A revival. What ethics do you mean? Do you mean something that has drifted or got lost along the way?

A revival. What ethics do you mean? Do you mean something that has drifted or got lost along the way? — Brett

Well, yes. It's no surprise that the field of philosophy has been dominated by males for the past X millenia. That's not to say that females are discriminated against; but, I've been watching from the sidelines of virtue ethics applied to females, such as ethics of care.

virtue ethics applied to females, such as ethics of care. — Wallows

By ‘applied’ do you mean what’s expected of them, or who they are?

By ‘applied’ do you mean what’s expected of them, or who they are? — Brett

I wouldn't say what's expected from them. That sounds a bit fishy. As to who they are, it isn't a prescriptive norm that should be imposed on females. That sounds doubly fishy.

So’ virtual ethics’ applied to females; can you clarify?

So’ virtual ethics’ applied to females; can you clarify? — Brett

Well, there's a sort of issue with that, in that it sounds like it were exclusive to females only. But, feminist ethics, is primarily concerned with the characteristics that denote what constitutes a female. With respect to males, I am not concerned about, although feminists rightly so have a lot to say about that.

I hope that makes better sense.

But, feminist ethics, is primarily concerned with the characteristics that denote what constitutes a female. — Wallows

“The characteristics that denote what constitutes a female”, who’s defining these characteristics and are they saying the characteristics are imposed or a constitutional part of being female?

“The characteristics that denote what constitutes a female”, who’s defining these characteristics and are they saying the characteristics are imposed or a constitutional part of being female? — Brett

Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and other virtue ethicists? Just off the top of my head.

“According to Gilligan, there are two kinds of moral voices: that of the masculine and the feminine. The masculine voice is "logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld. The feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. For Gilligan, Kohlberg's stages of moral development were emphasizing the masculine voice, making it difficult to accurately gauge a woman's moral development because of this incongruity in voices.”

One enormous need is suggested by the inconvenient truth that the soon-to-be-born largest generation in history will in no way be able to recklessly consume like we have been. And as a large part of our industrial-economic system encourages and relies on reckless consumption - then what can take its place? Imagine turning the whole culture back to small-scale but highly technologically-enhanced agronomics and instilling a personal philosophy emphasising frugality and a minimal energy footprint. That was what Small is Beautiful was all about, and it needs to be re-printed.

One enormous need is suggested by the inconvenient truth that the soon-to-be-born largest generation in history will in no way be able to recklessly consume like we have been. — Wayfarer

True, just following the topics on this forum, there's an incredible amount of care towards the environment and climate change. Those topics can go on in perpetuity.

And as a large part of our industrial-economic system encourages and relies on reckless consumption - then what can take its place? — Wayfarer

Yeah, the issue is still that no plausible alternative has been suggested as of yet. And, given that people are by nature, rather driven by self-interest, I don't think we'll see a slow-down in regards to consumption.

In fact, just the fact that today is Black Friday, we celebrate consumption. Isn't that rather scary?

Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and other virtue ethicists? Just off the top of my head. — Wallows

“According to Gilligan, there are two kinds of moral voices: that of the masculine and the feminine. The masculine voice is "logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld. The feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. For Gilligan, Kohlberg's stages of moral development were emphasizing the masculine voice, making it difficult to accurately gauge a woman's moral development because of this incongruity in voices.” — Brett

I relate to this distinction, but my concern is that a philosophy such as my own, which may very well fall into this category, can be labelled and subsequently marginalised as ‘feminist ethics’, effectively distancing its impact on and capacity to revise any mainstream study of ethics. So I don’t think the labelling of moral voices as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is a useful one in philosophy, except in an historical sense.

An effective ethics or philosophy would aim to eliminate the need for a distinction, in my view. I personally don’t see the focus on interpersonal relationship as a distinctly feminine perspective, but a more universal one that positions a logical perspective, for instance, as one part of a system of limited and interrelated value structures.

In fact, just the fact that today is Black Friday, we celebrate consumption. Isn't that rather scary? — Wallows

It's an inherent flaw in capitalism. Mind you, communism sucks, I have never been drawn to it. There needs to be some alternative to capitalism that isn't communism. No idea what it would be, though. :worry:

I personally don’t see the focus on interpersonal relationship as a distinctly feminine perspective, — Possibility

No, nor do I. But it’s a problem dealing with people who still insist it’s true. I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses.

No, nor do I. But it’s a problem dealing with people who still insist it’s true. I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses. — Brett

Agreed - which is why the label ‘feminist ethics’ is a problematic one for me, and one I make every effort to shake.

I’m still trying to figure out what this has to do with the future of philosophy.

The OP suggested a revival of ‘feminist ethics’ as one avenue for the future of philosophy. I argued that reviving it under that label risks negating the relevance of the philosophical perspective to a mainstream critical analysis and revision of ethics, and proposed a future of philosophy that eliminates the need for the distinction between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ voices in ethics.

Was I getting off track?

I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses. — Brett

Having said that it occurs to me that though both sexes may have similar or equal capabilities, it doesn’t then follow that they apply them the same way.

Was I getting off track? — Possibility

No. I was really referring back to Wallows OP on his mix of philosophy and psychology.

Yeah, what do you think about that? It's my impression that people like Jordan Peterson enjoy their fame due to this sort of backdrop of personal improvement or self-help.

Having said that it occurs to me that though both sexes may have similar or equal capabilities, it doesn’t then follow that they apply them the same way. — Brett

I agree, although it cannot be assumed that just because someone is female or ‘feminine’ in some respects, that we would expect her to apply them in a particular way, either. In a reality where masculine/feminine is no longer a binary distinction, how do we define and structure these concepts in relation to an ethical ‘voice’? Is @Wallows’ advocating feminist ethics to bring the ‘feminine voice’ alongside, in opposition to, or above the ‘masculine’ voice?

So, this is a troublesome issue. As far as I know most virtue ethicists such as Noddings or Gilligan have no imperative for their voice to be heard over that of males. In fact, I suppose that such a thing would be detrimental to their cause.

Anyone more knowledgeable about female virtue ethicists care to comment on this?

It's my impression that people like Jordan Peterson enjoy their fame due to this sort of backdrop of personal improvement or self-help. — Wallows

I don’t see him in that light at all. Can you give me more?

More of what? It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing.

, although it cannot be assumed that just because someone is female or ‘feminine’ in some respects, that we would expect her to apply them in a particular way, either. — Possibility

Yes, you’re right. But the feminist ethics Wallows refers to, “the feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision.[/quote]

There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.

It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing. — Wallows

Maybe not decline so much as under assault.

I hope your being facetious. Under assault from who or what?

I hope your being facetious. Under assault from who or what? — Wallows

It’s quite clear who he thinks it is. I may not think so, but he’s quite clear about who it is.

It’s quite clear who he thinks it is. I may not think so, but he’s quite clear about who it is. — Brett

Well, then you can't treat his philosophy seriously?

With that said, given that we live in quite egalitarian times (more so than in the past, pace '60s), I think, that to uphold such an ethos, it is convoluted to indulge in such themes, @Brett?