The idea that women and men think differently has

traditionally been used to justify discrimination against

women.
Aristotle said that women are less rational than men, and
so men naturally rule them. Immanuel Kant agreed,
adding that women “lack civil personality” and should have
no voice in public life. Jean-Jacques Rousseau tried to put
a good face on this by emphasizing that women and men
merely possess different virtues; but, of course, it turns out
that men’s virtues fit them for leadership, whereas
women’s virtues fit them for home and hearth.
Against this background, it is not surprising that the
women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s denied that
women and men differ psychologically. The conception of
men as rational and women as emotional was dismissed
as a mere stereotype. Nature makes no mental or moral
distinction between the sexes, it was said; and when there
seem to be differences, it is only because women have
been conditioned by an oppressive system to behave in
“feminine” ways.
These days, however, most feminists believe that women
do think differently than men. But, they add, women’s
ways of thinking are not inferior to men’s. Female ways of
thinking yield insights that have been missed in male-
dominated areas.
Thus, by attending to the distinctive approach of women,
we can make progress in subjects that seem stalled.
Ethics is said to be a leading candidate for this treatment.
6.1.3 Kohlberg's Stages of Moral
Development

Consider the following dilemma, devised by the

educational psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–
1987).
Heinz’s wife is near death, and her only hope is a drug
that was discovered by a pharmacist who is now selling it
for an outrageously high price. The drug costs $200 to
make, and the pharmacist is selling it for $2,000. Heinz
can raise
$1,000, but the pharmacist told him that half wasn’t
enough. When Heinz promised to pay the rest later, the
pharmacist still refused. In desperation, Heinz considers
stealing the drug. Would that be wrong?
This problem, known as “Heinz’s Dilemma,” was used by
Kohlberg in studying the moral development of children.
Kohlberg interviewed children of various ages, presenting
them with a series of dilemmas and asking them questions
designed to reveal their thinking. Analyzing their
responses, Kohlberg concluded that there are six stages
of moral development. In these stages, the individual
conceives of “right” in terms of
(stage 1) obeying authority and avoiding punishment;
(stage 2) satisfying one’s own desires and letting others
do the same, through fair exchanges;
(stage 3) cultivating one’s relationships and performing the
duties of one’s social roles;
(stage 4) obeying the law and maintaining the welfare of
the group;
(stage 5) upholding the basic rights and values of one’s
society;
(stage 6) abiding by abstract, universal moral principles.
So, if all goes well, we begin life with a self-centered
desire to avoid punishment, and we end life with a set of
abstract moral principles. Kohlberg, however, believed that
only a small minority of adults make it to stage 5.
In terms of Kohlberg’s stages, men seems to have
advanced beyond women. women’s responses are typical
of people operating in stage 3, where personal
relationships are paramount. Men, on the other hand,
appeals to impersonal principles. Men seem to be
operating at one of the later stages.
Do you agree with Kohlberg's conclusion?

6.1.4 Implications for Moral

Judgment: Family and Friends,
Children with HIV, Animals
Implications for Moral Judgment

Does an ethic of care have different implications than a

“male” approach to ethics?
Here are three examples.
Family and Friends.
When we try to construe “being a loving parent” as a duty,
we encounter problems. A loving parent is motivated by
love, not by duty. If parents care for their children only
because they feel it is their duty, the children will sense it
and realize they are unloved.
The ideas of equality and impartiality that pervade theories
of obligation seem deeply antagonistic to the values of
love and friendship.
Children with HIV
Around the world, about 2.5 million children under the age
of 15 have HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS. Right now
only one-fourth of those children get decent medical care,
while only half of pregnant women who have HIV are
taking steps to protect their unborn children from the virus.
Almost all of us spend money on luxuries. Luxuries are not
as important as protecting children from AIDS. Should we
give at least some of our money to UNICEF?
Animals
Do we have obligations to nonhuman animals? Should we,
for example, refrain from eating them? An ethic of principle
says that how we raise animals for food causes them
great suffering, and so we should nourish ourselves
without the cruelty.
The Ethics of Care appeals to intuition and feeling rather
than to principle. Noddings observes that our emotional
responses to humans are different from our responses to
animals.

6.1.5 Implications for Ethical

Theory
Implications for Ethical Theory

Men’s theories emphasize: impersonal duty, contracts, the

balancing of competing interests, and the calculation of
costs and benefits.
Feminists accuse moral philosophy of having a male bias.
The concerns of private life are almost wholly absent, and
the “different voice” of which Carol Gilligan speaks is
silent.
The contrast between “being a certain kind of person” and
“doing your duty” lies at the heart of a larger conflict
between two kinds of ethical theory.
Virtue Ethics sees being a moral person as having certain
traits of character: being kind, generous, courageous, just,
prudent, and so on.
Theories of obligation, on the other hand, emphasize
impartial duty: They portray the moral agent as someone
who listens to reason, figures out the right thing to do, and
does it.
The ethics of care, therefore, may be best understood as
one part of the ethics of virtue.
6.2.2 The Seven Step Method for
Analyzing Ethical Situations
One of the tools for analyzing ethical situations is to follow
the Seven Step Method for deciding what action to take in
a situation. The method involves answering seven “what”
questions:
1. The Facts
2. The Ethical Issues
3. The Alternatives
4. The Stakeholders
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
6. The Practical Constraints
7. Actions to Take
One reason for using the seven step method is to provide
a mental checklist to insure completeness in making
the ethical analysis.
The method also provides a framework for locating
difficulties and disagreements. By separating facts from
ethical issues, for example, the framework allows us to
determine whether a disagreement is over the facts or
over the ethical issues
Ethical decision making is a dialectical process. The
fact that the seven steps are listed in numerical order does
not indicate a strict logical or chronological order. The
presence of certain facts will alert us to the need to
consider certain ethical issues, but without some prior
acquaintance of the ethical issues, these facts would not
have any ethical significance. Determining what the
alternatives are, who the stakeholders are, or what the
practical constraints are may send us in search of
additional facts.
Considering who the stakeholders are may generate new
alternatives. The insight generating capacity of the ethical
principles used to determine the ethics of the alternatives
may raise new ethical issues or point us toward additional
stakeholders. Thus each step should be taken in
progressive numerical order but each step remains open
to revision by subsequent steps. The steps are related in a
dialectical way in that the completion of one leads us to
see inadequacies in previous steps that need revision.
The requirement to decide on a real time response to the
situation sets a limit on how much of this dialectical
thinking we can engage in.

