Main Ideas in Kant, Part 1
Background on Kant Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who lived and worked in the late 1700s, during the period of the Enlightenment and around the time of the American Revolution. This was an era when philosophers were interested in defining ethics in a philosophical way, not just based on religion or culture. As we will see, Kant was very influential in this regard. He defended traditional moral rules like “do not lie” and “do not murder” in new and creative ways that are still used today. He is also famous for his defense of the absolute value of humanity, and served as a precursor to the idea of inviolable human rights.
Tips for Reading Kant Kant is a smart thinker, but his work can be very challenging to read! This is due to his style of writing and to the many technical terms he uses. Also, our assigned reading moves kind of slow at the beginning, and then gets to some of Kant’s key points towards the end. My advice is to do the reading with these notes open, so that they can help you follow along with Kant’s main ideas. If things get confusing, you can always turn back to the notes for clarification, and also let them help you focus your greatest attention on the most important parts of the reading.
Action from Duty The assigned reading for class is Section 2 of Kant’s essay in Chapter 8 of our course text, so please skip ahead and be sure to start reading there, with the paragraph that begins “If we have hitherto drawn our notion of duty…” In the reading, Kant is going to defend a number of moral rules that are binding for everyone, regardless of their culture, upbringing, and self-interest.
In the first two paragraphs of Section 2, Kant begins by admitting that it can be hard to tell when a person (including oneself) is acting from moral duty (from obedience to a moral law). In many cases, he notes, people are actually motivated by self-interest or some similar motive. Still, Kant believes it is important to investigate the possibility of moral laws, as he will do in the rest of the reading.
Reason and Experience Kant’s next main point, which unfolds over several paragraphs, is that we should gain knowledge of moral laws based on pure reasoning, rather than based on experience. The term a priori means “based on pure reason,” so he uses that term a few times as well. If there is such a thing as true moral laws, Kant explains that they must apply to all people (even, he says, to all “rational beings”), so he concludes that it would be inappropriate to form moral laws based on the experience of one’s own culture, on one’s likes and dislikes, on good examples or role models, or even on generalizations about human nature that hold across many different cultures. Instead, Kant seeks to develop a moral code based on pure reason, apart from any kind of experience. This may seem pretty audacious, or even unappealing, but Kant does make an attempt at this in the reading, so our best stance for now is probably to watch how he does it and then size up whether his approach is a good one. At this point, though, one example may help to illustrate what Kant means by a priori, or pure, reason. This is the example of math. We learn math through concrete lessons and experiences in life, but the truths of math themselves strike people as true based on pure reason alone. 2+2=4 seems obviously true, for example, and there is not really a need or a way to go out into the world and “check” whether this is correct. So, Kant is hoping to develop moral laws that are similar to the truths of math, in that they are clearly true to people who consider them, based on pure reason.
Imperatives Kant begins the next stage of his argument in the paragraph that starts “Everything in nature works according to laws.” In this and the next few paragraphs, Kant explains that humans use reason to think about how to act, but also experience desires and inclinations that move them in certain directions. For example, a person might feel a desire to go back to sleep, but know that they should really get up and go to work.
Since people do not always follow their reason, we have the experience of reason “telling” us to do things. This is what Kant calls an imperative.
An imperative is a command of reason to do, or not do, some action. Since they are commands, imperatives tend to include the words “should,” “shall,” or “ought.”
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Kant goes on to distinguish two kinds of imperatives:
1. Hypothetical imperatives tell people what they should do if they want to achieve a certain goal.
2. Categorical imperatives tell people what they should do, no matter what.
As Kant explains, hypothetical imperatives always refer to a specific goal. They are not absolute commands, but commands that apply as means to a given end. Some of these relate to a skill or endeavor that a person has chosen to pursue. For example:
If you want to get better at tennis, you should practice your serve. If you want to pass this course, you should take time to study. If you want to drive to Orlando quickly, you should take the Florida Turnpike.
Other hypothetical imperatives relate to the goal of happiness. For example:
If you want to be happy, you should form strong friendships. If you want to be happy, you should save money for the future.
In addition to hypothetical imperatives tied to specific goals, Kant also believes reason tells us to do certain things, no matter what. This relates to the topic of ethics. As you can probably guess, Kant connects morality to the idea of a categorical imperative that people should always follow, whatever their other goals or desires may be. So, in the remaining parts of the reading, Kant will defend his views on this topic.
First Form of the Categorical Imperative Kant holds that there is one fundamental categorical imperative from which all moral rules can be derived. However, he expresses this principle in three different forms, two of which we will be studying in the course. These forms sound pretty different at first, but Kant believes they are related and can help guide us in different situations.
