Ethical Particularism
In metaethics, moral particularism is the view that ethical reasoning is just too context-sensitive to be guided by overarching rules. Conventional work in ethics searches for a set of rules to information ethical reasoning and motion—e.g., utilitarianism or Kantian deontology. In contrast, ethical particularism claims that these theories and rules will not be relevant in sensible conditions, partially due to the big variety of exceptions to any common ethical precept that inevitably arises when confronting real-world ethical questions. Most particularists concede that there could also be a small set of relevant ethical rules; nevertheless, they aren’t an alternative to rational ethical thought and can’t be used on their very own to make ethical judgments. Particularist Jonathan Dancy states that “at greatest, [moral principles] are crutches {that a} morally delicate individual wouldn’t require, and certainly the usage of such crutches may even lead us into ethical error.”
Particularists and their opponents, ethical generalists, each agree that an ideal ethical agent causes utilizing details related to the case at hand. They disagree about what it means to purpose in a given context. Generalists declare that ethical brokers should purpose utilizing common rules utilized constantly throughout a variety of conditions. Particularists emphasize the context-sensitivity of ethical reasoning, claiming that ethical brokers should consider situational elements which have “variable relevance” throughout contexts. Accordingly, the identical consideration can function a purpose for some motion in a single context however fail to function a purpose in an indefinite number of different contexts.
I argue that from a feminist perspective, ethical particularism dangers failing to adequately deal with among the most urgent ethical points going through up to date society. My argument is feminist as a result of I concentrate on gender justice for example that exposes a weak point of ethical particularism. Advocates for gender equality and different types of justice typically invoke common ethical rules, equivalent to “we should always reject the gender binary.” Using such common rules is central to advancing social justice and progressive feminist beliefs. Adherence to ethical particularism may hinder progress within the combat for gender equality by rejecting the existence of common rules regarding fundamental human rights and duties. Additional, ethical particularism depends on the skilled ethical choose to make moral choices on a case-by-case foundation, which hinders the feminist objective of combatting oppression of all sorts. It’s because, in a society that’s topic to dangerous prejudices, people can’t be trusted to make dependable or competent ethical choices. Quite, the enchantment to common ethical rules gives a clearer path to feminist objectives.
Transphobia and the Trans Panic Protection
Transphobic hate crimes are on the rise, and lots of violent perpetrators have been acquitted by what authorized students Wodda and Panfil name the trans panic protection. Defendants who’re prosecuted for violence or deadly actions in opposition to a trans individual use the protection as an try and justify their actions by claiming that they had been “tricked” or deceived by a trans individual in a romantic or sexual means, inflicting the defendant to react with bodily aggression.
The trans panic protection continues to be authorized in lots of states and continues to reach acquitting or lessening prices of violent offenses in opposition to trans individuals. In 2013, James Dixon beat Islan Nettles to demise on the streets of Harlem after flirting along with her earlier within the evening, claiming that he was motivated to violence after being ridiculed by his pals who discovered that Nettles was transgender. Dixon said that he “simply didn’t wish to be fooled” in a recorded confession to the police. This declare of deception implies that Nettles someway supposed to “trick” Dixon along with her gender identification. Dixon was initially charged with misdemeanor assault and launched on a $2,000 bail. He was later sentenced to 12 years in jail for a responsible plea to manslaughter in 2016. Each the household of Nettles and the prosecution believed this sentence was far too lenient given the violent nature of the crime. This public show of leniency for graphic violence in opposition to a trans girl reveals how deeply entrenched gender bias and transmisogyny are in our society.
The trans panic protection stems from gender-biased prejudice and ignorance. Dixon didn’t appear to be guided by any form of ethical precept; somewhat, he presumably acted from a spot of prejudice and violence. Particularism robs us of a vital instrument for combatting such bias: generalizable ethical rules.
Feminist Critiques of Ethical Particularism
My feminist critique of ethical particularism is two-fold. First, if utilized uniformly to the therapy of all individuals, together with trans individuals, common ethical rules may correctly information uninformed brokers to make morally sound decisions that avert gender-based violence. These common ethical rules may embrace the Rossian responsibility of non-maleficence, which states that we should always “not injure others.” This responsibility states that we should always stop actions that instantly hurt others and keep away from looking for pleasure that by the way harms others. Martha Nussbaum’s concept of the central human capabilities, particularly the capability for bodily integrity, entails “having the ability to transfer freely, to be safe in opposition to violence, and to have alternatives for sexual satisfaction and reproductive alternative.” The work of W.D. Ross and Nussbaum give us a framework of rights and duties that may information ethical motion. It’s believable that within the absence of guiding ethical rules to tell their actions, individuals can extra simply justify brutal violence stemming from ignorance or bias.
