Philosophy is a discipline that for along time has been too rigid and unaccepting of alternative views and thoughts. When one reads ancient philosophy it becomes very clear that the theories have been conjured by old men and hold similar values. Crucial perspectives have constantly been left out because of the disciplines leaders unwillingness accept different trains of thought aside from their own. Ideas lead by values such as intellect, independence, reason, and domination which fail to account to all aspects of moral life have been foolishly valued above all else. Feminist ethics offers a contrasting perspective derived from women experiences. Their theories of ethics emphasize the strengthening of personal relationships rather than focusing on the interactions of “public life”. Where male philosophy has always tried to, “ensure that, among strangers, justice is done, rights are respected, and utility is maximized”(150) feminist ethics believes that although that too is important we should be thinking more about how we act towards those we hold deeper connections to. To me this makes a lot of sense for the same reason the author gives, we spending a majority of our time with the familiar people in our small groups so we should be focusing on creating moral theory which places the benefits of positive relation with them on a pedestal. They also believe that a greater respect for emotions and that ethical guides should come from virtue’s not only rules. Which I also agree with because without empathy and emotions pure logic and reasoning can become cruel and authoritarian. For instance our justice system is suppose to rehabilitate people who break the rules of society but more often it is just a form of punishing people. For instance when a mother steals food for her child, if you only use the logic then she should get in trouble for stealing but if we combine empathy it is not hard to see that punishing her will omnly make it harder for her to feed her child. Nature has allowed us to feel moral guides in our emotions and we must use those feelings in combination with our logic for such a useful tool would be foolish to waste.
After reading the paragraph devoted to this question I would agree that their are people in our lives who we are partial to. We allow people we care about to get away with character traits or behaviors that we personally don’t agree with because we care for them. We all have the capacity for empathy which makes makes being impartial possibly unachievable. Even though in systems like law and justice it is crucial that people act impartially I do not believe they can truly accomplish that goal. Everyone holds unconscious bias’ that can tip their scales one way or the other. A judge one day might be in a forgiving mood while the next he is feeling more like a punisher. He might feel bad for a certain defendant because of the way the way they look, talk or act or he might be enraged by another. Due to our human nature I believe that it not necessarily achievable for anyone to be truly impartial.
hatseemswrongman.fashion.blog 