To rephrase slightly from the reading:
The first form of the categorical imperative holds that an action is right if it follows a maxim that can be willed as a universal law, and wrong if it follows a maxim that cannot be willed as a universal law.
This is an example of a moral theory, since it is presented as an account of what makes any action right or wrong. However, this view includes a few tricky concepts that we will need to unpack in order to apply and assess it.
Maxims We don’t typically use the word “maxim” in English today, but the word means “policy,” so it can help to keep that in mind. When we act, Kant believes that we always follow some policy. In turn, a good way to assess our actions is to uncover and evaluate these policies. In particular, Kant takes a maxim or policy to involve an action, a set of circumstances, and an intention. In this way, it will complete the following sentence:
I will ____ when ____ in order to ____. Of course, we do not consciously stop and recite a statement like every time we act. But, Kant’s point is that since we are rational, we do at some level act according to policies. For example, some possible maxims are:
I will give to charity when I have extra income in order to help others. I will steal when I am bored in order to get expensive clothes. I will support my children when I am a parent in order to promote their welfare.
The first step in assessing an action is to figure out the underlying maxim that is at work. Then, we can move on to the next part of Kant’s view.
Universal Laws The word “universal” means “applying to everyone.” Kant believes that moral laws are supposed to apply to everyone. So, he asks us to think about which maxims we could accept as rules for everyone to follow. He says an action is right if its maxim is a policy we could reasonably will as a universal law. In contrast, an action is wrong if we could not will its policy as a law for everyone to follow.
Kant gives some examples in the reading, clearly numbered 1 through 4, to help illustrate his views on this issue, so I encourage you to take a look at these. Example 1, concerning suicide at the end of life, is kind of confusing, and some commenters think Kant makes a mistake there. However, example 2 is a good illustration of Kant’s view. There, a person is tempted to tell a lie to get a loan, and this may be successful for a person in a single case. However, to act morally, Kant reminds us that we cannot just choose what is convenient on one occasion. Instead, we have to think of what we could will as a law for everyone to follow. As Kant explains, a universal practice of lying to get a loan would make the whole practice of loaning money impossible, since banks would just stop issuing loans if people always lied. So, for this reason, it is wrong for even a single person to lie in this way, since they are doing something that they could not will as a universal law. Similarly, example 4 in the book is a nice illustration of Kant’s view.
Specifying Maxims One thing to keep in mind with the first form of the categorical imperative is that we need to determine the maxim of an action in a reasonably general way, to capture the underlying policy that is really at work. For example, consider the statement:
I will visit the Town Center Mall in Boca Raton when it is April 1 in order to buy shoes. Now, we could not will this statement as a law for everyone in the world to follow. If that were followed, then the mall and in fact the whole city would be impossibly crowded!! However, this is not really the correct way of describing a person’s policy. The more general maxim this person seems to be following is something like:
I will visit a nearby store when I need shoes in order to buy them. When we think of it this way, then it turns out to be a moral action, since we could easily will this as a universal law for everyone to follow.
Later Parts of the Reading After discussing his four examples, Kant gives some further reflections on the first form of the categorical imperative and briefly returns to his views on reason and experience.
Then, starting around the paragraph that begins “Now I say: man and generally any rational being,” Kant moves on to a few further themes. For these last parts of the reading, please see my video and transcript called Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2. The video considers Kant’s distinction between persons and things, as well as the second form of the categorical imperative, which is stated in italics as the last sentence of our reading (just before the endnotes). So, I will leave things there for now… Thanks in advance for your patience working through this reading, and if you have any thoughts or questions, you can feel free to let me know :)
Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2
Introduction Hello, and welcome to this video on Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2!
Overview This video covers the last parts of the reading by Kant, starting with the paragraph that begins, “Now I say: man and generally any rational being.” I also posted notes on Main Ideas in Kant, Part 1, so please take a look at those before continuing on. We have already covered the first form of the categorical imperative in those notes, so this video will go on to consider concepts related to the second form. Much of this comes from the reading, while I have also added a few details based on Kant’s other writings.
Persons and Things Kant distinguishes between two categories, the category of persons and the category of things.
He defines persons as rational beings, such as humans, and
He defines things as non-rational beings, such as plants, animals, rocks, machines, etc.
The word “rational” means “having reason,” so Kant believes that humans are distinct from everything else in nature because we have reason and can use this to learn about the world, set our own goals, and make decisions based on them. Kant is drawing a clear line between rational beings and everything else. He believes that plants, animals, and non-living things do not possess reason, which is why he places them in the category of things. Now, this distinction between persons and things plays a major role in the rest of Kant’s ethics.
Kant believes that ethics concerns how we treat other persons. Moreover, he argues that it is fine to use things in various ways for our benefit, or for the benefit of other persons. So, he views plants, animals, and non-living things as resources to be used for the benefit of persons.
The Second Form of the Categorical Imperative Kant presents his general ethical theory in a famous statement called the categorical imperative. Kant actually gives three forms of the categorical imperative in his work. The one we will focus on in this video is the second form, which is the last sentence before the endnotes in our reading. Here, I will rephrase it slightly:
The second form of the categorical imperative tell us to always treat persons (ourselves and others) as ends in themselves, and never treat persons as means only.
To understand this, we are going to need to define a few terms. We have already discussed the fact that, for Kant, the word “person” means “rational being,” such as a human being. Now,
To treat someone as an end in themselves, according to Kant, is to respect and support a person’s chosen goals, as long as these are moral.
On the other hand,
To treat someone as a means only is to use a person in ways that frustrate their chosen goals.
For example, if your goal is to become an Olympic swimmer, I could treat use you as an end in yourself by referring you to a good coach, or teaching you things that will help to improve your swimming. On the other hand, I would treat you as a means only if I broke your arm, or lied to you about which coaches are good, in order to gain an advantage for myself. We might ask how this form of the categorical imperative relates back to the first form, covered in the earlier notes. The connection here is not entirely clear, but Kant may think that the second form of the categorical imperative captures the kinds of maxims that rational beings could will as universal laws. In addition, Kant seems to endorse this
form of the categorical imperative since it stresses the importance of respect for persons’ free will and reason, which according to Kant is also the basis of ethics.
Helping and Hurting People We could say that the second form of the categorical imperative tells us to help, and not to hurt, people. In other words, it breaks down into two parts:
The first part—always treat persons as ends in themselves—tells us to help people to achieve their chosen goals.
The second part—never treat persons as means only—tells us to never hurt people by frustrating their pursuit of their chosen goals.
There are many ways to help people, and Kant acknowledges in parts of the text we have not read, that we have some discretion in how we choose to treat others as ends in themselves (to help others) as long as we are making a good effort. However,
Kant believes that the instruction to never hurt people by treating them as means only is absolute.
He says that we should never do things like murder, lie, steal, or kidnap, since these undermine the goals of other people who are just as rational and worth of respect as we are. Now, what about a situation where the two parts of the categorical imperative seem to conflict, because the only way to help one person is to use another person as a means only? In these cases, Kant does not believe in hurting one or more people to help others. Here, he would say that the part of the categorical imperative that instructs us to never treat persons as means only takes priority. This is because, as I just noted, Kant allows some flexibility in the ways that we might help people, while the duty to never treat persons as means only is absolute. If the only way to get a friend out of trouble is to lie to his or her spouse, Kant would say, “Don’t do it.” Similarly, if the only way to protect a village from a terror attack is to kidnap a child, Kant would say this is still wrong. A famous and controversial aspect of Kant’s view is the claim that we should never, no matter what, hurt people in ways that violate the categorical imperative.
Kant’s View as an Ethical Theory Thinking back to the notes from an earlier lesson, we can see that the categorical imperative is an example of an ethical theory. Whether or not we agree with it, it is a general account of what makes any action right or wrong, and so satisfies the definition of an ethical theory that was presented in an earlier note. For any possible action, we can look and see whether it conforms to the categorical imperative. We can also see that the categorical imperative is very different than cultural relativism. Kant does not believe that ethics is determined by what is socially approved in a given culture. Rather, he believes that the categorical imperative applies to people in every culture. Since humans all around the world are rational and set goals for themselves, there are certain ways of respecting people that he believes should apply in every culture.
Kant and Human Rights Now, let’s turn to the second part of this video and discuss for a few moments the topic of human rights. Human rights are of course a major topic in contemporary ethical discourse, and we can note how Kant’s views have influenced the idea of human rights in a few ways.
1. First, discussions about human rights tend to assume that there is something special about humans, and that humans should be respected in certain special ways. This relates back to Kant’s distinction between persons and things.
2. Second, defenders of human rights usually assume that rights apply to everyone
throughout the world, and try to secure certain human rights for people in every culture. This relates back to Kant’s rejection of cultural relativism.
3. Finally, human rights typically concern helping, and not hurting, people in ways
that relate to their goals. This relates back to the teachings of the categorical imperative. For example, the right to life, the right to free speech, and the right to property connect to the idea not treating others as means only. In a related way, the right to education and the right to health care connect to the idea of treating other people as ends in themselves. There are ongoing debates about what counts as a human right, whether rights are absolute, and how best to promote human rights throughout the world. Still, in the background, we can see that the idea of human rights is influenced in some important ways by the teachings of Immanuel Kant.
