Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Feminist Perspective on Virtue EthicsOrigins Revisited: On the Mother’s Side

A Feminist Perspective on Virtue Ethics: Origins Revisited: On the Mother’s Side [Our way of looking at the history of philosophy and of constructing a canon for ourselves has been for a long time hostile to the inclusion of female writers. We look to those we regard as significant and influential and neglect the rest. We pick a figurehead, because we judge that is enough to represent the main strains in the history of thought. This has obvious advantages: it makes it possible to hold a debate about the history of philosophy with almost anyone who has studied for a philosophy degree. Even if one specialises in the philosophy of mind or applied ethics or areas in which one does not have to engage with historical figures, one can formulate a reasonably clear view of how one’s theories fit in to the history of the subject. It also makes it easier to have something in common with other philosophers: we can all agree or disagree about Plato’s forms, Aristotle’s mean, Hume’s scepticism, Kant’s aesthetics — if nothing else. But this approach also has strong disadvantages: figureheads are picked for their influence, either at the time they wrote or later. But we know that those who are in a position of power socially are more likely to be influential and to be regarded as such. For writers to be influential, their work must be published, read, engaged with. And those with the power to do this tend to prefer those who are like them, only a little better.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

A Feminist Perspective on Virtue EthicsOrigins Revisited: On the Mother’s Side

Springer Journals — Oct 10, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-feminist-perspective-on-virtue-ethics-origins-revisited-on-the-yDiWzIlLqP
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan UK
Copyright
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2015
ISBN
978-1-349-43930-0
Pages
10 –32
DOI
10.1057/9781137026644_2
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[Our way of looking at the history of philosophy and of constructing a canon for ourselves has been for a long time hostile to the inclusion of female writers. We look to those we regard as significant and influential and neglect the rest. We pick a figurehead, because we judge that is enough to represent the main strains in the history of thought. This has obvious advantages: it makes it possible to hold a debate about the history of philosophy with almost anyone who has studied for a philosophy degree. Even if one specialises in the philosophy of mind or applied ethics or areas in which one does not have to engage with historical figures, one can formulate a reasonably clear view of how one’s theories fit in to the history of the subject. It also makes it easier to have something in common with other philosophers: we can all agree or disagree about Plato’s forms, Aristotle’s mean, Hume’s scepticism, Kant’s aesthetics — if nothing else. But this approach also has strong disadvantages: figureheads are picked for their influence, either at the time they wrote or later. But we know that those who are in a position of power socially are more likely to be influential and to be regarded as such. For writers to be influential, their work must be published, read, engaged with. And those with the power to do this tend to prefer those who are like them, only a little better.]

Published: Oct 10, 2015

Keywords: Character Trait; Virtue Ethic; Feminist Perspective; Feminist Philosopher; Epistemic Injustice

There are no references for this article.