Carol Gilligan on Women and Moral Development | Big Think

Carol Gilligan on Women and Moral Development
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women answer moral questions from their relational understanding of others, Carol Gilligan says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL GILLIGAN:
In 2002, Carol Gilligan became University Professor at New York University, with affiliations in the School of Law, the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. She is currently teaching a seminar at the Law School on Resisting Injustice and an advanced research seminar on The Listening Guide Method of Psychological Inquiry. She is a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge affiliated with the Centre for Gender Studies and with Jesus College.
She received an A.B. in English literature from Swarthmore College, a masters degree in clinical psychology from Radcliffe College and a Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University. Her landmark book In A Different Voice (1982) is described by Harvard University Press as "the little book that started a revolution." Following In A Different Voice, she initiated the Harvard Project on Women's Psychology and Girls' Development and co-authored or edited 5 books with her students.
She received a Senior Research Scholar award from the Spencer Foundation, a Grawemeyer Award for her contributions to education, a Heinz Award for her contributions to understanding the human condition and was named by Time Magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans.
She was a member of the Harvard faculty for over 30 years and in 1997 became Harvard's first professor of Gender Studies, occupying the Patricia Albjerg Graham chair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: How do women differ from men when it comes to moral dilemmas?
Carol Gilligan: Well the women’s started with a simple premise, which is that we live in relationship with one another and that where essentially relational response to people so the idea of a sort of isolated individual standing alone looking up at the sky for sort of eternal principles whether they where continent principles or whatever, it was like “no-no-no look around you,” it is like you live on a trampoline and if we take, if we move it affects a whole lot of people. So, you have to be very aware of those relationships, so it was not as if women where taking the opposite, they where questioning the whole paradigm, not exquisitely, but in both impressively. I remember I was teaching a section of this class, where they where talking about moral dilemmas. If you were in a life boat, did you jump out that kind of thing. So, anyway then there was the Vietnam war was going on and college students where being drafted. In my section, we tried talked about the war and the students didn’t want to talk about it. I thought that was very interesting, particularly the men and the reason why is I realized, is that their decisions about the world would based not only on timeless principles of Just and unjust war, but how their actions would affect, people who are they love and care about their family, may be a love relationship or something and they knew that to care about relationships was to be like a women. So, they didn’t want to say it, but they also had enough integrity that they didn’t want to misrepresent themselves. So, I remember as a teaching, I moved. We read Camus novel the ‘Plague’ which as if you suddenly find yourself in the middle of the city and the Plague comes even then he didn’t weren’t responsible, what was your responsibility to other people suffer with, and I remember it was great, because we are in this long discussion of this novel ‘The Plague’ and one of the students said that is the draft dilemma and then we have really started talking about. So, I knew that these theories that represented man as thinking only in the abstract, if they where morally matured and self with why you are not reflecting men’s life either, but it was after that time of hearing women’s voices. I have to emphasize that because in that study we interviewed at street clinics in the south end of Boston and at in University Health Services, we had the most, we had a very diverse range of women’s voices...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/carol-gil...

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@joannegiard3035]

Wow as a woman raised in the 40's I understand what she is saying. It took me almost 40 years to really understand about taking care of myself. am now 77 and try to teach all Carol is saying to my grands and great grands about taking care of yourself.

[@kikiperry8176]

The first book I read of Carol Gilligan's was her collaboration with Richards "The Deepening Darkness". I was agog! I had to continue and continued by reading her "Joining the Resistance", the continuance of the theme describing patriarchy in conflict with democracy. I knew I was skirting around her first book and finally realised I actually had to read it before continuing with her current books. So, I put down "Joining" and purchased a copy of this seminal book "In a Different Voice" . The book margins are now full of my annotations, both philosophical and clinical, and highlighted in several keyed colors. This book is as important to me as my encounter with Henri Laborit's "La Nouvelle Grille" and its subsequent "In Praise of Escape" (Eloge de la fuite). Gilligan has brought to the surface the liminal domain female dialogue had been relegated to. Proposing the moral theory of Ethics of Care she has valued terms and conditions of our caring actions htat both caring women and men have used. Heretofore, this conversation had been emarginated as irrational, immature and religious without hope of being represented in our justice system. And yet, justice needed care in one of the founding cases when Solomon decides that a baby has to be cut into halves in order to be 'fair' and leaves the women to deal with the official judgement. He recognised the true mother because she refused to let harm of 'justice' come to the child, which was the UNREALISTIC and only fairness that he could publically arrive at. He was sure that the unrecognised domain of LOVE would prevail and determine the true outcome of the courts. I love Gilligan's seminal book. It has helped me understand myself and the choices I have made in life more clearly. I understand my mental health clients with more clearly -informed compassion. All caring humans are speaking in this 'different' voice. All the men who were ready to break through the cultural barriers and become nurses have experienced the same anguish women have lived with when admitting they care and make it the foundation of their career. There is no justice without caring, we would not even seek justice if we did not care. Lack of care undermines justice, and politics in general.

