Kaufman1

Ruby Kaufman

Dr. Lauren Holt

AP Literature and Composition

29 April 2022

Ethical Theory: Through the Feminist Lens

As the need for civilization develops, the need for a moral code does simultaneously.

Inherent to a functioning, living, structure lies rules by which one should act; even in 1776 B.C

Babylonia, Hammarabi’s code acted as a guide by which citizens adhered to, including principles

such as “eye for an eye.” In Ancient Greece, renowned individuals such as Plato and Aristotle

began to create the outline from which modern day ethics would stem. Fast forward thousands of

years, past the work of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, lies the founding of Feminist Ethics

in the 1970s. A new approach to ethics focused on redirecting normative, patriarchal theories to

acknowledge previously unaccounted for perspectives that lie outside of a white, male-specific

understanding of human nature, through redistributing privileges that have been historically

limited to men, deconstructing the binary perspective of gender, and shifting gender norms that

halt progress and maintain oppressive systems established by the patriarchy. In debunking myths

of male supremacy and benefits to a strongly male-ordered structure, feminist ethicists are

creating a new environment in which women can flourish: feminist ethics is a power struggle.

Though sex-based ethical theorizing began before the 1970s, these disscussion were not

categorized into the ‘official’ ethical subsect of feminist ethics. While the first push for equality

in education was primarily focused on affluent, white women, English philosopher Mary Astell

and writer Damaris Masham spent the 1600s advocating for increased education rights. In the

18th century, the Enlightenment Movement established gender-harmonic beliefs for the right to
 2

equal education under the fact that women are both rational and human. Into the 19th and 20th

century anti-slavery movements, along with marxism and socialism, were on the rise. Along with

these cultural revolutions came the rise of “protofeminism,” the roots from which the tree of

femisit ethics grew. In addition to further arguments for genuine humanity, discussion by

philosophers like Harriet Taylor Mill, surrounding equal socio-political opportunities and the

shared benefits of increased women's rights, began to spread. This ignited the idea that women’s

lack of capitalist success was due not to inherent disabilities, but rather a lack of opportunities

and preparation. As misbeliefs that a husband can not rape his wife were questioned and

recognition of the detrimental affects of sexism on a womens sexual self-understanding arised,

sexual equality slowly began to seep its way into the field of feminist, academic, thinking.

Popularized in the 1970’s was a term created for women by women: “feminism.”

Contrasting the consistent structure of women historically adhering to the rules of men, feminism

brought diversity within the women's suffrage movement and has led to disagreements regarding

a myriad of gender related topics today. Despite these disparities in opinion, one consensus is

achieved: every feminist ethics is in the path to alter traditional, ethical theories and replace them

with gender inclusive ones. It important to note that feminist ethics is not, nor does it claim to be,

its own branch of ethics, but rather an approach to ethical decision making.

When hearing the word ethics, many immediately move to the theories coined by Kant:

deontology, one of the many normative ethical theories that guide people in specific decision

making. Translated, “deontology” means the study of one's duty, a definition that is highly fitting

for a theory based on strictly adhering to the words of masculine law without exception. Under

this system, decisions can not be justified purley by their effects; no matter how “good” the result

of an action may be, some things are undisputedly immoral. Being “right” is defined by how
 3

closely the decision aligns with the social norm established. Reactions from feminists ethics are

commonly split on this topic. Deontology has been translated to empower under the

presumption that the theory follows a strict formula and the rules must inherently apply equally

to both men and women. Hypothetically, globalized and standardized human rights would

mandate equal rights for women; on the contrary, ethicists focused on “care based theory”

propose that this way of moral decision-making undermines the significance of emotional

intelligence in comparison to rational intelligence, rejecting the power of the ability to care, and

thus devaluing traditionally feminine skill sets as weak and insufficient. Reliance of rational

intelligence obliterates the value of emotion, putting far too much emphasis on rationality and

objectivity.

In direct contrast to Kant’s deontology lies consequentialism, a theory focused

completely on the results of one's actions, regardless of how it affects minority groups .

Whatever will produce the greatest amount of “good” in the future is the “right” option.

Utilitarianism is a niche branch of consequentialism which focuses on results that produce the

most “good'', but for the most amount of people possible. In arguing for utilitarianism in

accordance with feminism, as philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have, lies the claim that s

not including women in culture is halting human moral progress and harming the greater good.

Preventing women from participating in the socio-political-economical realm of culture and

continuing oppressive gender stereotypes is harmful to everyone and thus, to create the most

good for the most people, women should be treated equally. Further bias towards this theory

stems from the utilitarian belief that all preferences are of equal importance, thus women have

equal responsibility and value of opinion as men.

 4

These benefits of a utalitarian society, while tempting for the feminist movemeny, rely on

a subjective fact: decisions made within consequentialism are unbiased. “unbiased” even exist?

The emphasis of impartiality within utilitarianism makes it an unreliable theory, as what is

‘good’ for most people can never be subjective, and oftentimes, the people deciding what is

“good” are biased. Furthermore, focusing solely on the consequences of one's actions strips the

value of personal connection from a decision. Even if this impartiality does exist wholly, those

decisions neglect the female minority creating a sense of equality and a lack of equity, which

contradict the goal of feminism. Even when the decider of “good” is impartial, an objectionable

set of criteria must be crafted in order to reach any plausible conclusion, leading thinkers back to

phase one. The consequentialist view boils down the issue to its results, thus avoiding the roots

of an issue. In this respect, consequentialism is merely a bandage to the issue, not a complete

solution.

In addition to the broad genre of ethics categorized as normative is Aristotle’s “virtue

ethics”, a strand of moral philosophy: virtue ethics emphasizes person over action. Though virtue

ethics is not typically catagorized in the field of feminist thinking because Aristotle had a

substantive focus on masculine superiority, other individuals noted previously in the field have

interpreted Aristotles groundwork to back feminism; in support of a virtue based feminist ethics,

philosophers such as Robert Dillion, believe that sexist oppression against non-cis-male

indivuduals create blockades to the acess of virtuous actions; ; a woman, limited by patriarchal

theorizing, can never and will never attain the level of virtue a man can, creating a cycle of

hierarchy and oppression. An alternative philosophy which holds the positive impact of virtue

ethics without the predetermined negativity towards feminism from Aristotle, as proposed by

Robert Dillion, is “feminist critical character ethics.” Part of the appeal of a feminist ethicist to
 5

this theory is the rejection of the unneccasasy division between rationality and emotion,

established within the patriarchy and allowing recognition for the value of both factors acting in

unison in the formation of moral character. Feminist virtue ethics focuses on “burdened ethics,”

or virtuous qualities that surpass the negative effects of systemic oppression and allow moral

agents to surpass the boundaries of this oppression. Under this system, the flourishing of the

individual overcomes the resistance they are shown. Critiques of feminist virtue ethics claim that

the extreme focus on the inner person could lead to ignorance of the persons actions towards

others and of how society affects who they are. Virtue ethics also forces people into an abyss self

discovery and constant moral questioning through the evaluation of each feeling; this

over-exertion of energy is not experienced in deontology ethics. Generally, an intensified focus

on oneself can easily retract a person from recognizing the effect they have on others' morals and

how others' morals impact them.

Compliance with the ideas of an ethical theory focuses on interactions with oneself and

others. The same is not true for feminist ethics; achieving the goals of these theories can only be

successful through legislation and cultural adjustment. It is about destigmatizing working women

and men being the primary caretaker. It is about creating sexual equality and not sexualizing

women. It is about inclusivity in the workplace and the government. It is about granting women

extra support to reach the same place men may aim to. It is about debunking the entire patriarchy

from the bottom up. Gender equality will only become the norm when we begin to use our votes,

voices, and values to summon progress. Silent feminism has never and will never be enough.