Seems like everyone's equating compassion with suspending their better instruments of reason automatically.

Buddhism provides a step by step deconstruction of reality using logic and rationality, gives you the plan of action, and then you go do it.
The plan of action, at least what the Dalai Lama famously says, is compassion. Historically, I'd say anatman or non-self.

So we have here the best of both worlds, compassion and reason.

Anyway, was interested in whether other people have studied feminist philosophies and such. What's your take on feelings such as care or love be the guiding force to moral decisions? Is it overly simplistic or elegantly simplistic? — Posty McPostface

I've read a little feminist philosophy here and there, and I've had philosophical conversations with many people who call themselves feminist.

Cultivating love and compassion is about the best thing one can do to be a moral human being and to promote morality, well-being, and justice in the world. Nonetheless, no matter how much cultivation we engage in, human animals will remain less than perfectly loving and compassionate. Accordingly, I suppose compassion may not be enough, perhaps especially in adjudicating disputes involving one or more selfish, uncaring, or unresponsive agents.

I think of compassion and fairness as two basic and cooperative moral principles that seem to come naturally to human animals and other primates.

So far as I can see, an ethics of compassion and fairness is consistent with the "ethics of care" characterized by Gilligan. I strongly agree that the negative language of rights and tolerance is insufficient to inform a moral worldview. I agree that a moral outlook that involves an "integration of rights and responsibilities" is preferable to one that neglects either rights or responsibilities. I agree that moral responsibility implicates a conception of individuals as interdependent, not independent.

For that matter, I suppose any moral outlook implicates a conception of human agents as interdependent in some sense or other. You don't quite have your rights unless others agree to respect them. I'm inclined to say that a conception of moral responsibility grounded in compassion and fairness is more basic than a conception of "rights".

I'm not sure the language of rights and tolerance was ever meant to serve as a complete moral theory. It seems more like a framework within which people of diverse opinions, attitudes, and lifestyles can agree to disagree while they live together and participate in the same society. I have the impression this framework was one result of an attempt to liberate large segments of society from the oppressive authority of governments, institutions, community leaders, and communal norms.

Arguably a critique like Gilligan's is an extension of the same tendency.

Yes, they do profess. It is part of the character role. In actual practice .... I have observed no differences between men and women when it comes to caring. Some people do and others don't.

Caring is not an ethic, it is a feeling. Where does this feeling come from, is tough to say? Some people certainly seem to care more than others. In part, caring can be somewhat learned by trial and error in a lifetime, but then again it may take, many, many, many lifetimes. — Rich

One can make the argument that all of ethics boils down to a sense of feeling, according to emotive theories and intuitive notions of what feels do ethical decisions derive from. I still find it hard to assume that a rationale can be devised to be taught or encouraged to people to care more. Rather, one can encourage certain feelings of care or empathy towards others to maintain some sense of care towards another.

What "love and care" is, is deep deep bias. We definitely should have love and care for those close to us, but this means favoritism. This means bias. That's been well known for a long, long time. The idea that these should be a wide spread ethical system, is to propose tribalism. — Wosret

Perhaps, then there's a deficiency in this bias towards others? I don't think we should require us to be caring or emphatic towards others; but, there's rarely something wrong with having people display those traits towards others. I don't really see a problem with encouraging such a bias in general.

There is far too much conflict for compassion to be all that great as a general ethical model. It is of course good to be compassionate, but compassion is also the source of guilt, and retribution, is my only point. If someone that you are uninterested in falls in love with you, or the truth might hurt someone, then compassion is going to make you feel shitty about rejecting them, or telling them the truth. You can be forced into lots of situations if you're too compassionate, and be tempted to lie all the time. You have to reduce compassion in order to be able to set boundaries, and not just let people walk all over you, or to tell people things they don't want to hear.

Also, when you reduce someone's problems to victimization and oppression, that compassion is going to make you feel invested, and personally hurt as well, and the blame, or responsibility, rather than being placed with the self causing guilt in the first case, will be placed with the third party causing anger, frustration, and desires for retribution in this case.