[@jacobgilligan6686]

fantastic job my friend! wonderful!

[@passionatebraziliangirl.4801]

Carol Gilligan has very thought provoking material every one who desire alternative ways of seeing thinking and being should read it.

[@nancywysemen7196]

Good reminder of "the past". Wonderful update and breadth. Thank-you.

[@beccaz3]

In A Different Voice is a nuanced, thoughtful book, and worth reading if you find the topic interesting. Gilligan wrote it as an intervention into a field (Psychology) that defined universals and created models of ethical development with no research into how women viewed the world. She writes in the book that her qualitative research was small-scale and preliminary, and more research was required. You don't have to agree with her her, but the amount of hate levelled at her in these comments is absurd.

[@user-my5qx3bc9m]

this video taught me when facing a challenge, you must think of what will benefit you in the long run-in order to take care of yourself. while looking at what society thinks is right should have no say in what you believe is better for your life.

[@khizerabbas1155]

Very nicely explained 🤠

[@Tjbeach20]

Mrs. Gilligan I loved you in the wizard of oz! Keep up the great work

[@michaelnieves4726]

I’m having a difficult time trying to understand what she’s talking about.

[@Hijodeganas1]

Again, I agree. But as she said, she called her book "in a DIFFERENT voice" because she said it was not necessarily an inherently female/feminine philosophy, but rather a different one (which, I believe she implied, many or most women utilized).

[@DeciduousClouds]

this is so nicely grounded in reality, very different from most traditional moral philosophy

[@piechulla1966]

Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan have nothing to say in the field? Are you serious?

[@zarataylor3190]

Anyone come back to this to discuss the concept of mask wearing from an ethics of care framework?

[@aesthetewithoutacause3981]

I think that both sides of this fundamental duality - individual and society - deserve to be recognised and taken in to account, and philosophers have been guilty of mainly focusing only on the individual's perspective. Well said.

[@kimberleyparzuchowski5297]

This is wonderful. I have not had the opportunity to see or hear Gilligan. She speaks so beautifully and insightfully on this very human point. Relationality defines us all.

[@AtticusSanders]

women suck

[@kikiperry8176]

The Ethics of Care as a upstanding moral theory was born in Gilligan's "In a Different Voice" where no holds were barred. The discussions wend their way around and through abortion and economic inequality impacting life and death decisions. What courage for her to erode the male and masculine monopoly of moral domain, and ethics in general. When I started attending university philosophy studies as a mature student in a foreign country and language, I, too, was stunned by the absence of female voice. The only women I found, in books and podium, were speaking in the male- tongue, which revealed itself in so much contrast to their own body language. In 2010-12 my Post Graduate Diploma psychodynamic studies course in the UK would not accept ANY feminist material in my vast well- rounded bibliographies,, not even the Stone Center. That course is now defunct; my year was the course's final year after 28 years. My admiration for C Gilligan is the magic carpet my mind and self can rest upon.

[@QezaBara]

Kiki Perry with the exception of ancient feminism, which encouraged female hedonism, and 19th-early 20th century feminism, which was primarily concerned with matters of equal rights, i think feminism is very vague on certain areas.

[@kikiperry8176]

I can see where you are coming from. I suppose, without a satisfying overarching concept to collect ourselves under, each person is going to define a word/term in their own fashion. This unfortunately, plays into the 'hands' of the dominant model of sexism and its extended process of devaluing of others. It has been a long path for my intellect to catch up with a fuller understanding of my life decisions and actions. This new profound conscious understanding, has allowed me a full awareness and sense of valuing the weft of how I have been weaving my life. I, now, have finally shifted away from intellectually marginalising the appreciation of CARE/ing, a sidelining perpetrated as a necessary premise within the interrelational model we all have incorporated, towards comprehending what my insides have always known. Nothing exists if there has not been care. People do not exist, life does not exist, nor concern about Justice exists if we do not CARE.

