Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:14:03.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consequentialism and Feminist Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Julia Driver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay attempts to show that sophisticated consequentialism is able to accommodate the concerns that have traditionally been raised by feminist writers in ethics. Those concerns have primarily to do with the fact that consequentialism is seen as both too demanding of the individual and neglectful of the agent's special obligations to family and friends. Here, I argue that instrumental justification for partiality can be provided, for example, even though an attitude of partiality is not characterized itself in instrumental terms.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 20 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Analytic Feminism , Fall 2005 , pp. 183 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aristotle, . 1962. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Ostwald, Martin. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs‐Merrill.Google Scholar
Badhwar, Neera. 1987. Friends and ends in themselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, Annette. 1986. Trust and anti‐trust. Ethics 96 (2): 231–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocking, Dean, and Kennett, Jeannette. 1998. Friendship and the self. Ethics 108 (3): 502–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, Julia. 2001a. Uneasy virtue. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, Julia. 2001b. Introduction. In Character and consequentialism for Utilitas. (July 2001): 137–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Marilyn. 1991. The practice of partiality. Ethics 101 (4): 818–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. in a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 1993. Feminist contractarianism. In A mind of one's own, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1990. Feminist transformations of moral theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (supplement): 321–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1960. A treatise of human nature, ed. Selby‐Bigge, L. A.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank. 1991. Decision‐theoretic consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection. Ethics 101 (3): 461–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, Trans. Paton, H. J.New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. The metaphysics of morals, Trans. Gregor, Mary. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, Richard. 1989. Aristotle and the human good. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminist approach to ethics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1984. Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (2):134–71.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur, n.d. Essays, trans. Bailey Saunders, T.New York: A. L. Burr.Google Scholar
Stocker, Michael. 1976. The schizophrenia of modern ethical theory. Journal of Philosophy 73 (14): 453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, Wayne. 1974. More light on the later Mill. Philosophical Review 83 (4): 504–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. 1984. Professions for women. In The Virginia Woolf reader, ed. Leaska, Mitchell. San Diego, Calif: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar