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).