[@kikiperry8176]

Virginia Held has written a substantial book titled "Ethics of Care". Joan Tronto has a super INexpensive long essay on Kindle, "Who Cares? how to reshape Democratic politics"

[@kikiperry8176]

Could you describe which areas you find feminism 'vague'? What material have you consulted that has left your questions unanswered? Feminism grew out of abolitionist activism (freeing slaves and ending racism) and never stops about being about equality. Because so many men feel lost in, harmed and unsupported by the current market-focused patriarchy of today feminism is about sharing responsibility load of being human. This lightens our challenge of living life by sharing and distributing the weight. Men benefit as well as women. Feminism is NOT only about women. Rectifying the female condition, however, will address so many of the ills in current society. One characteristic that makes everything clear and graspable is the concept of putting CARE at the core of all that we do. If we think that there is one universal manner to care then we are going to run into 'vagueness' and trouble when the particularities of each context arises at ground level. Care as the guiding principle allows each person to appropriately address the 'messy' conditions of life in all its variability. (Please note that the idea that the freedom to be unique in unique situations is considered 'messy' by the logic of universals. Yet, that 'messiness' is our freedom! is where free will exists albeit circumscribed) See J Tronto's very affordable essay on Kindle, Who Cares? reshaping democratic society

[@QezaBara]

Kiki Perry I was responding to your first comment which sounds more like a fan or a religious person praising a certain sacred canonical text than an observant philosopher.

[@republicofsandles]

I have met too many women who projected their wants onto others, with demands as to the conduct of others for things that were not a mutual interest. I have also known women who project differently, using the people around them as an excuse for their selfish actions. I have worked with women who go to noteworthy extents to maintain the illusion of altruism. For example entering fields in community outreach, in spite of personally insecurities about helping others. These neurotic social behaviours, seem to support the notion that there is an altruistic ideology in some women, and this causes cognitive resistance. This absolutely causes problems in a workplace environment, but will hopefully decline in the future.

[@terriok1]

republicofsandals These women just can’t win, can they? Their very altruism, dedicating their lives through their work, selecting careers with such ends, is suspect. This POV of behavior that can best objectively classified as contrary of egocentricity must smack of "neuroses." Gee, apparently someone is stuck in the Middle Ages! Better yet, does Neanderthal come to mind?

[@aubreesplichal9264]

Many people find themselves and how to take care of themselves at different ages. It is all based on how they were raised and what was going on around them.

[@Hijodeganas1]

1. Certainly they are. There are certain experiences that are inherently feminine/female in nature that men cannot experience (pregnancy, for instance). Because of this, I don't see that she is necessarily creating a "new" dualism, but simplying defining one that has existed for a long time.

[@amarynthia2990]

I'm a fan of Carol Gillogan

[@KTBaller12345]

You said "I also don't see that she is arguing about any kind of dualistic philosophy." I wanted to clarify that she IS in a way, in that she is critiquing the general philosophical bent of the West since the time of Descartes, with its emphasis on reason as the source of all knowledge. She IS criticizing metaphysical dualism. I have studied philosophy quite a bit, so it is completely reasonable to make inferences about what she says.

[@KTBaller12345]

# 1 Women are not a homogeneous group. #2 Heidegger criticized radical self/other dualism (Descartes' starting point), and he was not a woman. Deontology and utilitarianism are flawed, regardless of your gender!

[@adrianhernandez6517]

viva er tiempos kohh

[@KTBaller12345]

Gilligan is saying that MEN philosophize and argue about morality using rigorous arguments, while women "know" that morality can not be understood by the abstract reasoning of an isolated individual. You can not stay in your study all day and "discover" what morality is. You experience morality as obligations to others, as your relationship to them (from the viewpoint of women, according to Gilligan).

[@40stryder03]

women understand morality by ephemeral feelings, and based on conformity (this is very volatile), the men philosophizing long before her were aiming towards abstract concrete principles, which are far more tenable than her claims..