My second critique is that the ethical choose put forth by ethical particularism can simply be swayed to make prejudiced choices in a society that’s topic to dangerous biases. Which means that ethical judges is perhaps much less able to making moral choices on a case-by-case foundation given their very own biases. The ethical query at stake in circumstances like Nettles’s and different trans panic protection circumstances is whether or not it’s morally permissible to bodily hurt one other individual in case your sexual or romantic encounter with them doesn’t meet preliminary assumptions of gender identification. The reply is clear to anybody who accepts common ethical rules about respect for gender identification and the way we should always deal with each other no matter gender identification. To those that are steeped in a transmisogynistic tradition, nevertheless, the solutions will not be so apparent. The ethical particularist unrealistically expects an indoctrinated public to make good ethical choices about trans individuals. Ethical particularism leaves an excessive amount of ethical accountability within the fingers of a public that’s indoctrinated in opposition to trans ladies and uninformed with out the steering of any coherent ethical rules. The power to correctly choose ethical nuance in a society susceptible to bias is compromised in contexts involving marginalized and oppressed populations which are typically topic to stated bias. Maybe interesting to common rules of gender justice may assist transphobic individuals shed their misconceptions and contribute in the direction of minimizing the trans panic protection.
My second critique—addressing the potential of ethical judges to make moral choices—is bolstered by the widespread legal acceptance of the trans panic protection, pointing to a possible pitfall for ethical particularism. In a society that strongly indoctrinates heteronormative and transphobic beliefs, “common ethical information” is probably not adequate to guard trans and gender-nonconforming individuals from ignorance or hatred. Many skilled ethical judges argue in favor of morally troubling acts because of their ignorance. The power to find out related options of an ethical scenario and the significance of these options doesn’t make an ethical choose exempt from human ignorance and bias. Whereas no moral concept is ideal, ethical particularism appears to largely fail by assuming an excessive amount of accuracy and infallibility on the a part of the “skilled ethical choose.” Ethical debate amongst the uninformed dangers creating an echo chamber of misinformation and misguided ethical judgments.
Addressing the Pitfalls of Generalism for the Feminist
A weak point of my argument is that individuals are steadily knowledgeable about transphobia and different types of gender injustice. But many stay ignorant and even push again in opposition to efforts to unfold information and consciousness. There are a number of conditions by which people protest, educate, converse, and illustrate the ethical rules that ought to information our actions in circumstances of gender-based discrimination or violence. One such instance is Transgender Day of Visibility rallies that advocate for the safety of trans youngsters and protest in opposition to anti-trans violence. The calls for made by these rallies will be supported by rules like Nussbaum’s capability for bodily integrity or Ross’ responsibility of non-maleficence, which may present a framework of rights and duties for combatting transphobia and anti-trans violence. Nevertheless, these efforts present sluggish or little progress in swaying public opinion about gender concept. In some circumstances, there may be even harder pushback in opposition to gender concept because of makes an attempt to coach. Led by Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida has handed a bill that eliminates the point out of sexual orientation and gender identification in public colleges. Different states have handed similar laws that take away the point out of LGBTQ+ individuals and points from the curriculum.
Particularists are appropriate in arguing that generalism doesn’t yield higher ethical outcomes or much less contentious ethical discourse. Nevertheless, whereas generalism on this sense will not be virtually or normatively simpler than particularism, it would supply extra avenues to bolster future revisions of ethical thought. For instance, the appliance of the Rossian responsibility of non-maleficence to circumstances like Nettles’s would offer a transparent moral justification for curbing the usage of the trans panic protection. The Nussbaumian capability for bodily integrity would equally prohibit transphobic violence. Generalism may additionally give consolation to oppressed individuals of all gender identities by proclaiming that common ethical rules ought to shield them, somewhat than leaving the safety of rights to the whims of public judgment.
Even when not a lot consideration is given to common ethical rules, not less than they’re part of the dialog. Having rules and ignoring or misinterpreting them is best than working with no rules in any respect. Working from common, unprincipled ethical information and counting on skilled ethical judges is discomforting to those that don’t profit from the society that indoctrinates this “common ethical information.” A society deeply entrenched in prejudice doesn’t present an setting the place an ethical choose can function with out bias. Those that undergo from prejudice typically depend on the moral decision-making capabilities of a society that’s biased in opposition to them. Whereas advocacy for common ethical rules might not yield higher outcomes, it might present a concrete avenue for the oppressed to advocate for themselves.
The Girls in Philosophy sequence publishes posts on these excluded within the historical past of philosophy on the premise of gender injustice, problems with gender injustice within the subject of philosophy, and problems with gender injustice within the wider world that philosophy will be helpful in addressing. In case you are thinking about writing for the sequence, please contact the Sequence Editor Alida Liberman or the Affiliate Editor Elisabeth Paquette.
Kimberly Beasley
Kimberly Beasley accomplished her undergraduate training at Christopher Newport College in Newport Information, Virginia, majoring in Philosophy and American Research. She is at the moment finishing her Grasp’s in Philosophy at Kent State College in Kent, Ohio, and can graduate in Could of 2024. Her areas of curiosity embrace ethics, feminist philosophy, social and political philosophy, bioethics, and care ethics.