You can see that compassion is partial, or indeed individual, taking of sides, and feeling equal compassion for everyone leads to a stalemate, where a super-ordinate value must be the ruling principle in all cases, meaning that "compassion" itself is a nonstarter. Sounds nice and fluffy, and is a feel good word, that signals all kinds of virtue, but it isn't a great ruling principle — Wosret

Most people, generally, don't view other people as tools that can only be exploited. Although, I know of examples that exploit sympathy and other emotions to further their goals, but, such people typically end up in trouble or most people recognize their falsity and decide not to deal with them. Compassion and other emotions are already moral guidelines that come before rationalization. So, what's wrong with embracing their conclusions than rejecting them on grounds that they can't be rationalized? Not many, I think.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I understand how this happens in divine command theories (but why?? BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!), but theories like Kantianism, utilitarianism, or similar find grounding in reason, or intuition, or something. — darthbarracuda

Philosophy has been searching for an ideal rationale for guiding moral theories and ethics for a long time. Even the most universal of ethical postulates, such as the golden rule, rely on people to empathize with others to decide what is the best moral positions to be in regards to others. So, I don't see what's wrong with moral theories if most rely on notions such as 'caring', 'compassion', or relatability in regards to others.

I don't think an ethical theory would count as an ethical theory if it didn't put emphasis on other people instead of yourself. I'm totally on board with investigating the ethics-before-duty, the phenomenology of the encounter with the Other (Levinas), etc. But I think it's a straw man to say only virtue-care-feminist ethics are ethics concerning other people, because that is certainly false. — darthbarracuda

Well, that's not the point I'm making here at least. What I'm saying is that ethical truths are only found upon further examination to be made possible when another person can be related to in some regards based on emotive theories of what 'ethical truths' are.

Additionally, I think it was Aristotle who said virtue comes with habit. True, you must want to be virtuous, but it's something that needs to be taught as well. I'm not sure if the claim that virtuous people will always be a better moral actor than a prescriptivist person is true - and what are we defining "better moral actor" as apart from a person who does what is right, i.e. what ought to be done, i.e. prescriptions. — darthbarracuda

Well, doesn't wanting to be ethical implicitly rely on emotions, in general? Perhaps there is some selfish element to wanting to be moral; but, I haven't heard of any sort of material gain stemming from wanting to be moral or ethical. Are teachers motivated by an ethic of care and love for others that makes them want to put up with under-developed moral actors? Yeah, I would think so.

You mentioned previously how someone who doesn't "get" an ethical command will never see the rationale behind it. Yet I believe this is merely a case of someone not seeing the whole picture, or of having an impaired set of reasoning skills. — darthbarracuda

Well, yes, none of us have immediate access to a type of rationality that isn't bound by epistemic criteria available at the moment. So, what's wrong with emotions guiding decision making? There's a great deal of prejudice built around emotions nowadays in people. Largely due to the fact that emotions are unpredictable and uncertain. But, if they are what guides moral decision making as best as possible, then I would think there's nothing wrong with having emotions guide what's best for the other than one's seelf. Sure, people have whole sorts of emotions; but, if the right sort of emotions can be cultivated, then, the rest of ethics just falls in place to follow what one thinks is best for another based on a sense of caring and compassion.

I find it hard to believe this is intended to be a serious statement. Or am I misunderstanding. Are you saying women are more ethical than men? I don't know which it is more insulting to. — T Clark

I have wrestled with this statement to a large extent, and still think it is generally true. A prime example I ask of is why are males much more representative of prison populations than woman are, around the world? I'm not saying that men are inherently more guided by 'dark forces' or whatever you want to call it.

I have wrestled with this statement to a large extent, and still think it is generally true. A prime example I ask of is why are males much more representative of prison populations than woman are, around the world? I'm not saying that men are inherently more guided by 'dark forces' or whatever you want to call it. — Posty McPostface

My life experience does not support this point if view. I have never felt I can count on a person more or less because if their sex. Value systems are individually developed. Cultural issues that you site are quite complicated and can be debated endlessly.

I'm inclined to say that a conception of moral responsibility grounded in compassion and fairness is more basic than a conception of "rights". — Cabbage Farmer

I think you're right. I should have included fairness along with compassion. In a way, fairness is more basic. If responsibilities, benefits, and costs are apportioned fairly, it's in everyone's interest that people get treated kindly.

So we have here the best of both worlds, compassion and reason. — Frank Barroso

To me, there is a certain distance in compassion. It's not just sympathy or empathy. There is recognition and depth. I think I'm agreeing with you.

I still find it hard to assume that a rationale can be devised to be taught or encouraged to people to care more. Rather, one can encourage certain feelings of care or empathy towards others to maintain some sense of care towards another. — Posty McPostface

I guess I was thinking of ethical behavior as the way people should behave, not what is practical to transmit. From the Tao Te Ching:

There, when Tao [the way] is lost, there is virtue.
When virtue is lost, there is humanity.
When humanity is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is etiquette.
Etiquette becomes prevalent when people fail to be sincere and honest.
Hence, chaos begins.

Philosophy has been searching for an ideal rationale for guiding moral theories and ethics for a long time. Even the most universal of ethical postulates, such as the golden rule, rely on people to empathize with others to decide what is the best moral positions to be in regards to others. So, I don't see what's wrong with moral theories if most rely on notions such as 'caring', 'compassion', or relatability in regards to others. — Posty McPostface

I really agree with that. Compassion doesn't build the house of ethics, but it is the foundation.

I have wrestled with this statement to a large extent, and still think it is generally true. A prime example I ask of is why are males much more representative of prison populations than woman are, around the world? I'm not saying that men are inherently more guided by 'dark forces' or whatever you want to call it. — Posty McPostface

I think I said this before on this thread. Maybe it was a different one - that's as disrespectful of women as it is of men.

I think you're right. I should have included fairness along with compassion. In a way, fairness is more basic. If responsibilities, benefits, and costs are apportioned fairly, it's in everyone's interest that people get treated kindly. — T Clark

I'm inclined to say fairness and compassion are more basic than a conception of "rights". I might also say that compassion is more basic than fairness: Arguably, in order to have a genuine sense of what's fair in each case -- apart from abstract rules and laws and customs -- you must have compassionate insight into each party to the case and a feel for human nature. Along those lines, fairness may seem to depend on and be motivated by compassion.

Perhaps fairness is more complicated than compassion. You can be compassionate without taking a stance on right and wrong, on proportionality or equitable distribution; without adjudicating disputes, without assigning rewards and punishments, without predicting or aiming to alter consequences. Arguably full-blown compassion requires that you stand back from such discrimination. One has compassion for the offender as well as the victim.

Necromancing an old topic.

I don't mention feminist philosophers much because "feminist philosopher" always struck me as being akin to something like "gardener philosopher" or "Bolo tie-wearing philosopher."

I don't mention feminist philosophers much because "feminist philosopher" always struck me as being akin to something like "gardener philosopher" or "Bolo tie-wearing philosopher." — Terrapin Station

How can that be? Just the fact that they're women?

How can that be? Just the fact that they're women? — Wallows

Sorry, didn't see this question until now.

In other words, I don't see "feminist" as having any bearing on doing philosophy, at least if you're doing philosophy right (in my view).

It's just like whether you're a gardener or not should be irrelevant to philosophy, and whether you wear a bolo tie or not is irrelevant to it.

Or it's like thinking that it makes sense to section off physics so that we note that a group of people are "Britney Spears-listening physicists," as if that would or should have any impact at all on the physics they're doing.

In other words, I don't see "feminist" as having any bearing on doing philosophy, at least if you're doing philosophy right (in my view). — Terrapin Station

Yeah, I don't feel as though women get enough credit in society and specifically within the field of philosophy. There's a repugnant feeling of male superiority or downright chauvinism that has dominated philosophy since Aristotle and the likes. Despite getting pummeled with criticism for me saying that women are the fairer sex or more inclined to behave ethically, I see no way around this "fact". Now, before you say that estrogen or gender roles instill this sentiment in practice, I would like to say that men have a lot to learn from women; but, aren't inherently less ethical than women. Not in principle at least, as not to perpetuate stereotypical thinking.