[@OmegaRedFan]

Thank you texas state

[@Hijodeganas1]

No, I agree. This comment makes sense and I also think that is more or less what she's saying.

[@lucmalafarina1807]

Care-based morality is great in the family, to raise children. Outside that specific environment, it's flat out dangerous. For decades, the feminist ideology which seeks 'equality' have championed the virtues of femininity in all aspects of society, so much so that its specific traits (empathy (over fairness), support (over toughness), conformity (over independence) peace (over conflicts), collectivism (over individualism), power without accountability, freedom without responsability, etc. are transforming our centuries-long understanding of Justice and Security in a dangerous way.

[@jenkuhn516]

They are transforming our centuries long understanding of justice and security, and these needed to be changed. Our ideas of justice and security have been extremely limited to those with money and power. Everyone else are left out to dry. And we are certainly not picking the traits of women over the traits of men, we are trying to incorporate the traits of women into the society in which they also live. The ideal society has both. The ideal society respects both, and uses open dialog including people from all walks of life to make decisions. You act as if society was great being all male based, so how dare we include the female perspective. That is biased.

[@TyranyFighterPatriot]

@@jenkuhn516 You've fallen for Marxist Feminism. Good luck M8 I'm not saving Western civilization it's done for because of this kind of immoral irrational psychotic mindset. I've gone Mgtow because females abandoned the social contract yet still feel so entitled that they expect men to hold their end of the deal. To Hell with that they're on their own.

[@TyranyFighterPatriot]

Now men are going Mgtow it's the only rational option left.

[@jenkuhn516]

Many women are doing the same. Many women are tired of being expected to do a huge amount of the labor involved in raising families without any pay, as well as having to be flexible and on call 24/7. Most women also work. Most women also pay bills. For most societies, women have always worked and brought in resources to the family. Go ahead and go your own way, I hope you find happiness and contentment.

[@Sofiaode18]

Maybe our understanding of justice and security needs to be changed and quite frankly you're projecting a multitude of contrasting traits as if it's somehow unsustainable to apply in our society.

[@noverneilcanete3300]

Present, because of my school demo

[@andresorozco8428]

Multis is here?

[@lilmax86]

I wonder how Gilligan would solve Heinz' Dilemma, and why.

[@abdullahada8036]

As she has pointed out in the video, she thinks that sometimes there are no "right answer", but better answer, which I think cannot be found in some cases. What is important is to understand the relational aspect of the moral dilemma and "solve" it from that perspective.

[@saMuraisMak]

The guys might have been afraid of being mocked for their views about the war, as people who do ethics tend to find pleasure and identity formation from shaming others for their thought.

[@SparkleBrush]

men and women aren't homogenous groups but individuals do tend to have a similar thought process to their same gender due to the way you are raised based on your sex--if you're a boy you get taught that emotions are bad and you have to be tough, if you're a girl you have to be soft and care for the children. it's like nobody had socialisation in mind when making all of these comments? and it's like none of these men in the comments were ever taught that women also deserve respect---disgusting..we're in the 21st century i thought those dumb misogynist ideas had been gone for a while...

[@Runenut]

i think in either ways displayed by both these peoples, of her and kohlberg's. i can use either if the time comes. i wonder what the absolute is, i wonder what it truly is. how to tell?

[@kikiperry8176]

your question refers to the core issue between the #EthicsofCare and the current patriarchal model of 'believing' in Universals. To the realm of Universals, life is 'messy' and requires all sorts of "attenuating circumstance" adjustments before reaching a FAIR sentence. The mere fact that the Universal has to be adjusted implies that it is not perfect despite claiming universality. Even water boiling temperature is not a universal!!! Altitude changes everything! I refer you to Solomon's court and decision about the the 2 women claiming to be a particular infant's mother. The uffical sentence, in its quandry addled decision, declared to divide the baby in 2. The caring human and wisdom depended on the real mother caring enough for the child's well being to cede her natural claim (right) to the child to save its life. Only upon reaching this point where CARING was exercised(by and from the woman) through cedeing her rights as the only way to counter patriarchal universal justice, was Solomon able to reach the CORRECT and suitable decision. Not through universals......

[@cassandrafrancais5358]

Lmfao everyone absolutely missing the point. Read about the self and free will. Ethics of justice = morality - one half of moral self & ethics of justice = other half of moral self. Like two halves of the self. If you read about free will and addiction there is a theorist who wrote about why one person person a is addicted but wants to stop but can’t and person b who is addicted but doesn’t want to stop - Person a does finally stop because of his ordered desires. These two types of ethics are similar in that they identify the cognitive processes but in this case it is defined by a responsibility based in Love and non-violence. That means if you apply ethics as a concept of will it becomes clear cognitive ethics is not just as simple as ethics of justice. Statistically crime wise, women get involved with drugs and crime in association with lovers or maybe prostitution or activities to take care of their family. Ethics of care is a selfless approach to morality

[@Hijodeganas1]

That makes them a homogeneous group. But I agree that women don't all necessarily share the same philosophy just because of their physiological homogeny. However, their physiology will tend to effect their psychology and epistemology, which in turn affects their philosophy. I'm pretty sure the speaker is a psychology, not a philosopher, in any case. I agree that men and women are not necessarily opposites, but I believe they are dynamic to one another.

[@Hijodeganas1]

I didn't say anything about metaphysical dualism...? I think you are making flawed inferences about what she is claiming. What makes you think she believes women "intuitively" know that we are not isolated individuals (but men don't)? What did she say exactly? You're welcome to your opinion, but unless you have some reason for it, I don't see any reason to pay it any heed. I also don't see how it's "radical" to say men and women are different. I think that's pretty unradical, actually.

[@andrewfix3517]

Your closed captioning needs some work there, Big Think!

[@evilpat9849]

I don't Charles or kc0jtl are representing her opinions correctly. Its a different perspective, not a economic system. As expressed her theory, its a female perspective vs a male perspective. I as a man have always seen that responsibilities come first and that humans exist in a individualistic perspective, and seeing a more social perspective (feminine) is interesting. Also the concept of "your needs" completely contradict the ideals of communism but what ever. Look - not all feminism is horrible, and not considering other opinions leads to suppression of others.

[@veeralprajapati1322]

I understand only the part that womens are different, I don't understand the difference between the kohlberg & ms. gilligan but i would like to know more example on your means on development of women's moral development! since its easy to understand the kohlberg's theory but being an male individual i find it hard to understand your theory!

[@kikiperry8176]

your question refers to the core issue between the #EthicsofCare and the current patriarchal model of 'believing' in Universals. To the realm of Universals, life is 'messy' and requires all sorts of "attenuating circumstance" adjustments before reaching a FAIR sentence. The mere fact that the Universal has to be adjusted implies that it is not perfect despite claiming universality. Even water boiling temperature is not a universal!!! Altitude changes everything! I refer you to Solomon's court and decision about the the 2 women claiming to be a particular infant's mother. The uffical sentence, in its quandry addled decision, declared to divide the baby in 2. The caring human and wisdom depended on the real mother caring enough for the child's well being to cede her natural claim (right) to the child to save its life. Only upon reaching this point where CARING was exercised(by and from the woman) through cedeing her rights as the only way to counter patriarchal universal justice, was Solomon able to reach the jCORRECT and suitable decision. Not through universals......

[@kikiperry8176]

your question refers to the core issue between the #EthicsofCare and the current patriarchal model of 'believing' in Universals. To the realm of Universals, life is 'messy' and requires all sorts of "attenuating circumstance" adjustments before reaching a FAIR sentence. The mere fact that the Universal has to be adjusted implies that it is not perfect despite claiming universality. Even water boiling temperature is not a universal!!! Altitude changes everything! I refer you to Solomon's court and decision about the the 2 women claiming to be a particular infant's mother. The uffical sentence, in its quandry addled decision, declared to divide the baby in 2. The caring human and wisdom depended on the real mother caring enough for the child's well being to cede her natural claim (right) to the child to save its life. Only upon reaching this point where CARING was exercised(by and from the woman) through cedeing her rights as the only way to counter patriarchal universal justice, was Solomon able to reach the jCORRECT and suitable decision. Not through universals......

[@40stryder03]

@@kikiperry8176 You're using Solomon, this is something he also said.... Ecclesiastes 7:28

[@keandras8584]

"4,910"

[@KTBaller12345]

#3 Gilligan is creating a new dualism. Women=selfless/humble/passive; emotional; dependent Men=ambitious/proud/active; rational; independent People are individuals-how many males (as a percentage of the population) could give a cogent summary of Kant's general philosophical bent? Not many, and without a thorough knowledge of philosophy, both modern and ancient, the average guy does not have the intellectual tools to develop an ethical philosophy based on reason.

[@Hijodeganas1]

Not reproductive systems. Physiologically. Women's physical brains are structured differently, nervous systems are structured differently and respond differently than men to the same type of stimuli, hormonal levels are different, etc. This affects the way they see the world and "know" things. But she is not arguing this, I am. I also don't see that she is arguing about any kind of dualistic philosophy. I'm pretty sure she was a psychologist (could be wrong, though).

[@shmeagol]

A roofers never gonna be out of work. Next.

[@kevintyrrell9559]

I think she could do with asknowledgimg that many men sacrifice everything for their wives and kids too...but don't complain or even think to. Why? Because our expectations of any relationship are generally lower than those of women. We don't tether all our needs to it and rely on it...and maybe we focus less on it...but it doesn't make us less moral or unresponsive to moral situations. It just means we don't get hung up to the same degree with expectations.

[@kikiperry4924]

global statistics show that give women money, education , goods, it gets used for the children and the family in general. In contrast with men , who will have no compunction to gamble, or spend it on personal desires. Look at statistics about the number of men who abuse in a household by withholding from the family.

[@jookbj]

Morals in general are subjective how is hers ant more valid than Kolberg's system. She jist named her system different and re categorized to look more PC. The Kolberg is more accurate you can actually use it to predict job performanc ein employees not so much with Carol's.

[@markk34]

jookbj I would argue that PC culture is what care based morality actually looks like in practice.

[@KTBaller12345]

No, she is NOT arguing for metaphysical dualism, of any sort. She is criticizing it, by saying that all women intuitively "know" that we are not isolated individuals, and that women derive their morality from this starting point. I think YOUR radical dualism of men/women is pretty silly. People are individuals, with many different characteristics influencing how they think and behave. On AVERAGE, men and women are different. (Duh.) :)

[@julee0]

BAD TYPO INDEED The text is WRONG in this part..."not morally problematic as she was in obligation" NO ... but "not morally problematic as it was an abdication of voice and relationship" etc

[@kc0jtl]

I think she makes good points to look at ethics differently, but I do not agree with her blatantly disregarding the rights of others and making excuses for lack of personal responsibility. I think she uses the end to justify the means. She is a feminist, and she used that end to create a philosophy to meet that end. She speaks about responsibility in relationships, but in the example of the Catholic nurse, Gilligan doesn't discuss the fact that the nurse was put in that situation because of her own lack of responsibility in becoming pregnant. "It's not like who's rights take precedence." Are you serious? How about the unemployed roofer get another job, or if you become disabled apply for social security. The "better thing to do when there is no right thing to do" is to just abort the child, right? Sounds like a feminist trying to use philosophy to justify immoral actions.

[@celinak5062]

It's irresponsible to have children. It's irresponsible to be heterosexual. And it's irresponsible to not make sure you get an affirmative yes.

[@user-ix4fo5io4j]

It's quite not enough to simplyfi the matter we focus on. Moral Ethic for Communitism or Care-Based Morality for Each oneself. I thinik this is the problem of each absorb own's 'IDEA'. So in this part, we need to focus on Other voice for Every one. This is alright. but It can't not avoid vagueness. In the time of Modern Ethic versus to Personality, we force to challenge about 'What is right? What is the Real Morailty?' . Hard to define...

[@saalank]

I think that you missed the point. She wasn't trying to justify abortion. Where did you get that from? She asked what would you do if you were in such a situation? There were many options to choose from and all of them were not "good".

[@catsaresocute650]

No that's a good scenario because if you belive it's a full human being then carring it to term is the ONLY option.

[@catsaresocute650]

A job, the ability to work etc. non of that rationaly talking matters

[@catsaresocute650]

If the childs fundermentally wanted, meaning not something that is considerd invasive in her body then I would argue it's not logical to say abortion is okay then

[@Ein_Kunde_]

In principle correct. But in this case not, because the birth would have caused spine injury and thus abortion would be a legitimate act of self-defense. But apart from this the child's right to life always takes priority.

[@catsaresocute650]

@@Ein_Kunde_ it's always legitimate self-defence. The moment anything or anyone is as much as touching your body it becomes self-defence

[@KTBaller12345]

Not with respect to philosophy, which is what she is arguing! She is saying because women have the same reproductive systems, they will have the same philosophical outlook. I have no idea how one's reproductive system affects one's epistemology. That is an odd claim.

[@bubpup321]

Having a different reproductive system also comes with a set of unique experiences. Someone with a penis and has never given birth has no idea what that experience can be like. However, people who have given birth and carried a baby human to term have a unique experience that men do not have epistemic access too. It isn't a stretch to think an experience as unique as that could affect someones moral thought.

[@yaboyreggie_]

@@bubpup321 for what final purpose??

[@KTBaller12345]

No, women only share the same type of reproductive systems. With respect to philosophy, women do not share the same views. Do all men have the same philosophical views because they share the same type of reproductive system? That's absurd! I agree she is definitely not the first thinker to have a dualism regarding men and women! :) Because it is so common to define men and women as opposites, the idea has more legitimacy than it should.

[@isobellathorn5184]

It BOTHERS ME that I was treated like a moral subordinate by people in my work and school. When they offended from this position, they were rewarded: not corrected. This is a problem to this day. Even though I have gone on to achieve a post-secondary education and I have addressed my responsibilities and launched a special needs child into greater independence, my credibility has been assuaged in deference to someone who was violently offending me in my living situation. I was spoken to as if I were a child and manipulated. It was devastating and terrifying.

[@whimpypatrol5503]

So the question was answered that the law (10 commandments stuff) isn’t off in some great heights or depths but in your heart and on your lips. You be the one to look up exactly what Moses said as it reflects and summarizes hundreds of profound scriptures with a common theme but seldom brought up. Avoiding discussion, I will skip the 99 yards and go straight to an extreme example of David who was caught with his pants down when Bathsheba got pregnant. The simplest way to resolve the issue would have been for Bathsheba to get an abortion and the problem would resolve and the sin remain hidden. Instead, David manipulated the circumstances of Bathsheba’s husband’s life so that he became the serviceman who had to give up his life to defeat the enemy - after all, some serviceman had to fall; so, it was no net lose. David thereby chose to commit that murder over the murder of Bathsheba’s fetus. Either decision would have been wrong. And you too are wrong on your entire assessment of right and wrong, not because you left God above or god in and around out but because you never let God in to start with. And the only way to do that is to recognize the reason and purpose for Jesus’ blood sacrifice was that no person than he could resolve this issue and therefore no other’s blood was worthy of sacrifice. If you are still alive, you still have time to make that choice to let Jesus in and confess him with your lips (which is what Moses was referring to).

[@phamth]

SOWK 506

[@Ein_Kunde_]

Relative morality is no morality at all.

[@JeffTheMandingo]

"I realized the men didn't speak up about the war because it would reveal they thought about relationships and they didn't want to look like women." That is the most ridiculously inaccurate thing I have ever heard. Maybe they didn't want to talk about politics in the class because things could become heated? Also, we can separate moral ideals from practical decisionmaking.

[@Large_Woman]

Yeah... My first thought was formulated as an interview question: "How did you come to this conclusion?" "You said that you 'realized' this is how they felt?" I won't pretend that I know what the men of that time felt, but in my time after 9/11 and my subsequent military service, that is not how I felt or why I didn't want to talk about it. =/

[@drewofearth6681]

I wish the female figures in my life were receptive to those like Gilligan.

[@TheBwArtist]

Like if Richard Element brought you here.

[@leeboldenslegalteam4646]

So basically women are angels? bwawawawawawa

[@pppinto97]

When men become wealthy they wanna share their stuff with the world. When women become wealthy they need no one. Women being hypergamous, only look at relationships objectively but want to be accepted the way they are

[@thefeelgood]

A wealthy and independent woman still needs a sperm or two at some point on the journey to realisation. Or they would unite themselves into extinction. Maybe masculinity should be feminised into extinction and we could all see the world through a better lense?

[@np8796]

Can u gv examples of women?

[@diamond852]

Two years later, I hope you have found enlightenment.

[@pppinto97]

@@diamond852 From ?

[@Noahkk12]

hello, I emailed Carol Giliagan at her NYU email but i didnt recieve an email. How can I can communicate with her.

[@jennyhill7371]

I have only one question to Ms. Gilligan , what color were they, what is colored people, I do not know this culture of Individuals

[@yaboyreggie_]

Exactly makes it hard to find the purpose or make everything tie in together.

[@isabelisameme]

These sexist comments ain't it

[@zarataylor4953]

Right? It’s not surprising, especially from the jordan Peterson crowd. She’s an amazing thinker though and relational psychology is absolutely the frontier

[@brownbanana18]

She is wrong. There is no difference. Not that that it is a difference in thinking, rather that this thinking is gender based.

[@speedrunningchannelban]

Men get wealth through the objective elements. Women get wealth through men. Men become objective. Women become subjective.

[@mrmc2465]

Did she date Donald trump?

[@bradwalton8373]

Thank you, Carol Gilligan, for destroying ethics by infantilizing it.

[@zarataylor3190]

What an unnecessarily and unthoughtful comment. The EOC framework is still in its novel stages but i believe it has good grounded theory and in terms of praxis, bountiful opportunities.

[@implush2882]

I can smell her coffee breath through the video.

[@yaboyreggie_]

😂😂😂

[@Khalid_Bin_Waleed]

I just took her Ethics in Philosophy of Ethics class and her principles will allow Ancestry sex within a family! I asked about 2 scenarios, if my old son who's old enough to understand wrong from right and is an adult to make a decision had a relationship with my wife, that is his mother-in-law and they have been loving each other for a year and I caught them having sex. 2nd scenario if my two adult kids, male and female had a relationship or had sex and I caught them. The Professor said her ethics says I shouldn't criticize and show care even though I will support them and love them generally but I can't judge their behaviors.?! so I should be selfless...Pathetic weakening ethics that is isn't particular and inclusive enough of things that happen in reality and want us to simply care even if we're being taken advantage of in these scenarios. Ethics of care didn't bring anything new, AlhamdAllah for Islamic Ethics are universal and particular, and it's very inclusive and it aligns with science and the nature of existence for over 1400 years ago. that's been given from the creator of existence If we let ordinary humans like her instead of Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him, their ethics will not be consistent and they won't survive. Her ethics is a product of the flawed ethics of Justice. yet both of them are flawed. I understand how it came by and I understand how fair and good their claims are against particular circumstances but it's still not inclusive and strong to survive and it shouldn't be taught in college because it encourages toxic freedom and is too tolerant.

[@josephkennedy4091]

The usual BS from her.

[@visorseen8954]

??? 4:26. It's hard decision but you have the baby. The baby is alive. What type of question is this? Fucking care based morality is dumb.

[@ricksanchez6294]

And this is why I'm a proud misogynist misanthrope.

[@Sofiaode18]

You know, achievements are worth being proud of, not being an absolute ass.

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

This woman has no academic credibility. Her work is laughably bad. She's great at getting her voice in the media though.

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

Oh, I know who she is, and I've looked at her work, and it is laughably bad. She's a crank who was made famous for outlandish claims that were popularized through a marketing campaign.

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

I don't think you know much about her claims. Her basic idea that men and women have cognitive differences was certainly proven right; however, this hunch (which is kinda obvious) was supported by specious research. Go look at her papers for yourself. They are atrocious. It's amazing that it got published at all, except that we're talking about gender partisans. I'm not here to sling insults at you, but will respond if you show some temperance and actual interest.

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

I'm actually talking about how Gilligan got famous, and her shoddy research. There is no "theory of morality" that is proved. What's your background?

[@D00kerT]

John Baterino just fantastic. Men with "rules" bases morals are "malleable" but womens emotions, a highly subjective, interpretive, and unfalsifiable feeling is concrete and like a rock!!! bahahhaha! Emotions, and hence the "care" based "morality" they are based on, are probably the most malleable human condition human beings have! One persons outrage is anothers shoulder shrug. Amazing that this women is telling men what and how they're thinking while simultaneously flattering her own gender as implicitly superior and all the while she's got an endless supply of male white knights ready to defend her and ignore the gaping holes in her theory and also attacking the other guy in this response thread(sorry can't look it up cause I'm typing on my phone) and hurling slurs and ad homs for daring to disagree with the woman presuming to know mens minds by filtering it through her own feminine lens. Imagine if the genders were reversed? The outrage about "mansplaining" would be endless.

[@Astrotase]

Women are spoiled now.