Running head: SEXUAL HARASSMENT 1
Guerrero 2
Sexual Harassment
Maria Guerrero
Lynn University
Sexual Harassment: An ethical dilemma and its controversies
Sexual harassment has become frustrating in society in regards to employers, managers, supervisors and general work staff looking for sex in favor of job appraisal, promotion, transfers from a workstation to another, and employment. Though this is illegal and unethical society still practices it even though it threatens morality and destroys their professionalism. On a broader perspective, sexual harassment includes discrimination, use of women as sexual objects (Crain & Heischmidt, 1995), inappropriate use of powers (Loy & Stewart, 1984), bullying (Hivos, 2018), subordination, unfair gender roles, poor labor relations and salaries (Hivos, 2018). All add up as psychological, sociocultural and economic effects propagated by the immoral behavior.
This ethical dilemma is chosen because most prosperous and immediate employers have taken advantage of the economic and financial situations in larger populations in a given state where they are demand sex or use of any unethical avenues to employ or side-line women notwithstanding their capability and experience in the profession. It is uncommon to find women deprived of working opportunities or harassed while working yet the same employer expects productivity relative to the task its designated. Hivos (2018) states that victims of sexual harassment in the United States lose $ 4.4 million in wages and another loss of 973, 000 hours in unpaid leave each year. Additionally, the predominance of sexual harassment deprives women of their humanitarian and legal rights of fairness and equality to get employment and also to exercise their duty.
Human Resource is a noble and a passionate job that equally requires empowerment, solidarity, motivational pay, good relation (with employer and customers), and total cooperation of all employees and the organization’s management as a unit to cultivate innovation, creativity, and productivity. On the contrary, harassers have the power to fire or promote women of their choice against the code of conducts which are established in organizations to serve all gender employees equally. Sexual harassment defiles ethics and moral integrity while elevating delinquency in social, economic, cultural and political setups and the ultimate effect is the weak economy and demoralized workforce that fails to exercise their professionalism to the fullest. The result of the harm is the unreasonable interference with women employees’ performance and or creation of the working environment that is hostile, intimidating and offensive. Lack of knowledge and understanding about the meaning, scope, the effects and consequences of sexual harassment defined by legislature has widely contributed to the failure to acknowledge this dilemma to the fullest, predisposing women to debilitating stress reaction, sleep disorders, weight loss, nausea, lowered self-esteem and sexual dysfunction (Hivos, 2018). Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, unethical practice, and is against the law because it involves unethical behaviors of taking advantage of the vulnerable population within a professional setting.
Sexual harassment and career goals
Sexual harassment in the workplace is an evasion of morality and ethics; it is entirely unwelcome, undesirable behavior, and offensive to women. It is an unwanted imposition of sexual demands in the context of unequal power (Kensbock, Bailey, Jennings, & Patiar, 2015) in gender and social assaults. In the business sector, workers’ morale through good working environment entailing worker-worker relation and worker-management relations determines the success of a business to hover on the competitors in the global market. Nonetheless, the workers’ low morale, reduced productivity, absenteeism from duty, employee turnover and possible (Bovet, 1993) because of sexual harassment it greatly shutters the goals of the organization as well as those of the individual. Workers morale can be influenced by a good salary pay that one can be more than willing to take the extra mile; beyond work-duty framework to increase the output of the organization for pay increment forms from increased profit margin the organization generates.
On the contrary, sexual harassment has tumble-down career goals and ambitions of many feminine employees who find themselves with no option but to quit if not counter-react to the harasser. The inability of women that are sexually harassed to report and get assisted on them dilemma has made the vice look ‘normalized’ (Kensbock, Bailey, Jennings, & Patiar, 2015), a thing that should not be accepted the modernized world. Career goals cover personal satisfaction in providing services within one’s area of the profession and also the fulfillment of the organization’s set targets with the aim of generating income, creating job opportunities and expanding the business. Even though some organizations have had their policies in place with good law enforcement, sexual harassment is still on practice and continues to affect women psychologically, socially, health-wise and economically (McDonald, 2012). Organizations may have the policies but they fail to have good enforcing (Hivos, 2018). Human resources department is responsible to supervise employee behaviors during working hours where they offer a good environment, and people feel safe to work in the organization. If HR does not follow the rules, it creates room for sexual harassment perpetrators to practice the unethical acts against women.