It's just like whether you're a gardener or not should be irrelevant to philosophy, and whether you wear a bolo tie or not is irrelevant to it. — Terrapin Station

Not quite. We can't dismiss the fact that women are less representative of the proportion of people who have committed crimes against humanity, prison populations, along with racism, bigotry, and hate.

Anyway, was interested in whether other people have studied feminist philosophies and such. What's your take on feelings such as care or love be the guiding force to moral decisions? Is it overly simplistic or elegantly simplistic? — Wallows

My thought would be "elegantly simple", but I don't know a great deal about it. Sadly I have not studied feminist philosophy, any more than I have studied African philosophy, although I'm sure both have much to offer that other philosophies do not cover. :chin: I look forward to learning more, maybe from this thread? Go for it!

Happy mother's day! :100: :party: :flower:

Sometimes proponents will suggest we dispense completely with the notion of "duty", which is entirely unreasonable and unpersuasive... — darthbarracuda

The concept of duty is necessary, as it helps to persuade us to act co-operatively. We are a social species, and it is as social beings that we are successful. That we are also resistant to society, and its demands on us individuals, acts against this, our primary advantage over other species. As individuals, we achieve little or nothing. As co-operating groups, we achieve ... well, just look around you! :wink:

Thank you, I think. :up: Mother's Day? :chin:

Is there still some hefty amount of sexism in the field of philosophy despite ethics as care being a strong argument being proposed by feminist philosophers? — Wallows

Yes, but it's not just in philosophy that we can see this. :up:

There's a repugnant feeling of male superiority or downright chauvinism that has dominated philosophy since Aristotle and the likes. — Wallows

I don't think it makes sense to talk about beliefs and attitudes in a generalized way like that, unless we've done the empirical research--it would have to amount to surveys in a case like this--that enables us to make statistical statements. I'm skeptical that (a) we have the relevant information for most historical philosophers to know whether they'd endorse anything like "male superiority" or chauvinism, and (b) the philosophers for whom we'd have the relevant info tend (say over 70%) to have those beliefs/attitudes.

I could be wrong about (b) of course (I'm far more confident about (a) due to familiarity with the literature), but I'd be skeptical about it until examining the empirical data.

What's more important though is that this really shouldn't have anything to do with philosophy. It doesn't at all matter if one is a feminist or not when one is discussing whether universals are real, when one is addressing Gettier problems, or even when one is looking at how moral statements work formally.

What's more important though is that this really shouldn't have anything to do with philosophy. It doesn't at all matter if one is a feminist or not when one is discussing whether universals are real, when one is addressing Gettier problems, or even when one is looking at how moral statements work formally. — Terrapin Station

Ideally, yes. In practice? Not so much...

Ideally, yes. In practice? Not so much... — Wallows

Well, what could we possibly be doing when we're discussing that stuff that feminism, or gardening, or wearing bolo ties, etc., would have anything to do with it? What would be an example of that?

Well, what could we possibly be doing when we're discussing that stuff that feminism, or gardening, or wearing bolo ties, etc., would have anything to do with it? What would be an example of that? — Terrapin Station

I'm not trying to imply that women have some moral "authority" over or pertaining to matters concerning ethics and moral conduct. I guess, all I'm saying that we've tried the (stereotypical) male approach to solving ethical problems via rationality, enlightenment, and all that jazz from the renaissance period. Let's give women a shot at deciding what's best for the individual and collectively, society at large.

I'm saying that we've tried the (stereotypical) male approach to solving ethical problems — Wallows

Philosophy shouldn't be in the business of "solving ethical problems" anyway, as there are no normative facts about ethical stances.

What's "best" for anything is subjective.

Happy mother's day! :100: :party: :flower: — Wallows

Sorry, I didn't know Americans celebrate Mother's Day today. :blush: We all did that months ago! :smile: