Essay on Gender Inequality from the Perspective of Act Utilitarianism
One of critical ethical issues in the modern society is gender inequality. This issue is ethically significant due to the following reasons: it disrupts social and corporate culture, affects interpersonal relations, demotivates women and pushes both men and women to act unethically. The purpose of this paper is to consider this ethical issue from the perspective of act utilitarianism and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of applying act utilitarianism to gender inequality. The key thesis of this paper is the following: from the perspective of act utilitarianism, gender inequality is morally wrong because it leads to the reduction of the total utility in the world; therefore, gender inequality should be eliminated.
Application
Moral evaluation in act utilitarianism is based on the direct consequences of the actions or decisions and on the changes of the total utility (Mosser, 2013). An action or a decision is deemed as ethically desirable when the total utility (e.g. pleasure) for all involved stakeholders increases (Mosser, 2013). Furthermore, an action is deemed as ethically undesirable when the total utility decreases. In order to apply act utilitarianism to gender inequality, it is necessary to identify the main stakeholders in the case of gender inequality.
Gender inequality can be defined as the advantage to men as a social group expressed in the form of higher authority, respect, monetary benefits, safety, access to power and institutional opportunities, housing and control over own life (Gensler, 2011). In the context of gender inequality, directly involved stakeholders are the representatives of both genders, men and women. Indirectly involved stakeholders include organizations, communities and the whole society. In order to evaluate gender inequality from the positions of act utilitarianism, it is necessary to assess total utility changes for each stakeholder group (Morales, 1996).
Essentially, gender inequality leads to negative consequences for women. In the areas where gender inequality is strong, women experience less respect, less authority, it is more difficult for them to find employment and to get an education. In some countries, women even do not have a right to choose own husband and to control own life choices like giving birth to children (UNFPA, 2014). Such situation causes suffering of women around the world and notably reduces total utility. As for men, they have some moderate gains in utility due to greater opportunities, greater power and respect, but there also exist negative aspects of gender inequality for men. In particular, men’s denial of pain, discomfort and greater focus on physical activity contribute to men’s shorter lifespan compared to women (Gensler, 2011). Therefore, there is moderate increase of total utility due to the benefits men have from gender inequality, which is partly offset by health consequences for men.
Gender inequality has a dramatic impact on the decrease of total utility for businesses, communities and for the whole society. Gender inequality has a negative impact on public health resulting in higher rates of HIV/AIDS among women, increased spread of infectious diseases among women, teen pregnancies, etc. (UNFPA, 2014). Many women have to do unpaid work; such situation disrupts market mechanisms and affects economic growth (UNFPA, 2014). Gender inequality also leads to inefficient distribution of resources (men’s activities preferred over women’s) and reduces economic efficiency of organizations and of the society (UNFPA, 2014). Therefore, gender inequality reduces total utility for organizations, communities and for the society, and reduces the total utility for all considered stakeholders.
Strengths
The strengths of applying act utilitarianism in the context of gender inequality are as follows. Act utilitarianism can be applied to real-life situations and is context-sensitive (Parada-Contzen & Parada-Daza, 2013). Furthermore, act utilitarianism allows to take into account the interests of all involved groups and can be used to making balanced moral decisions. Act utilitarianism is applied to specific moral issues in specific circumstances and focuses on the pleasure and absence of suffering for most people (Gensler, 2011), so its initial foundations are unlikely to be challenged (as opposed to the choice of deontological rules). In addition, utilitarianism is democratic in the sense that it relies on the outcomes that take effect for the majority.
Weaknesses
Act utilitarianism uses the concept of pleasure to determine total utility; however, the perception of pleasure can be different for different people and cultures (Mosser, 2013). Furthermore, the conclusions in act utilitarianism are based on the assessment of total utility for particular people or social groups. However, it is difficult to assess such utility in a precise way; for example, it is difficult to evaluate whether the increase of total utility for men due to gender inequality is greater than the increase of suffering for all women. In this context, act utilitarianism requires making certain assumptions basing on statistical data and on the premise that limitations and discrimination cause more suffering than their absence.
Conclusion
According to act utilitarianism, the changes of total utility for all stakeholders should be considered in order to determine the morality of gender inequality. The analysis shows that gender inequality greatly increases suffering and discomfort for women, moderately increases the well-being and pleasure of men and at the same time leads to negative health and lifespan outcomes for men. Furthermore, gender inequality creates economic inefficiencies in organizations and communities, disrupts relationships and has negative impact on public health. Therefore, according to act utilitarianism, it is possible to determine that gender inequality is morally wrong and it is necessary to eliminate it.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...