In an organizational hierarchy, the power that is provided to some individuals allows them to feel in control over another person’s actions; this has been a common characteristic for higher positions (Loy & Stewart, 1984). People with low positions at the working station tent to subordinate to their managers or supervisors because of the authority they have. When they accept subordination, they are affecting the production of their job and the image of the organization if a scandal goes out. Therefore, some of the outcomes include seeking to transfer, quitting the job or even worst responding to the harasser. Subordination can be reversed, and personal as well as united interests of the organization achieved where corporate responsibility is upheld. By corporate responsibility means both the management and employees have the same duty in the engagement to elevate working ethics and societal morality.
Effects of sexual harassment
Feminism revolution is yet to be won despite the many efforts that international, national, non-governmental and community-based organizations continue to strategy in the fight of the dilemma. Women today continue to face numerous obstacles, sexual harassment is one and most rampant across developed and developing nations in the labor market and hence denying them equal participatory opportunities with another gender in their workplaces (Berring & Chan, 2014). These are bothersome and intolerable to women and all who stands for morality and integrity into the work ethics which are standards of organizational relations. Women are rendered jobless, and unwilling to seek job¬s for their moral safety and integrity in their marriages for those married. Beside employees’ morale in their job performance, reduced effective and efficient production is affected too, many seen not to be in attendance to their jobs, low income and profits, possible litigation (Bovet, 1993) and poor customer service (Kensbock, Bailey, Jennings, & Patiar, 2015). Going to the extent of launching lawsuit it means the possibility of unity, peace, and cooperation is null hence affecting productivity.
Citing USA women harassment statistics, Hivos (2018) states that 90-95% of women sexually harassed are affected psychologically (anxiety, sleep disorder, and depression), socially (low self-esteem), health (weight loss, nausea), and physically (sexual dysfunction). These effects progress into increased cost of medical care because treatment has to be carried on to save a life or else life will be lost unreasonably. Women are used as sex objects by the perpetrators, which is far from the expectation of sociocultural morality and standards, and professional ethics. Every person at any given time and place wish to be treated equally as any other about opportunities which can either be promotion, training and managerial position in the workplace (Crain & Heischmidt, 1995). There is need to stand out with policies, and personal behavioral change to fight this uncouth and animosity act that deprive women opportunity to develop their respective nations and their living standards as well within and without their areas of residence. Sexual harassment suppresses the victims’ social status, influence their self-identity and negatively impact their well-being (Kensbock, Bailey, Jennings, & Patiar, 2015). Lack of a voice for women against the ill-practice that gets power even to be coined as ‘normalized’ results from women’s powerlessness that lets free harassers and unable to even quit as long as they get daily living (Berring & Chan, 2014). Fear for not getting a hearing from the management when harassed and the attitude that it is inevitable even when one denies to change job is clear that women are oppressed through sexual molest. Women need defenders in all forms for they have equal rights as humans and not being segregated by gender especially in the current century’s economy that they contribute in running families.
Sexual harassment legislation, code of ethics and implementation
The availability and application of codes of conduct, code of ethics and guidelines governing operations and relations in an organization is a sign of the reduced need and recognition of the significance of ethical behavior and commitment to the same ethics as at work workforce level (O’Dwyer & Madden, 2006). Organizations owe their workers conducive environment that promotes economic growth and professional development by ensuring policies and codes of conduct governing personal relationships are put in place and followed to the later while respecting prescribed legislature that respects the rights of individual employees. Ethics dilemma can and is the basis to develop minimum standards or code of conduct against which the organization will be evaluated for harmonious and equitable consideration of all workers regardless of its gender sensitivity (Greenwood, 2002). Having the policies in control of sexual harassment has been reported to positively impact anti-sexual harassment (Bovet, 1993) and the use of appropriate training procedures based on effective psycho-educational process (Barak,1994). Managers in businesses have been observed to be reluctant in applying or using the codes of conduct to handle issues relating to workers, but they are quick to use the same when it relates to the business (O’Dwyer & Madden, 2006). These imply that there are managers who care not about the well-being of its workers instead more interest with the company only forgetting that the workforce is a pillar in ensuring that same business stands in a competitive market and that their redundancy in their responsibility corresponds to the business downfall. Codes of conduct are in some instances created to reflect the desire to protect the business interests more than the employees and the wider society surrounding the organization/company/business (O’Dwyer & Madden, 2006). O’Dwyer & Madden further asserts that most codes of conducts are more legalistic, dictatorial procedures that demand or prohibit specific behavior while the broader interests are absent. These are eminent mostly where corruption, an ethical dilemma exists and overrides morality.
