible sibling, then argues that consistency requires the parents to now allow Child2 to drive, a wise parent will likely ignore Child2's appeal to consistency, even if it appears "unfair". Another general rule -- "Adult children should do the best they can for their parents" -- is even less clear in its application. Reasonable people see that there are few rules here. If your parent has dementia, say, the "right" action depends on many factors: the degree of dementia, the availability of medical care, the availability of support services if the parent wants to remain at home, the financial resources of the family if the parent cannot live alone, etc. Decisions are complicated, and the right decision now may be the wrong decision in a year. Time and change matter crucially in these decisions. Women often appear to be more at home with the kind of moral improvisation required in these cases.
  
  
• Gal morality emphasizes accepting others without necessarily demanding to change them. Women may understand better than many men that children can change over time. Child-rearing requires patience and flexibility. Women, practiced in patience, are perhaps more willing than men to simply allow people the time they need to change. For example, if a woman want to convince someone that her religion is the right one, she will likely try silently modeling the good effects of her beliefs, or gentle persuasion over time. She doesn't go in with guns or force.
  
  
• Gal morality emphasizes excellences of virtue -- going beyond what is stipulated in the rules of the contract. Where a guy might ask, "What are the rules for being a good father?" or "What's the minimum amount of time I need to spend with my children in order to fulfill my role as a dad?", women might ask "How can I be the best mother possible?" Think of all the "extra" things people (and especially women) do to raise their children well (e.g., give birthday parties, take them to museums and concerts, go to their sporting events, etc.). No rule mandates any of those specific behaviors.