addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club Message Board › Victor's theory: men and women and moral theory

Victor's theory: men and women and moral theory

Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 661

Victor has presented in broad theory both in writing and in parts over multiple meetups. I confess that I cannot understand how it get off the ground at all, despite engaging with it in some detail in the past, so perhaps a fresh pair of eyes could help.

The core idea seems to be based upon the idea that men and women are fundamentally different "beings" and that as such, "experience is sexed".

This seems to me either a banal generalization, sort of like saying "the culture you grow up will affect the way you experience the world" or if you try to interpret it rigorously, not justified at all. There are of course many factors that affect experience, and there has been no evidence presented by Victor (as best as I can tell) that sex/gender is a greater influence that say, culture, much less the one difference to rule them all. The only argument seems to be that it is less "malleable" but it is unclear to me why this is relevant. Sex difference, seems to be, for lack of a better term, fetishized in Victor's theory. On the most fundamental level, it is the sort of broad generalization I don't think should be made in scholarly work, and talking about a part of humanity as being different types of "beings' (whatever that could be) can be quite harmful in its effects.

What follows from this is apparently that men and women approach philosophy differently, and certain moral theories are "suited" for men or women. This seems to just be an example of the is-ought fallacy. See the linked discussion. But the "is" part doesn't even seem justified.

Now if men and women do approach philosophy differently, we do need to be able to study that rigorously. If we can't, I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

Victor might say that an empirical approach is one way to approach the question, and his way is another. But that isn't really the case. If it is possible to study the issue empirically, you need to look at the existing literature carefully, or else think of some ways to study the issue if real world data could a difference. I don't think anyone in philosophy would disagree with that.

Below is a prior discussion I had with Victor.­
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy