Gender Equality and Application of the Utilitarian and Deontology Theories - Coursework Example

Gender Equality and Application of the Utilitarian and Deontology Theories Thesis ment: Ethical morals on gender equality canbe examined or evaluated using either the utilitarian or deontological principles. Gender Equality and Application of the Utilitarian and Deontology Theories Introduction Singer (2003) vindicates that gender equality and inequality has been a controversial topic for quiet sometime and little consensus has been achieved on how to tackle the issue holistically. It varies across the continents perhaps due to the dynamics and differences in cultural practices. Inequalities that emanate from gender differences tend to be difficult to handle or evaluate since gender is socially constructed and not biological. In some societies women are at the mercies of their spouses, fathers and brothers while in other such as in western countries, inequality manifests it glaring head in such a manner that women can only perform in certain jobs, obtain particular wages, and posses some qualities that are only deemed to exist in men. In addition, women in western countries are never good candidates in jobs that entail carrying out activities that are hazardous. Several philosophers have debated on what is moral and that which is not immoral. Every individual leads a different life to others hence being ethical entails individual’s self discovery and their roles in the society. Actions can be sieved on the screen of truth and reality to determine their morals as well as their implications. Some of the theories that attempt to illustrate moral evaluation basis are the utilitarian and the deontological. Utilitarian is dependent on consequences while deontology on the action itself (MacIntyre, 1984). It is for this reason that this paper seeks to examine ethical morals that emanate from gender equality using the utilitarian and deontological theories. Utilitarian theory Mill (2010) explains that utilitarianism is a version of the consequentialism theory that is associated with John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. It explains morality in reference to the optimization of the expected utility for the involved parties influenced by the actions and decisions made. The basic principle behind this theory is that actions and decisions are deemed right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham’s conviction on the greatest good is that it tends to affirm or minimize pleasure/happiness. In his explanation all measures are quantitative and there are no boundaries between individuals or pleasure. On the other hand, Mill argued that the worthiness of all pleasures varies. To Mill good is viewed in qualitative aspect as well-being. However, the consensus of Bentham and Mill’s vindication is that the greatest number refers to those affected by decision or action. A theory that tends to elevate advantages and benefit to and individual is known as altruism. Utilitarianism theory determines if an action or decision is right or wrong depending on the consequences accrued to the action/decision. An action is perceived right if it consequently results into happiness and the converse is true. Haines (2013) argues that happiness in this context incorporates both the performer and the affected individuals. Utilitarian entails the good and the bad produced during and after the performance of an act. In the event that the alternative actions that emanate from the consequences not being ideal then that alternative is rendered immoral. Consequences of actions are assessed through the intrinsic value theory in that an action is perceived to be good if besides additional consequences while every value obtains its worth from its relation to the basic good. In addition, intrinsic values of different actions are compared and estimation is used to validate on the one with the best consequence (Singer, 2003). This normative theory attempts to create standards through which individual actions or societal practices inclusive of the moral codes should be evaluated and readjusted. Mill and Bentham had convictions that pain and pleasure motivate human actions where happiness is the bar that is used to judge human conduct. Henry Sidgwick digresses slightly on utilitarian by vindicating that it revolves around common sense morality. Utilitarian has the potential of solving complexities, vagueness, difficulties, and inconsistencies of the doctrines of common sense. Application of utilitarian principle to gender and equality Gender and equality when married together dictates that both gender (male and female) should be treated in the same manner in relation to the inherent human rights. However, gender equality should not be comprehended as both gender being equal in particular specific expertise, occupation, qualities and way of life. Gender equality and inequality vary from culture to culture. All over the word, women have been the victims of discrimination due to their gender. In most Middle East countries, women are like subjects to the men and they are viewed as mentally and physically incompetent in comparison to men. Noddings (2010) asserts that the notion that women are worse at carrying out some tasks should be wished away since in some societies they are never provided the opportunity to express their capability. They grow up in the perception that they are emotional and weak which is a prejudice. Gilligan (1982) illuminates that if equality is practiced then the society at large inclusive of women is likely to benefit. This consequence coincides with the utilitarian principle which stipulates that actions are deemed right if their consequences result into quantitative greatness or happiness. Gender equality is likely to optimize availability of service to the community which in turn produces greater development to the humanity. The equality accounts the utilitarian basis on three concepts: the immediate happiness or greater good; the development of individuals (men and women inclusive); and the development of the society. It is for this reason that gender equality is moral as it consequently leads to greater happiness of not only the society but also to both men and women. Deontology theory Kant (2008) describes deontology as an ethical approach that emphasizes on an action being right or wrongs itself without incorporating the consequences of the action thus contrasting the consequentialism theory. It’s also a normative theory that evaluates morality of actions based on the adherence or compliance to rules and regulations. Some actions are just right or wrong irrespective of the intentions and consequences. An action can’t be justified even if the consequences are great (sometimes referred to as non-consequentialism). Furthermore, individuals have the duty to do the right thing even if the results are projected or forecast to be negative or bad. It entails doing the right thing because it is right to do them and not doing the wrong things since they