Three Moral Frameworks

We're going to be discussing a variety of practices and policies (related to gender). It will sometimes be useful to put them in a specific ethical framework.

Examples:

1. Should girls have access to education?  
2. Should same sex marriage be legal? 
3. Should there a non-binary option for sex/gender on driver's licenses?

John Rawls

Peter Singer

Martha Nussbaum

The framework doesn't instantly settle the matter--it just establishes the parameters for further debate. It tells us what's relevant and what's not.

*****

I. John Rawls--the veil of ignorance

• thought experiment: imagine founding a society
• in the "original position" we're behind a "veil of ignorance"...
• which means we don't know our own sex/gender, race, religion, talents, etc.
• Rawls says we would adopt these two principles of justice

1. Equal basic rights for all
2. Economic inequality only if it's better for all than equality

• Our policies and practices are just provided that they are consistent with these two principles.

II. Peter Singer--equal consideration of interests, Utilitarianism

• Must consider interests of all those affected by a practice, policy, or action
• "Interests" in the sense of "it's in your interest to stop vaping" not in the sense of "he's interested in history" 
• Must take account how serious the interest is, not who has the interest
• The right choice maximizes total good (i.e. the balance of happiness over misery)

*****

III. Martha Nussbaum--capabilities approach (annotated)

• a just society is one in which all individuals are able to develop all of these capabilities

• "the situation produced when two of them collide is tragic; any course we select involves doing wrong to someone" (p. 37)
• example: poor parents in Kerala, India--school or work?
• tragic choice because both outcomes bad (compare Utilitarianism)
• a just society prevents people from having to make tragic choices
• Kerala: flexible school hours and free school lunch