Theories that Illustrate Sexual Harassment
The ethics of care is a feminist philosophical perspective bound by morality and decision-making. Ethics of care reference ideas that occur in nature and through normative ethical practices. The ethics of care perspective highlight approaches to moral actions that are also addressed in the Kantian philosophies of deontology, justice and utilitarianism theories. The ethics of care is credited to the Nel Noddings because she provided the first comprehensive argument of the method as the foundation of morality (Held, 2018). In developing this theory, Noddings assert that caring is a universal attribute to human. She continued to demonstrate that caring ethics was created from the moral relativism charge and virtue ethics. Nodding presented her argument using a specific relationship reciprocal for commitment with the wellbeing of caring acts and response to perceived needs that are part of care (Held, 2018). The act of caring is motivated by the apprehension of the reality that exists within the society.
In the ethics of care, Nodding does not exclusively mean that the person who is giving care is doing what those need care desire. Therefore, in her ethics of care, she argues that caring for an individual is situational. If from the cared for point of view needs care, then the one caring should formulate an appropriate response. The desire to care came from the care for point of view and compared to what the carer perceive (Held, 2018). Caring involves the commitment to perform some relevant task where the condition for care provides actions that are sufficient to disintegrating care.
The application of Nodding’s ethics of care to sexual harassment ethical dilemma illustrates how to deal with both parties that are involved in sexual harassment. In sexual harassment, there is both the survivor and the perpetrator. Both of these individuals need to let go some survivors and perpetrators to feel that they both need care. In the ethics of caring, Noddings try to alter the contours of our good maps that startlingly pose new questions and answers (Tong, 2003). Noddings persuasively demonstrate the principle of moral thinking that without it will be responsible for shrinking humanity. Her caring approach seems to have two elements motivational displacement and engrossment. Motivational movement is clearly defined as failing to apprehend social reality existing in the society. She gives attention to ethical standards that should be applied in situations of gender violence, and sexual harassment is contained in the topic of gender violence (Noddings, 2013). Noddings intend to show how applications of specific moral theories that ensure the continuation of determination that is used to examine the implications of ethics of care. Initially, when addressing sexual harassment from her perspective, the best chance to use ethics of care is caring for both the survivor and the victim.
Nodding’s feminist theories identify more of the appropriate value realms of moral activity with consideration of both the victim of sexual harassment and the harasser. She tells us that the two people have been in the form of essential relationship that resulted in their close contact (Noddings, 2013). Her fundamental question relates to how the two individuals involved in sexual harassment meet other morality before and after incidents (Noddings, 2013). From her argument, she gives ambiguity as compared to a solution or guidelines for solving sexual harassment that is a trending and common social problem. Nodding’s caring relation use a dyadic schema that provides the name of one caring with the recipient for caring for the cared.
A significant topic involved in understanding any feminist movement’s current event in the workplace is sexual harassment. Nevertheless, occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace can be interpreted in at least two ways: Philosopher Kant way and Philosophers Nodding’s way. These two interpretations of workplace sexual harassment give different ethical importance to the feminist movement, which is advocating for the change of workplace gender abuse reporting. When comparing Kant and Noddings ethics, scholars argue in the following that Noddings interpretations on how to defend victims of sexual harassment are better than the Kantian argument for reasons that Kantian ethics present universal principles of ethics that can create loopholes to justify societal vices.
Emmanuel Kant argument to workplace abuse of any kind applies to any feminist movement’s activities that work to avoid sexual abuse in the workplace. According to Immanuel Kant’s deontology principle, a moral individual does his/her duties irrespective of the consequences attached to the outcome of the responsibilities that are performed. Everybody is inclined to their task. Therefore, even in the presence of the government duty of establishing the incentives that prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace through laws such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1991, individual still must campaign against sexual harassment in the workplace (Schneider, 1994). The deontology principle that the Kant developed holds that mature human being can reason and that it is essential for them to act and promote the well-being of other people. Together with the virtue ethics, the categorical imperative, and the principle of utilitarianism, a feminist is moving to on the best interest of the public as compared to the best interest of the workplace sexual harassers.
On the other hand, philosopher Noddings through her ethics of care argues that the victims of sexual harassment may be protected by law, but lack visibility of being heard. From her argument, there is no shortage of moral guidelines on how to behave in public. She believes that there is also a will from everybody to stop sexual harassment and other immoral issues, but the primary problem occurs when there is an additional challenge of failing to be heard. For this reason, the feminist movement is not campaigning against sexual harassment in the workplace for no idea, but the rights that even with laws in place, sexual harassment victims are not being heard. According to Nodding the presence of rules does not mean they are practically applicable; hence the need to go an extra mile of creating strong feminism activism.
