Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle's Ethics and Women

In "The Virtue of Care: Aristotelian Ethics and Contemporary Ethics of Care," Ruth Groenhout states that "hierarchies should be evaluated on their own merits." This interpretation of Aristotelian hierarchy stands in stark contrast to a literal reading of Aristotle's view of the man/wife dichotomy, in which there is no evaluation and the woman is mostly subservient to her husband. Instead, Groenhout claims that when people are denied a place in a hierarchy because of their gender or race, it is not Aristotle's hierarchy that is objectionable — it is the criteria by which positions are assigned to certain individuals (Freeland, p. 177). It can therefore be surmised that while Aristotelian ethics exist, they can indeed also be valued; it is more important to regard women in positions of power today as a progression in positive thought pertaining to women.

Hirshman insists that it is not freedom but utility that justifies women's right to take part in the labor market, because the increased competition those women bring will create great effects for society as a whole (Freeland, p. 239). Aristotelian ethics can support equal representation for women, as Aristotle too had an ethics of care. The original form of Aristotelian ethics, as well as the modern form of virtue ethics, shows a propensity toward essentialist hierarchies, unfair treatment, and a justification of oppression with regard to women (Freeland, p. 187). Thus, ethics of care developed as a more equal and optimistic approach. However, Aristotle's position is that by looking at a person's inner qualities, one can determine whether those qualities would uphold the morality of a community — a view that does relate to care ethics. Aristotle's ethics and politics are deeply entwined because of this. Women today, especially those in positions of great power, struggle with contradictions in the system. The question of how they can exist in a world where personal needs seem at odds with their feminist views is often left without a solution — but ethics of care does offer a solution, and Aristotle was, perhaps, the first to illustrate this.

Aristotle sought out knowledge of the way the world is and, most importantly, sought to explain why the world is the way it is. Hegel's definition of philosophy was that it is "its own time apprehended in thoughts" (Okin, p. 73). For years, feminists often disregarded Aristotle's work because of his overtly misogynistic views of women — for instance, his claim that men provide the actual life in procreation while women merely supply the shelter for that life to grow. There is also the Aristotelian assertion that women have a "defective capacity for rationality" (Freeland; Groenhout, p. 171). If we can tell anything about our world today by our apprehension in thoughts, it would be that the world has largely changed in its thinking since the days of Aristotle. Today, the United States has a record number of women in Congress — a statistic that shows progress, although it remains far from equal political representation of women.

Aristotle's ethical theory, and virtue ethics more broadly, are often reproached by feminist thinkers because Aristotle seems to suggest that women are best left to roles that are either under men's governance or more domestic and service-related in nature. Aristotle seems to think that those who are "more human" — or, in his interpretation, men — are put into positions of power and control. Yet hierarchical theory should not be disregarded, nor should his concept of philesis. To reject Aristotle's hierarchical theory on the grounds that it is anti-feminist is effectively to negate social structures as a whole. Without social structure, powerful and influential women — such as those serving in Congress — would have no ladder to climb, so to speak. Thus, we must not reject Aristotle's theories simply because his ideas about gender equality are not representative of the modern woman. It is better to reject the time in which Aristotle lived and focus on what he did say about care and the profound desire for the well-being of another person.

Aristotle's concept of care was the Greek term philesis or philein, which translates today as "love" or "friendly affection." He uses it in the same way that Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings use "care" in the ethics of care (Curzer, 2007). Aristotle defines philein as follows:

We may describe to philein towards anyone as wishing for him what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but for his, and being inclined, so far as you can, to bring these things about.

He goes on to suggest that goodwill "does not involve intensity or desire, whereas these accompany philesis; and philesis implies intimacy while goodwill may arise of a sudden" (Curzer, 2007).

The word anthropos is Aristotle's Greek term meaning "human being." However, it becomes very apparent when reading Aristotle's work that a very small minority — of one sex — shares what Aristotle characterizes as the human virtues and man's highest good and happiness. Because "man" does not just need reason, he also needs certain external goods in order to achieve happiness and live a good life. Aristotle insists that a man cannot be happy without such things as friends, wealth, good children, spare time, fine breeding, and beauty (Okin, p. 77). In order to obtain these things, other people must be involved in a service capacity to ensure their availability. Aristotle theorizes that the "entire animal kingdom" as well as the "vast majority of humans are intended by nature to be instruments which supply to the few the necessities and comforts that will enable them to be happy in their contemplative activity" (Okin, p. 77). He is therefore asserting that women, as well as slaves, are all auxiliary devices so that the man can achieve his greatest potential and ascend the hierarchy until he reaches the top.

Aristotle believes that women are inferior by contemplating the duties she undertakes and the qualities she manifests in Athenian society. One must remember, however, that this was a society dominated by men, where men dictated women's roles as well as the qualities valued in women. Aristotle, it appears, was not very interested in women outside of this context.

While the mere association between women and slaves is no doubt offensive to feminists and to society at large, if one sets aside Aristotle's blatant sexism, there is little doubt that human beings do require money, friends, and some leisure time in order to be happy individuals in society. Of course, there is a necessity for all types of people, since many must fulfill service roles in order to keep society functioning — which illustrates that Aristotle was quite reasonable in his structural thinking. The problem is that his "thoughts apprehended of the time" belonged to an era when the entire world placed women in subservient roles. Understanding this, we need not dismiss Aristotle's theories about society entirely. It is also important to remember not only that there is a massive cultural difference between Aristotle's culture and our own, but that cultural differences still exist and women are still considered second-class citizens in different parts of the world. There are truths held that are merely matters of perception. By looking at our world today and seeing that women hold powerful positions, we see that perception is no longer as it was for Aristotle.

Aristotle also argued that human beings have commitments rather than mere preferences. Hirshman's theories on gender, class, and politics suggest that given the lack of competent individuals to do "anything excellently" — which necessitates "a considerable amount of ability to do" — increasing the number of individuals who can run for political office, enter professions such as medicine or law, or become factory workers will improve the quality of politicians, lawyers, doctors, and workers in general (Hirshman, p. 239). This means that new and increased competition will also compel the existing applicant pool — "namely men — to improve themselves. Thus, women's freedom will increase overall social utility" (Hirshman, p. 239).

Aristotle believed that individuals pursued endeavors that are important in themselves — in their intrinsic goals — rather than external preferences helpful to some unclear function. This means that people have responsibilities, not mere preferences. He stated:

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good (Aristotle, NE, 1–2).

Aristotle believed that human flourishing (NE, 12) is the definition of good. The mere presence of women in Congress suggests that voters rejected other candidates, but it is better to view this not as the rejection of any one person, but as the result of human flourishing. This increased competition — with more women pursuing what they consider their own responsibilities — will result in more unemployment for men, a notion bolstered by Mill's belief that "Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession or in a competitive examination… reaps benefits from the loss of others" (Mill; Hirshman, p. 239). This could be viewed as human flourishing, which is good, but it connotes competition and struggle and does not make the pursuit seem virtuous on its own. Aristotle, if following his own ethics in the world today, would have to believe that women are where they are because of human flourishing and their pursuit of what are their responsibilities — to themselves and to society as a whole.

Okin, however, suggests that if women were to be given equal rights and status to men within Aristotle's society, the foundation of Aristotle's functionalism would crumble (Okin, p. 276). Perhaps it is this foundation of Western political thought that resulted in women's exclusion from nearly everything considered "political" until much more recent history. Many viewed the steps necessary to include women in politics as cumbersome. In essence, politics would undoubtedly have had to change tremendously in order to include women. Elshtain writes:

Women were silenced in part because that which defines them and to which they are inescapably linked — sexuality, natality, the human body… — was omitted from political speech. Why? Because politics is in part an elaborate defense against the tug of the private, against the lure of the familial, against evocations of female power. The question… is not just what politics is for but what politics has served to defend against (Elshtain; Okin, p. 312).

Society often labels women as the "caretakers," thereby creating a society that allowed women, busy in their daily tasks, to ignore the political dimensions created from their work. Caretaking is hard work, and caretakers such as mothers often have to use anger, punishment, and other forms of tough love to do their jobs, yet caretakers are frequently expected to "defer to the opinions of the 'reasonable' and powerful on whose support they in fact depend" (Elshtain, p. 249). Groenhout argues that feminists need to stop thinking about "ethics of care" as some kind of Victorian representation of women, and instead consider how they can incorporate a more Aristotelian ethical framework. This could mitigate the criticisms that accompany ethics of care — such as the erroneous assumption that care ethics glorifies traditionally domestic traits of women, and that ethics of care cannot help anyone outside of the "circle of care" (Groenhout, p. 173).

Yet while Groenhout is trying to forge a new path for ethics of care, there are other theorists — like John Stuart Mill — who assert that most women will not enter the workforce but will instead choose the career of wife and mother:

Like a man when he chooses a profession, so, when a woman marries, it may in general be understood that she makes choice of the management of a household, and the bringing up of a family, as the first call upon her exertions (Mill, p. 523).

However, Hirshman notes that Mill is not merely foreseeing what will happen in terms of this choice; he clearly favors it and recommends it for women: