In our class time yesterday, there was quite the discussion over the last ethics bowl case (Case 11: Mind Over Matter -- Gill's art focusing on his abuse of his daughters). Our class was not completely divided and different points were brought up; however, generally speaking, the girls agreed that the art should not be on display in the museum, while both guys seemed much more lenient toward Gill and the museum's decision to show his work. The girls were very vocal about their stance, but the guys were much quieter, trying to stay out of the thick of our points when giving their opinions.
I'm not saying either side was right or wrong here, as the topic certainly has many aspects and could be discussed much more thoroughly. However, I thought it was interesting that at least for as far as we got, the opposing sides of the debate were split by gender. This division made me think about Noddings' "Women and Caring" philosophy. In her arguments, Noddings supports the idea that women are generally more caring and compassionate than men. She gives examples like Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac (and claims a mother would never do such a thing) and Robert Frost's poem and how the man's grief over the loss of their child seems shallow compared to the woman's.
Originally, I would have argued that Noddings wasn't completely accurate, and that the depth and level of caring simply depended on one's personality and experiences. But the split between guys and girls over this ethics case made me wonder if there was some more truth to this theory. The empathy and more aggressive response from the girls could be because of the nature of the case -- after all, it was girls being abused and having that abuse exploited to the world in the form of art in a museum. So as females and daughters ourselves, perhaps the case trigged stronger reactions for us because we could more easily picture ourselves in the victims' shoes. But could it also be because females truly do care more for other people, especially children or those in harm's way?
Granted, we didn't get to spend much time on the case to fully explore all the details and perspectives. But what would happen if there was a case focused on men? Would the response be equivalent to the girls', or is there more truth to Noddings' philosophy and the idea that men simply don't care as much or in the same way as women?
Interesting connection!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the males in the class would for the most part have the same opinion if the case involved sons instead of daughters. I think Noddings would agree with me because even though it would become a more relatable story to the males in the class, their level or way of caring would not change, as the circumstances of the situation have not changed. If anything though, I would think the males would care more about the daughters being exploited, as fathers are naturally more protective over daughters than sons.
ReplyDeleteI never thought about this before, but this is such an interesting point to make! Stereotypically speaking I think it's hard to say that women are always more caring than men. However, our class discussion was a pretty good example to prove that women are more caring. The females in our class definitely stood up to this topic, and I don't know if it's because "women are more caring" or if we could connected more with the victims because we are females. I wish we had more time to go over this case to get more people's point of view.
ReplyDelete