Moral Theories DEFINITION A moral theory is an

  • Slides: 69
Download presentation
Moral Theories

Moral Theories

DEFINITION • A moral theory – is “an explanation of what makes an action

DEFINITION • A moral theory – is “an explanation of what makes an action right or what makes a person or thing good. ” Vaughn, Lewis. Beginning Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton, 2015. Print.

Two Viewpoints of Morality • Consequentialist (teleological) – Morality is based on or concerned

Two Viewpoints of Morality • Consequentialist (teleological) – Morality is based on or concerned with consequences • Nonconsequentialist (deontological) – Morality is not based on or concerned with consequences

CLASSIFICATION 1. Teleology – Gk – “end” – refers to moral philosophies in which

CLASSIFICATION 1. Teleology – Gk – “end” – refers to moral philosophies in which an act is considered morally right or acceptable if it produces some desired result • Pleasure • Knowledge • career growth • self-interest • Utility • Wealth • Fame – In other words, teleological philosophies assess the moral worth of a behavior by looking at its consequences (consequentialist) • Forward looking – Two important teleological philosophies that often guide decision making in individual business decisions are egoism and utilitarianism.

Versions of Ethical Egoism • Individual Ethical Egoism – “I ought to look out

Versions of Ethical Egoism • Individual Ethical Egoism – “I ought to look out only for my own interests. I ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this concern also contributes to my own interests. ” • Universal Ethical Egoism – “Everyone ought to look out for an seek only their own best interests. People ought to help others only when and to the extent that it is in their own best interest to do so. ” 5

Teleological Theories: ETHICAL EGOISM • Egoism – defines right or acceptable behavior in terms

Teleological Theories: ETHICAL EGOISM • Egoism – defines right or acceptable behavior in terms of the consequences for the individual. – Egoists believe that they should make decisions that maximize their own self-interest, which is defined differently by each individual. – Q: • Are people basically selfish or unselfish? • Is there a difference b/t self-interest and selfishness? • Is it possible to act unselfishly?

Psychological vs. Egoism • Ethical egoism says that we OUGHT to be selfish, psychological

Psychological vs. Egoism • Ethical egoism says that we OUGHT to be selfish, psychological egoism says only that we ARE in fact selfish • Psychological egoism does not make any claim that we should act selfishly

Ethical Egoism • Selfishness is extolled as a virtue – Ayn Rand, The Virtue

Ethical Egoism • Selfishness is extolled as a virtue – Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness • May appeal to psychological egoism as a foundation • Often very compelling for young people 8

Teleological Theories: UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism – is concerned with consequences, – seeks the greatest

Teleological Theories: UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism – is concerned with consequences, – seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of people. – Utilitarians believe they should make decisions that result in the greatest total utility, or achieve the greatest benefit for all those affected by a decision. • Foundation: – Everyone counts equally – The principle states: "Of any two actions, the most ethical one will produce the greatest balance of benefits over harms. "

Teleological Theories: UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism, cont. – Principle of Utility • John Stuart Mill

Teleological Theories: UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism, cont. – Principle of Utility • John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) • Actions that produce happiness are the most useful • Happiness defined as that which produces pleasure – “Hedonism” – Pleasure in itself is intrinsically good

How to decide upon a course of action? 1. 2. 3. Determine the available

How to decide upon a course of action? 1. 2. 3. Determine the available courses of action Add up all the happiness and unhappiness Subtract the unhappiness from happiness—the net utility 4. Perform the action from the available alternatives which has most net utility Example: justification of the use of atomic weapons in World War II “x” number of deaths as a result of dropping an atomic bomb from “ 4 x” number of deaths resulting from a land invasion, utilitarian choice is clear

Two kinds of Utilitarianism • • Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism

Two kinds of Utilitarianism • • Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism • perform that act that will bring about the most good for

Act Utilitarianism • perform that act that will bring about the most good for everyone affected by that act. • AUs believe that each situation is different • Each individual must try to bring about the greatest amount of good consequences for all involved in this situation at this time

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism 1. Difficulty of determining consequences for others 2. Impracticality of

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism 1. Difficulty of determining consequences for others 2. Impracticality of beginning new: are acts and situations completely different? 3. Difficulty of educating the young or uninitiated: how to educate one to act morally if there are no rules or guidelines to follow

Rule utilitarianism • Everyone should always establish and follow that rule or those rules

Rule utilitarianism • Everyone should always establish and follow that rule or those rules that will bring about the greatest good for all concerned • Human motives, beliefs, actions and situations are sufficiently similar to justify setting up rules to generate the greatest good

Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism 1. Difficulty of determining consequences for others 2. Are there

Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism 1. Difficulty of determining consequences for others 2. Are there any rules that are exceptionless?

The Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach: A Problem for Utilitarianism • Cost-benefit analysis or end justifies

The Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach: A Problem for Utilitarianism • Cost-benefit analysis or end justifies the means • Is the utility criterion understood as the ‘greatest good d for the greatest number’ always the right thing to strive for? • Excludes minorities and excluded communities and their rights • Individuals are taken as ‘ends in themselves’ which treats personal as means in terms of ‘use’ or ‘utility’ • Does the end always justify the means?

Trolley Problem

Trolley Problem

CLASSIFICATION 2. Deontology – Gk – “duty “ – based of duty or obligation

CLASSIFICATION 2. Deontology – Gk – “duty “ – based of duty or obligation – Focus: • rights of individuals • intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than on its consequences. (non-consequentialism) – Backward looking – Fundamental: • equal respect must be given to all persons. • regard certain behaviors as inherently right or wrong – Backward looking

CLASSIFICATION OF MORAL THEORIES • Deontology, cont. – Views the nature of moral principles

CLASSIFICATION OF MORAL THEORIES • Deontology, cont. – Views the nature of moral principles as permanent and stable – believes that compliance with these principles defines ethicalness – believe that individuals have certain absolute rights: a) Freedom of conscience b) Freedom of consent c) Freedom of privacy d) Freedom of speech e) Due process

CLASSIFICATION OF MORAL THEORIES • Deontology, cont. – Deontologists may be divided into those

CLASSIFICATION OF MORAL THEORIES • Deontology, cont. – Deontologists may be divided into those who focus on moral rules and those who focus on the nature of the acts themselves. a) Rule deontologists believe that conformity to general moral principles determines ethicalness. Deontological philosophies use reason and logic to formulate rules for behavior. b) Act deontologists hold that actions are the proper basis on which to judge morality or ethicalness. Act deontology requires that a person use equity, fairness, and impartiality when making and enforcing decisions.

Deontological Theories: DIVINE COMMAND John Arthur • right "means" commanded by God • Morality

Deontological Theories: DIVINE COMMAND John Arthur • right "means" commanded by God • Morality lies in God/God is the source of morality • Q: 1. Euthyphro dilemma: • Is what's right, right because (a) God says so, or (b) because God sees that it's right? 2. Which God? 3. What if God changes the command?

Deontological Theories: NATURAL LAW Thomas Aquinas • There is a divine plan/eternal law/law of

Deontological Theories: NATURAL LAW Thomas Aquinas • There is a divine plan/eternal law/law of nature – Everything has a purpose (telos) • Includes values • Natural law is discoverable through human reason • Natural law holds that one ought to do good and avoid evil. • Human beings are naturally inclined to the good, as evidenced in: – Impulse to self-preservation – Animal desires • e. g. , – Sex – Protection/education of young – Impulse to do good according to reason • e. g. – know God – live socially

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. based on practical

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. based on practical reason a) we think abut our actions, not based on whims or personal pleasure a) b) born in the mind everyone has the capacity to discern right & wrong morality is based on a conscious will and a sense of duty morality is inherent in reason 1) 2) based on access to universal laws rooted in causality a) same principles used to discern scientific principles I. same as the rules of logic and geometry based on how one “ought to act” a) b) What one “ought to do”/”should do” How any reasonable person would act an awareness of obligation – duty universally binding on all

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Motivation and intention matters – Goodwill • to

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Motivation and intention matters – Goodwill • to act morally, – we must be aware that the act is good – must do it w/ goodwill • morality is a duty based on goodwill • is inherently good in and of itself – not for its ends (results) – acts out of the proper motive • Separation b/t humans and animals and the unenlightened – inclinations » self-interest » duty

Kant’s Definition • The morally worthy individual (if such a person exists) does what

Kant’s Definition • The morally worthy individual (if such a person exists) does what he or she ought to do, whether he/she feels like it or not, or whether anyone else notices, rewards, praises or blames or punishes her or not.

Duty and Inclination • Kant was mistrustful of inclinations as motivations – This was

Duty and Inclination • Kant was mistrustful of inclinations as motivations – This was part of his view of the physical world as causally determined • Saw feelings as – Unreliable – Passive – Phenomenal

Duty Rather Than Inclination • Once moral rules have been discovered to be absolutes,

Duty Rather Than Inclination • Once moral rules have been discovered to be absolutes, human beings must obey them out of a sense of duty rather than follow their inclinations

Kant’s Duty Ethics • Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except as

Kant’s Duty Ethics • Kant believed that nothing was good in itself except as a good will – Will is the unique human ability to act in accordance with moral rules, laws, or principles regardless of interests or consequences

Kant: the “Supreme Principle” of Morality If we ask for the essential characteristic defining

Kant: the “Supreme Principle” of Morality If we ask for the essential characteristic defining moral goodness or worth, we find: – An action has “moral worth” if • • it conforms to the requirements of duty, and is done for the sake of duty (…and not for some other motive); and – A person is morally good (“good will”) if • he or she can be counted on to do his/her duty, motivated solely by a respect or reverence for the moral law (rather than consideration of some other, variable principle). Kant’s Morality = Duty vs Mill’s Morality = Happiness

Kant’s Moral Framework Desire Duty What we want (or are inclined) to do What

Kant’s Moral Framework Desire Duty What we want (or are inclined) to do What we know we should do Obligation from reason Universal Principles (Categorical Imperative) Conflict Indicates we have a choice How we act Duty (Moral Law) Free Will, Autonomy What makes us human. . . not animals Good Will Acts solely out of Reverence for Moral Law

Kant’s Moral Theory Good Will Reason Duty Rational Beings Self Discipline Acting on Universal

Kant’s Moral Theory Good Will Reason Duty Rational Beings Self Discipline Acting on Universal Principle

Maxims • A general statement of the principle upon which one acts in a

Maxims • A general statement of the principle upon which one acts in a given situation. • Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules that guide action. – Relevant Act Description – Sufficient Generality • All actions have maxims, such as, – Never lie to your friends. – Never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you. – Always watch out for number one. – It’s ok to cheat if you need to.

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative – duty comes in the form of

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative – duty comes in the form of an imperative (command) • “it is my duty, therefore, I must” – holds in all situations • not all are moral – Hypothetical vs. Categorical 1. Hypothetical • if we want to achieve a certain end, we must act in a certain way – formula: ‘if this, then that’ • conditional – only command if we decide to do certain things – relative to the situation

Imperatives • The Categorical Imperative: An act is immoral if the rule that would

Imperatives • The Categorical Imperative: An act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all human beings to follow • The Practical Imperative: No human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s ends; each human being is a unique end

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative 2. Categorical (Moral) • unconditional • includes

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative 2. Categorical (Moral) • unconditional • includes all rational people and commands “an action as necessary of itself w/out reference to another end • applies to all situations • universally binding on all rational people • foundation of all moral laws

Categorical Imperative (CI 1): Formula of Universal Law • CI 1 – Formula of

Categorical Imperative (CI 1): Formula of Universal Law • CI 1 – Formula of Universal Law: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Translation: 1. Can I universalize my act without contradiction? Kant’s 4 illustrations: • Do not harm the self (suicide) • Do not harm or deceive others (lying) • Do what is good for the self (develop your talents) • Do what is good for others (beneficence)

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative – Categorical (Moral) 1. Act as if

Deontological Ethics: IMMANUEL KANT (KANTIANISM) • Imperative – Categorical (Moral) 1. Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become through your will a universal law of nature – What if everybody did it? 2. So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only – – – Treat people as persons, not objects Don’t exploit others to our own advantage Treat others w/ respect & dignity 3. Always so act as the will could regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its own maxim – – Autonomy of the will freedom to make choices

Categorical Imperatives CI#1 Form a Maxim Could it become Universal Law? No CI#3 CI#2

Categorical Imperatives CI#1 Form a Maxim Could it become Universal Law? No CI#3 CI#2 Does it treat people as an End not merely as a Means? No Could the maxim be willed by you and agreed upon by everyone to as moral law for the community? No Fails the Categorical Imperative: IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT! P A S S E S

Lying • Is it possible to universalize a maxim that permits lying? • What

Lying • Is it possible to universalize a maxim that permits lying? • What is the maxim? – It’s ok to cheat when you want/need to? • Can this consistently be willed as a universal law? – No, it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends.

Exceptions • Are exceptions possible for Kant? – Yes, as long as they can

Exceptions • Are exceptions possible for Kant? – Yes, as long as they can be consistently universalized • Examples – The speeding car • We can universalize an exception for something like ambulance drivers – The Gestapo example • Can we universalize a maxim to deceive in order to save innocent lives?

Goods and Others… Kantian Ethics Strengths • Realm of duty, free from utility (Woo-hoo!

Goods and Others… Kantian Ethics Strengths • Realm of duty, free from utility (Woo-hoo! no math involved!) • Respect for persons • Golden rule – do unto others, expressed in rational terms • Reason based Weaknesses • Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion • The irrelevance of inclination • Overly formal and universal – i. e. , most of our duties are in social roles • Inflexibility • Supererogation

Recap CI-procedure CI 1 = formula of “universal law” Make it law… without any

Recap CI-procedure CI 1 = formula of “universal law” Make it law… without any loopholes CI 2 = “respect for persons principle” People as ends not means CI 3 = “Kingdom of Ends” You are bound to obey the laws you make… for the Good of the Community Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third, which attempts to portray the moral situation of a free, rational individual within a democratic society. The “essence of morality” is the motive (good will) behind the act to produce a “…Systematic union of rational beings under common objective law. ”

Deontological Theories: INTUITIONISM • Humans have an inherent sense of morality – Common sense

Deontological Theories: INTUITIONISM • Humans have an inherent sense of morality – Common sense • Humans had moral ideas before the existence of philosophy • Reasoning in morality is only used to confirm our intuitions – On its own often goes awry • Falls back on what “feels right”

Deontological Theories: INTUITIONISM • Critique: 1. 2. 3. 4. Intuitions are wild guesses No

Deontological Theories: INTUITIONISM • Critique: 1. 2. 3. 4. Intuitions are wild guesses No proof that we have innate moral sense Intuitions can’t be critiqued Absence of intuitions in some suggests either a lack of morals or morals based on other grounds

Deontological Theories: PRIMA FACIE DUTIES • Sir William David Ross (1877 -1940) – Agreed

Deontological Theories: PRIMA FACIE DUTIES • Sir William David Ross (1877 -1940) – Agreed with Kant • Disagreed with the absolutism • Literally duties “at first glance” • Those duties all human beings must obey unless other considerations are involved

Deontological Theories: PRIMA FACIE DUTIES • Critique: – What criteria determine prima facie? –

Deontological Theories: PRIMA FACIE DUTIES • Critique: – What criteria determine prima facie? – When is one duty “stronger” than another?

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • Focuses on attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • Focuses on attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our human potential. • Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. – Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 48

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • Examples: – Honesty – Courage – Faithfulness – Trustworthiness

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • Examples: – Honesty – Courage – Faithfulness – Trustworthiness – Integrity – etc. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 49

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • The principle states: – "What is ethical is what

Other Theories: VIRTUE THEORY • The principle states: – "What is ethical is what develops moral virtues in ourselves and our communities. " The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 50

Other Theories: ARISTOTLE (VIRTUE THEORY) Aristotle provides the classic formulation of virtue theory. •

Other Theories: ARISTOTLE (VIRTUE THEORY) Aristotle provides the classic formulation of virtue theory. • Virtue is the source of happiness • Virtue is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue – Moral virtue strikes a mean between excess and deficiency – Intellectual virtue relies upon the exercise of reason • What is best for humans – Reason is the highest form •

ARISTOTLE’S GOLDEN MEAN Deficiency Mean Excess Cowardice prudence Meanness/miserliness timid tedious Courage Temperance liberality

ARISTOTLE’S GOLDEN MEAN Deficiency Mean Excess Cowardice prudence Meanness/miserliness timid tedious Courage Temperance liberality gentle witty foolhardiness profligacy prodigality wrathful buffoonery Humility Self-respect Vanity Self-deprecation Truthfulness Boasting Sulkiness Friendliness Flattery Bashfulness Modesty Shamelessness Malevolence Righteous indignation Envy

RELATIVISM • Definitions of ethical behavior are derived subjectively from the experiences of individuals

RELATIVISM • Definitions of ethical behavior are derived subjectively from the experiences of individuals and groups. • Relativists use themselves or the people around them as their basis for defining ethical standards, and the various forms of relativism include descriptive, meta ethical, or normative.

RELATIVISM 1. Descriptive relativism – relates to observing cultures. 2. Meta-ethical relativists – understand

RELATIVISM 1. Descriptive relativism – relates to observing cultures. 2. Meta-ethical relativists – understand that people naturally see situations from their own perspectives and argue that, as a result, there is no objective way of resolving ethical disputes between value systems and individuals. 3. Normative relativism – Normative relativists assume that one person’s opinion is as good as another’s

ETHICAL RELATIVISM • Ethical relativism: Moral truths are not absolutely true but true relative

ETHICAL RELATIVISM • Ethical relativism: Moral truths are not absolutely true but true relative to some particular standards. • Cultural relativism: Moral truths are not absolutely true but are relative to a particular society. – Whether an act is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of society and not on an absolute standard. • Individual relativism: Moral truths are not absolute but relative to individuals. – Whether an act is right or wrong depends on the convictions of the person performing it and not on an absolute standard.

RIGHTS • Identifies certain interests or activities that our behavior must respect, especially those

RIGHTS • Identifies certain interests or activities that our behavior must respect, especially those areas of our lives that are of such value to us that they merit protection from others. • Each person has a fundamental right to be respected and treated as a free and equal rational person capable of making his or her own decisions. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 56

RIGHTS • This implies other rights – e. g. , • • privacy free

RIGHTS • This implies other rights – e. g. , • • privacy free consent freedom of conscience etc. – that must be protected if a person is to have the freedom to direct his or her own life. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 57

RIGHTS • The right to the truth: We have a right to be told

RIGHTS • The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices. • The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others. • The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries. • The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 58

RIGHTS • The principle states: – "An action or policy is morally right only

RIGHTS • The principle states: – "An action or policy is morally right only if those persons affected by the decision are not used merely as instruments for advancing some goal, but are fully informed and treated only as they have freely and knowingly consented to be treated. " The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 59

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions distribute benefits

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions distribute benefits and burdens among the members of a group. • Fairness requires consistency in the way people are treated. • The principle states: "Treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them. " The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 60

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Aristotle – "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Aristotle – "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. " – In its contemporary form, • "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. " – Consequence • an injustice—a form of discrimination The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 61

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Different Kinds of Justice – Distributive justice • refers to

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Different Kinds of Justice – Distributive justice • refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. • When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 62

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Different Kinds of Justice – Retributive or Corrective justice. •

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Different Kinds of Justice – Retributive or Corrective justice. • Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. • In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as: – the seriousness of the crime – the intent of the criminal – discount irrelevant criteria such as race. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 63

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Compensatory justice – Compensatory justice refers to the extent to

FAIRNESS (OR JUSTICE) • Compensatory justice – Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; • just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 64

THE COMMON GOOD • Presents a vision of society as a community whose members

THE COMMON GOOD • Presents a vision of society as a community whose members are joined in a shared pursuit of values and goals they hold in common. • The community is comprised of individuals whose own good is inextricably bound to the good of the whole. • The principle states: – "What is ethical is what advances the common good. " The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 65

WOMEN’S (CARE) ETHICS • particular actions have consequences for relationships and feelings • Negative

WOMEN’S (CARE) ETHICS • particular actions have consequences for relationships and feelings • Negative consequences are those that destroy relationships and that hurt others, especially those that hurt others emotionally. • the morally good course of action is that one that preserves the greatest degree of connectedness among all those affected by it.

Care Ethics • Established by Carol Gilligan, sometimes called “feminist ethics” • There are

Care Ethics • Established by Carol Gilligan, sometimes called “feminist ethics” • There are fundamental differences between men and women: • Men’s moral attitudes have to do with justice, rights, competition, being independent, and living by the rules • Women’s moral attitudes have to do with generosity, harmony, reconciliation, and working to maintain close relationships

Gilligan (continued) Gilligan’s book, In a Different Voice, argues that there are differences between

Gilligan (continued) Gilligan’s book, In a Different Voice, argues that there are differences between how men and women, boys and girls, reason morally. Her work is a reaction to the work of her colleague, child psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927 -1987). Kohlberg conducted experiments by which he concluded that boys mature morally ahead of girls.

Critique of Gilligan’s emphasis and defense of feelings and emotions in moral decision making,

Critique of Gilligan’s emphasis and defense of feelings and emotions in moral decision making, an “ethic of care” in her terminology, is tempered by these concessions: 1. She does not assert that an ethic of care is superior to one grounded on appeal to rules and principles. 2. She does not claim that women’s approach is better than men’s. 3. She suggests they are both necessary and must be integrated for good moral reasoning.