6.2.3 A Description of the Seven

Steps
1. The Facts
What facts make this an ethical situation?
What are the significant features of the particular situation
which make it an ethical situation? Is there some actual or
potential harm involved for an individual or group? Does
the situation relate to some basic human goods which are
being created, distributed, denied or threatened? Does the
situation affect human welfare in some significant way?
Does it involve considerations of justice or rights?
What facts are relevant to making an ethical decision?
What facts should we know in order to decide how to act
in this situation? Steps 1 and 2 are closely related. What
facts are relevant will depend on what the ethical issues
are and the ethical issues will be determined by the
presence of certain facts. Thus the initial assessment of
facts will have to be augmented once the ethical issues
have been determined.
2. The Ethical Issues
What level of ethical issues are we dealing with?
Systemic, corporate, or individual? Knowing the level of
the problem will help us to decide who will be affected by
the decision and will therefore qualify as stakeholders and
who will be required to make the decision--the society as a
whole, decision makers within the corporation, or myself
as an individual.
What specific ethical issues does this situation raise?
Is it a question of how to maximize benefits and minimize
harms? Is it a question of whether an action can be
universalized? Of whether individuals are being treated as
ends and not merely as means? Of whether all rational
persons would agree that a particular action is right or
good? Is it a question of a possible violation of rights or a
conflict between rights? Is it a question of the fair
distribution of benefits and burdens? Is it a question of
how or whether to apply some specific ethical principle?
What level of generality is required?
The ethical issues need to be stated at a level of
generality which will allow the issue to be discussed in as
broad terms as possible, so as to see all the possible
ramifications, while yet being specific enough to lead to
alternative actions in the case at hand.
3. The Alternatives
Given the facts and the ethical issues, what alternative
actions are possible in this situation? Initially, we should
state as many alternatives as possible without making
judgments as to their plausibility. Having generated as
many as possible, the most plausible should be chosen for
further examination.
4. The Stakeholders
Who will be affected by the alternatives and to what
degree?
We must determine who will be affected to a degree
significant enough to include them among the primary
stakeholders worthy of consideration. For systemic issues,
which individuals, groups, institutions, and aspects of the
physical, economic and social environment will be
affected? For corporate issues, who and what inside and
outside the corporation will be affected: stockholders,
government, society, the environment, suppliers,
customers, local community, employees, managers, and
so on. For individual issues, who will be affected by the
decision, both inside the company such as peers,
superiors, other departments, and outside the company
such as customers and suppliers?
How to rank stakeholder claims?
Part of the decision-making process will be to establish
how much weight each stakeholder's claim deserves. This
weighing of claims is often done intuitively. For purposes
of justifying why the decision is the right one, however, the
process for weighing the competing claims should be
spelled out as much as possible.
5. The Ethics of the Alternatives
Use ethical principles to decide on the best
alternative.
The ethics of each of the most plausible alternatives is
assessed using ethical principles or rules. For each
alternative, for example, we could ask the questions
associated with the utilitarian, rights and justice principles
to determine how the alternative is rated by each theory.
When the alternatives have all been rated as right or
wrong, good or bad, the object is to select the best
alternative. In the ideal situation, all the ethical principles
will point to the same alternative as the best one.
How to decide when the theories point to different
alternatives.
There are situations in which different ethical principles will
recommend different alternatives. In a case where the
principles provide a mixed recommendation, we must
choose which recommendation to follow and be prepared
to justify that choice as best we can. Justification can be
provided by showing why the theory (ies) indicates that
alternative is the best and how this fits better into our
conception of what the good life is than the alternatives
suggested by the other theories. It may come down to the
simple fact that, after inspecting all the alternatives with
rationality and respect, I just do value one alternative, or
one theoretical approach, or one point of view as
highlighted by one theoretical approach, or one state of
affairs provided by that alternative, or one value embodied
by one alternative more than the others. I may not be able
to say why I prefer that alternative except in terms of the
way I choose to live my life and what my experience has
shown me. Does the fact that I do not have another
definite standard to appeal to if two ethical theories should
disagree mean that my decision is irrational or unjustified?
The decision is rational in that I have made it on the basis
of the careful consideration required by the seven-step
method and it is justified by showing why it is the best
alternative according to at least one ethical theory. To say
that I am willing to live by the decision is the only
remaining justification.
6. The Practical Constraints
Can the best alternative be put into effect?
Having decided on one alternative, we need to see
whether there are any practical constraints that might
prevent that alternative from being acted upon. When
practical constraints rule out an alternative, we must return
to Step 5 to select the next best alternative and subject it
to the practical constraints test.
Distinguish ethical from practical constraints.
Ethical decision-making involves ruling out alternatives on
ethical grounds in Step 5 and on practical grounds in Step
6. In actual practice, we often do not bother to distinguish
the two different kinds of reasons for rejecting an
alternative. It is helpful to keep them distinct as far as
possible in order to be clear as to what kind of reason we
are giving. The difference between practical constraints
and ethical considerations can best be illustrated by an
example.
7. Actions to Take
Implementing the best alternative.
Having selected the best alternative which is not ruled out
by practical constraints, we need to decide on the steps
necessary to carry it out.

A summary of the justification. We should also be

prepared, at the close of this decision process, to provide
a justification of why this course of action is the right or
good one in this situation. Going through the seven steps
justifies the decision in the fullest sense. We should be
prepared, however, to respond in some briefer form to the
legitimate requests of others--our superiors, our peers, the
agents of society--for an explanation of why this
alternative is the best approach to this situation. This
summary based on the seven steps will also provide us
with a briefer account to apply to similar situations in the
future. The worst punishment would be to face the full
seven-step process for each and every ethical decision we
make in our lives. We would have no time for living.