Foundation Course
The humanity has always disputed on varied ideas concerning good and bad, love and hate, things which are acceptable and unacceptable. People are different when it comes to sharing opinions in general but it is far more complex when it comes to sharing opinions among men and women.
The scholars from varied fields tried to analyze the human morality. Thus, morality is one of the fundamental peculiarities in person’s life. Morality itself defines what is right and what is wrong in human relations. Together with society evolves morality. Moral standards and conducts can be defined as customs as well as carefully rational and reasonable theories of modern world. Various particularities can influence a society’s moral standards. For example, one can take into consideration such things as a stage of social development, level of intelligence and knowledge in general. Morality can be seen as a first order-set of beliefs and practices concerning values which have been developed, codified and accepted by a given society (Joanna Zylinska, 2005). Morality can serve as a guide for people's intentions, actions and activities. Hence, it is indispensable to indicate that moral judgments and statements are made about those things which include a certain choice. It is considerable only when people have varied probable alternatives regarding their intentions, actions and activities that we conclude those things are either morally good or morally bad. Discussing morality one must bear in mind a difference between morals and mores. Both are substantive facets of human conduct and relations but they are somewhat different. Mores are usually treated as "harmless customs," where "harmless" indicates that lack of success to follow the custom may result in a negative reaction, but not a very profound one. But when it comes to morals, one needs to keep in mind that morals are treated to be more serious facets of one’s behavior as well as relation.
Another peculiarity concerning morality is that between standards, conduct as well as character. When a person forms a moral opinion or judgment, he or she applies moral standards that are fundamentals which force a person to make a certain appropriate conclusion. These opinions or judgments might be about a certain conduct or a person’s character which involves varied attitudes as well as beliefs. In general, when it comes to morality one must make allowance for doing an appropriate conclusion about the notion of morality. Thus, morality can be applied to the relationships between human beings.
Morality and moralism are both social and psychological phenomena. They embrace a set of acts, habits, beliefs, sentimental and emotional dispositions, by means of which people attempt to control their thoughts, intentions and actions. But we have to draw a parallel between them as they are somewhat different. Moralism is a set of practices and attitudes which are used to impose a certain variety of things on others to enslave them.
Ethics presumes that the standards and principles exist and endeavors to analyze them, describe them, evaluate them, or evaluate the things upon which those standards as well as principles can exist. In speaking of ethics, one needs to take into consideration that the notion of ethics is principally far more philosophical in comparison to morality. It refers to concentration on human conduct and human values. In the singular, an ethic is a single principle that allows a person to determine what is right and wrong in general outline. When a person speaks of ethics she or he has in mind to express it in its primary meaning of a set of moral principles and fundamentals. Having ethical principles alone isn’t enough. As legal scholar and philosopher David Luban says, moral decision-making “also demands an appropriate judgment, by which I mean knowing which actions break a moral principle or norm and which do not.” He pursues, “You can’t teach good judgment using general rules, because you already need varied judgments to recognize how rules apply.” His conclusion applies to the point of this book. “Judgment is consequently always and irredeemably peculiar” [Arthur Dobrin, 2008]. A person has an ability to improve a level of understanding concerning ethics. People can dispute on varied ethical problems and issues with other people, rather than simply think about these questions on their own. Moral evolution and understanding varied sorts of things are prompted by one’s hearing other thoughtful and reflective responses to moral problems. It plays a decisive role in hearing of people’s requests and wishes and in explaining one’s thinking to other people. In ethics, a person is free to choose his or her personal philosophy of how to live and guide life. When one makes a certain ethical decision, he or she is not dependent on varied judgments of society. Personal thinking identifies ethics. Ethics does not result from societal, political and religious reasons. A person has an ability to do a great deal of things which he or she thinks are foremost to live and fulfill an appropriate decision.
Numerous investigations point out that that women in their nature are more ethical than males. On the other hand, a great deal of researches indicate that there are difference between them in questions concerning ethics. The principal difference lies in the strict conviction that male and female moralize in a different way or manner. Thus, when one speaks of male it means that he is tied to be a rational and autonomous agent. The female is seen more anchored and reliable to physical part of existence, subsequent on her reproductive role. A woman is associated with the physical senses. In Lloyd’s basis, ‘rational knowledge has been construed as a transcending, transfiguration or review of natural forces; and the women have been associated with what reasonable knowledge surpasses, predominates or simply leaves behind’ [Genevieve Lloyd, 1984]. Moreover, both men and women have a different perception of responsibilities and obligations. On the other hand, a lot of scholars claims that females more easily appeal to ethical dimensions in varied cases in comparison to men. Bear in mind the definitions morality, moralism as well as ethics, we can affirm that the consciousness and interpretation of these notions is different for both genders.
Numerous scholars paid their attention to the nature of morality and how the perception of this notion changes according to the gender differences.
Carol Gilligan, a Harvard psychologist, has gained popularity due to her research claiming that male and female differ in solving moral problems and dilemmas. “Men, she contests, are likely to consider moral issues in terms of justice, rules as well as individual rights. Women, on the other hand, tend to consider such issues in terms of relations, care, and condolence. Moreover, women’s self-concept is centered on interdependence and connection with other people, so that their moral insight includes a concern with maintaining relations and a sensibility to not offending others.” (Dawson, 1995, p.61). The author claims that such research is the continuation of the gender socialization theory. The theory points out that gender identity is established in the early childhood and is an irreparable and a constant process.
Scientists presuppose that women find various problems and dilemmas more troubling than men. Taking into consideration above-indicated evidences, one may affirm that men solve their troubles more promptly than women. When it comes to occupation, women are more likely to work harder to find out a certain solution of the problem to content herself.
A number of investigations show that men’s moral judgments and decisions varied in such a way as to make as great their own advantage and superiority in each negotiation or discussion process; when necessary for personal benefit and gain. To compare, women made similar ethical judgments and decisions across all perspectives. Even when the ethical choice was clearly deleterious to personal welfare and success, women are more likely to maintain their ethical standards.
Another study which investigate such questions is called SINS scale (self-reported inappropriate negotiation strategies). It evaluates people’s adroitness to violate ethical principles in various cases. Thus, men are more ready to engage or participate in shady schemes or plans. They believe that skills are considered to be as a principal and fundamental part of their identity that is why they have higher SINS scores than those people who assume that their schemes, plans or tactics have to be thoughtfully learned and developed.
There are a lot of traditional rules which teach both boys and girls different things. Long-established games of boys train to respect rules, norms and righteousness, while the girls’ teach to avoid harm and damage. Women are considered to be more encouraging, understanding and altruistic. Boys play games in which rules play a prominent role. Throughout childhood, boys become increasingly enchanted with the legal elaboration of rules and righteous procedures for making disputes and discussions. For girls, Gilligan concludes, continuing a relation is more considerable than continuing the game - a value that remains into adulthood. As her investigation affirms, women treat moral dilemmas and problems in terms of conflicting liabilities to people, not ideas or intentions, and they make choices based not on abstract principles as well as fundamentals. The proper metaphor for female morality is the web of relations, says Gilligan, not the hierarchy of rules [Carol Travis, 1982, p.2].
The study, which measured responses to questions about honesty and competence, detected that females are more likely to accept varied decisions based on how they impact on people. It also suggests the moral and ethical fortitude of both men and women modifies with age, become less submissive but more capable to use reasons, arguments and evidences, until they reach a "peak of intellectual and moral forces".
In the exploration which conducted by researchers from Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, the University of Cologne in Germany, and the University of Texas in America, it was detected that “Women seem to be more likely to have such ineffectual, emotional as well as dramatic reaction to inflict damage to people which are found to be in the dilemmas or problems, to the one person, whereas men were less likely to express this potent dramatic reaction to damage,” the study’s prominent author Rebecca Friesdorf who is considered to be a social psychology graduate student at Wilfried Laurier University, said NPR that “Women seem to be feeling more equal levels of both emotion and cognizance. They seem to be experiencing similar levels of both, so it's heavier for them to make their choice or alternative” [Samantha Olson, 2015, p.1].
In general, women’s morality is different from the men’s and is based on the principles of compassion and empathy.
Conclusion
Hence, people should be open to both perspectives and also they should not prejudice each other according to the gender differences.
Bibliography
Dawson, L. 1995. Women and Men, Morality and Ethics. Business Horizons. [pdf] Available at: http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Women-and-Men-Morality-and-Ethics.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2016]
Dobrin, A. 2008. Ethics for Everyone. Available at: <https://arthurdobrin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ethics-for-everyone.pdf> [Accessed 16 January 2016]
Lloyd, G. 1984. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy. [online]. Available at: < http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_philosophy/summary/v025/25.3shute.html>
Olson, S. 2015. Men are From Mars: Men and Women Have Completely Different Moral Compasses. Medical Daily. [online]. Available at: http://www.medicaldaily.com/men-are-mars-men-and-women-have-completely-different-moral-compasses-328372 [Accessed 16 January 2016]
Travis, C. Women and Men and Morality. 1982. The New York Times. [online]. Available at: < http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/books/women-and-men-and-morality.html?pagewanted=all> [Accessed 16 January 2016]
Zylinska, J. 2005. The Ethics of Cultural Studies. Available at: <https://books.google.ru/books?id=Zc88ayIvF4C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=cultural+studies+and+ethics+joanna+zylinska&source=bl&ots=_LmlF6J2P3&sig=M7qe3QUfsR3kQ70kzMcib3mkjE&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOvqjU8a3KAhVDEywKHRGTAskQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=cultural%20studies%20and%20ethics%20joanna%20zylinska&f=false> [Accessed 16 January 2016]