are wrong. This theory is associated with Immanuel Kant who attempted to illuminate the rational principles that ground ethical judgment by being categorical and not hypothetical. The theory dictates that true morality is independent of individual/persons likes and dislikes or opportunities and abilities. The two principles behind the theory are: individuals are challenged to act in a manner that the rules governing their actions become universal law; and or individuals should act in a manner that treats humanity in them and other persons as an end and not as a means. It points out the need for the universality of the moral principles and the necessity to respect individuals. Morality is judged on the nature of the action and the performer’s willingness and not the achieved goals. Kant’s theory is conscious to the inability to control future and that the evaluation of morals doesn’t incorporate consequences. The rules that govern actions have the potential of being universalized and if not so the action is absolutely unacceptable. It resonates with the notion that individuals’ actions should be those that if done unto them then they will not be affected or feel victimized. In addition, the second principle emphasizes on the need for respect to individuals or humanity as an end. The theory has always capitalized on the weaknesses of the utilitarian theory as it emphasizes on the notion of a better world. Application of the deontology concept in gender equality According to MacIntyre (1984), the existence of humanity is supported by certain inherent needs such as air and food and the physical composition of both genders despite some differences illuminate that they are equal. Gender equality calls for the respect between men and women. Moreover, it is universally accepted that men and women are equal. It is for this reason that the drive for gender equality is perceived to have been precipitated by Kant’s convictions. Annas (2006) explains that the theory is categorically imperative and that individuals should be treated equally and with respect and that it is morally inappropriate to discriminate on either men or women because it is just wrong. Treating both men and women equally according to this theory is not focused on the resultant consequences of the better development of society and individuals but due to the fact that it is right to do so. It is a moral obligation to treat others right as well as a duty a duty to treat people equally. Therefore, women have a right to be treated equally to men and the men as well. The women too are obliged to treat their opposite gender they same way they would love to be treated. It is absolutely right for individuals to uphold gender equality because it is not just universality accepted but it is respectful to adhere to (Hursthouse, 2012). Evaluation of gender equality on the Deontology Of the two theories discussed above, deontology presents the most persuasive arguments on the morality of upholding gender equality. The theory values both gender as human being as it is a duty based approach to ethics that emphasizes on equal respect to every human being as well as providing a foundation for the human rights. There is absolute certainty in the principle of this theory in comparison to the utilitarian. For instant, gender inequality in countries such as those in the Middle East may be perceived to consequently give their men authority and absolute control over their women. This may be pleasing to the men and promote the happiness in great numbers as illuminated in the principles of utilitarian but Kant’s theory provides an ethical judgment that some actions should never be done or tolerated even if their outcomes are deemed positive. It is inherently wrong and it thwarts the inherent human right that values both men and women equally. Kant (2008) highlights that it is difficult to predict the consequences of an action and this calls for the need to make judgment based on the action itself but not the anticipated consequence as advocated for by the utility principle. Moreover, it is also prudent to examine not only the intentions but also the motives behind actions since consequentialist theories do not factor in the likely intentions or motives behind an action. In the deontological principles, if an individual never intended to act in a wrong manner, perhaps acted accidentally, then there are likely to escape criticism. This point out that deontology incorporates intentions and motives behind actions in the examination of the moral judgment (Hursthouse, 2012). Conclusion The debates on gender equality have always stagnated due to lack of consensus on how to tackle the issue. Women have from time immemorial been victims of gender prejudice. They have always been perceived to be physically, emotionally, and sometimes mentally weak. These connotations can however be attacked on different fronts and facets such as the application of the utilitarian and deontological principles as discussed above to promote morals and ethics within societies. To lay more emphasis, utilitarian tends to focus on the consequences of actions of individual or society while deontological focuses on the action/decisions to make determine if they are ethical. However, the deontological tends to solve the problem of gender equality more in comparison to utilitarian as it advocates not only for equality among human beings but also focuses on the need for respect. It bases morals on rules and regulations where individuals are obliged to adhere to the stipulated rule irrespective of the consequences. These two principles therefore provide the avenues through which ethical morals on gender equality can be constructed. References: Mill, J. S. (2010). Utilitarianism, in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved on 25th March 2015 from: www.earlymoderntexts.com. Haines, W. (2013). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 25th March 2015 from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/ Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541. Retrieved from the EBSCOhost database. Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved on 25th March 2015 from: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/kant1785.pdf (Original work published in 1785). Annas, J. (2006). Virtue ethics. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (pp. 515–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 25th March from: https://www.sesync.org/sites/default/files/resources/case_studies/10-kenyaecotourism-handbook.pdf Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 25th March from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Chapters 14-15 are included in the Chapter 6 readings of the textbook. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved on 25th March 2015 from: https://lms.manhattan.edu/pluginfile.php/26517/mod_resource/content/1/Gilligan%20In%20a%20Different%20Voice.pdf 2 Noddings, N. (2010). Maternal factor: Two paths to morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Read More