======================== HES POSTING ================== 
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Ross B. Emmett wrote: 
 
>  
> I expect the gendered aspect of the term "utility" and "utilitarianism"  
> emerges from the the link that Cumberland expresses most clearly between  
> utility and rational beings. The Western philosophical tradition never  
> considered women rational beings, and hence they could not be expected to  
> engage in the "moral arithmetic" of utility maximization. 
 
This is extraordinarily overstated.  (And the preceding sentence is a 
rather extreme understatement.)  One could by way of a refutation begin 
with Plato's Republic in which the philosopher-king job is also open to 
would-be queens and work one's way through the remainder of the tradition. 
Indeed, I can't think of any noteworthy philosopher who restricted the 
title "rational animal" only to males. 
 
That isn't, of course, to maintain that the rationality of women was held 
to be identical to or at the same level of activity as that of men. 
 
Loren Lomasky 
Philosophy Department 
Bowling Green State University 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]