Noddings, as compared to Kant, is a modern philosopher, but being a modern feminist makes her argument advocating their movement having more weight as compared to the Kant philosophy. The Kant philosophy if used to address sexual harassment in the workplace results in processing a disconnection between the harassers and those harassed. Kant advocates of the general philosophy of determining what is moral and ethical. To the harasser, it may seem that they are creating a relationship with the victim, but the victim will see that behavior has harassment and not worth. The descriptions of assault to Kant focuses on activities that have the greatest good to the majority of the people at the expense of the minority of people who are likely being oppressed (Held, 1996). Therefore, the credibility of addressing sexual harassment in the workplace may go to modern feminist philosophers who are solving a problem that they have witnessed or experienced.
In the area of sexual harassment, Noddings illustrates that Kantian universal ethics and morals recommend simple actions to perform the right thing. Unfortunately, humans do not need simple actions and abstract principles, but stronger with consequences principles that will create implications for the harasser similar to the impacts occurring to victims. According to Noddings, Kantian moral ethics may be the cause of increasingly existing workplace sexual harassment regardless of existing laws.
Emmanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative theory focuses first on classic philosophers who contemplated juvenile capacity. It then discusses adolescent psychosocial development to determine how science might influence the law's redress of the sexual harassment of vulnerable population. Some literature explore Kantian perspective loosely patterned after the "categorical imperative" to formulate a dignity-based foundation for the prohibition of sexual harassment among the exposed population.
This discussion of general socio-legal theory relating to sexual relations offers guidance on the issue of sexual harassment and consent among the vulnerable population (Harvey, 2018). A person perspective acknowledges that specific vulnerable group as teens are sexual beings that need opportunities to develop sexually in age-appropriate, safe ways. This view is consistent with an emphasis on equality and mutuality. Such an approach rules out most teen-adult sexual relationships at work since that environment may compromise both equality and reciprocity for teens.
As an acknowledgment to teen "developing capacity” and autonomy, scholars have elsewhere advocated against legally restricting a teen who chooses to engage in sex with an adult co-worker. The adult would still run the risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability if the teen later retracts consent during her minority, upon determining that her adult partner took advantage of her "developing capacity" or other vulnerability at the workplace. A strict system would prevent her to refuse from being used against her in any subsequent sexual harassment suit. This approach operates like adolescent "consent" to a contract under common law.
Adults remain free to "just say no." As this research move through the discussion regarding the theoretical support for the prohibition of sexual harassment, consent should be naturally supported to allow the sexual encounter with adults in an otherwise compromised situation.
Sexual Harassment Legal Theory
While socio-legal theory offers guidance for the theoretical justification of sexual harassment prohibitions, feminist legal theorists have created a library of work that addresses this problem directly. Because federal law did not explicitly prohibit the sexual harassment of women, feminist legal theorists first worked to prove why sexual harassment constituted discrimination "because of sex" As noted, Catherine MacKinnon introduced her subordination theory in 1979 (Bartlett, 2018). She suggested that the male demand for sexual favors from female workers reinforces their subordination to men. She explained: Sexual harassment perpetuates the interlocked structure by which women have been kept sexually in thrall to men and at the bottom of the labor market (Bartlett, 2018). Two forces of American society converge men's control over women's sexuality and capital's control over employees' work lives (Bartlett, 2018). A guarantee of equal opportunities to job training, education, and skills has little substance if a requirement of fairness in hiring, promotion, and pay can legally be pending if a woman refuses to grant sexual favors. Indeed, this reasoning applies to female teens as well as to adult women. However, it does not translate, without explanation, to support prohibitions for harassed teen males.
Beyond the Subordination of Women
The subordination theory depends on the exploitation of sexuality as associated with biological sex to sustain power roles, mainly heterosexual male power. MacKinnon reasoned that "from an inequality perspective, too, the vulnerability of gays is analogous to that of women." One might similarly argue that the vulnerability of minors is analogous to that of women (Bartlett, 2018). Males traditionally exercised extraordinary power over children. Early Roman law permitted even infanticide by fathers. Thus, one could argue that male domination finds expression in the sexual subordination of younger, less dominant males and females.
Subordination in Context
The perspective of subordination continues with the view of several other philosophers who are Vicki Schultz and Kathryn Abrams. These two contributed to the evolution of sexual harassment legal theory by integrating gender discrimination and sex-based subordination. Focusing on gender enforcement and the male hierarchy of the workplace, Abrams discussed how sexual harassment robs women of the new work opportunities open to them (Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). It undermines agency for both nonconforming men and women. By focusing on the workplace, Abrams saw that the sexually charged workplace evidences an authorization of male sexual initiative, masculine norms, and male hierarchical dominance (Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). Operating within the framework of legal and constitutional provisions, Abrams made a strong point about not losing sight of the place.
Schultz emphasized not the sexual nature of sexual harassment, but its sex-based nature. She suggested: Indeed, many of the most prevalent forms of bullying are actions that are designed to maintain work--particularly the more highly rewarded lines of work--as bastions of masculine competence and authority. The focus of harassment law should not be on sexuality as such (Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). The center should be on conduct that consigns people to gendered work roles that do not further their aspirations or advantage. Take this emphasis on gendered roles and venue and focus not on the entry of women into male-dominated workplaces but the entry of adolescents into adult-dominated workplaces.
Gender Policing
Elsewhere, Katherine Franke further explored same-sex harassment, sexuality, and sex-role stereotypes in her discussion of the "technology of sexism." She suggested that sexual harassment produces "gendered bodies" and enforces the hetero-feminization of women and the hetero-masculinization of men (Frank, 2018). She resisted the notion that the harassment of non-masculine males meant their subordination as feminine objects. Instead, she insisted that legal theory acknowledges that men might be harassed "as a way of policing masculinity, which may or may not have the collateral damage of vilifying femininity." MacKinnon also discussed gender identity, sex roles, and sex role enforcement in her subordination theory. No matter the angle one takes, one can acknowledge the value of a perspective that focuses on gender traits and not merely on regular sex.
Conclusion
Sexual harassment is unethical practices involving resulting from rude behaviors where the harasser takes advantage of the vulnerability of the being harassed. Regarding career, sexual harassment is often prevalent in the workplace. While there are company and labor laws that protect employees and the public in general from sexual harassment, the immoral issue is still widespread. Classical and modern philosophies of ethics have attempted to explain why sexual harassment exists and how to deal with the matter, but it seems that human behaviors are challenging to change. Apart from ethical theories developed by the likes of Immanuel Kant, organizations have developed codes of ethics and laws of conduct government employee behaviors in the workplace. The purpose of organizational systems should be to ensure that administrations offer workers an environment free of general stressors. In addition to Kantian Ethics, several other modern ethicists have tried to address the issues of sexual harassment in the workplace, and their address seems to improve action base within organizations. Therefore, the ethics of care developed by Nel Noddings try to explain the normative morality that the society is required to keep. The normative morality as it relates to sexual harassment is developing a caring behavior as compared to taking advantage of the vulnerability.
Reference
Bartlett, K. (2018). Feminist legal theory: Readings in law and gender. Routledge.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. Univ of California Press.
Tong, R. (2003). Feminist ethics. The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics of New Technologies, 106-12.
Held, V. (2018). Justice and care: Essential readings in feminist ethics. Routledge.
Held, V. (1996). Justice and Utility: Who Cares? Philosophic Exchange, 26(1), 3.
Schneider, E. M. (1994). Hearing Women Not Being Heard: On Carol Gilligan's Getting Civilized and the Complexity of Voice. Fordham L. Rev., 63, 33.
Barak, A. (1994). A cognitive‐behavioral educational workshop to combat sexual harassment
in the workplace. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(6), 595-602.
Berring, R. C., & Chan, A. A. (2014). Women and sexual harassment: A practical guide to
the legal protections of Title VII and the hostile environment claim. Routledge.
Bovet, S. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: what's happening and how to deal with it. The Public
Relations Journal, 49(11), 26.
Frank, K. (2018). Rethinking risk, culture, and intervention in collective sex environments. Archives of sexual behavior, 1-28.
Crain, K. A., & Heischmidt, K. A. (1995). Implementing business ethics: Sexual
harassment. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(4), 299-308.
Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of
Business Ethics, 36(3), 261-278.
Hivos (2018). Stop sexual harassment project: A model sexual harassment policy for the
flower sector in Eastern Africa. Retrieved from
https://hivos.org/assets/2018/06/stop_sexual_harassment_project_0.pdf
Harvey, S. (2018). Coverage of the# MeToo & Time’s Up Movement: Examining who is quoted and what terminology is used in MSNBC, Fox News and the BBC’s coverage of the# MeToo and Time’s Up Movements.
Kensbock, S., Bailey, J., Jennings, G., & Patiar, A. (2015). Sexual harassment of women
working as room attendants within 5‐star hotels. Gender, Work & Organization,
22(1), 36-50.
Loy, P. H., & Stewart, L. P. (1984). The extent and effects of the sexual harassment of
working women. Sociological focus, 17(1), 31-43.
McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 1-17.
Murphy, P. E. (1988). Implementing business ethics. Journal of business ethics, 907-915.
O’Dwyer, B., & Madden, G. (2006). Ethical codes of conduct in Irish companies: A survey
of code content and enforcement procedures. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 217-236.
Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2018). What About# UsToo?: The Invisibility of Race in the# MeToo Movement.
Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.
Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com