Are Women Morally Inferior To Men?

It’s my understanding that there is such a thing as a standardized ‘morality test’, which asks you several questions about how you would act under a variety of hypothetical situations. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, but they look to see what goes into your thought process. An example would be-

“Imagine that you have a spouse who is dying of a terminal illness. There is a medication for this illness, but it is extremely expensive and you absolutely cannot afford it. You explained this to the pharmacist but he was very rude to you. Do you rob the pharmacy to obtain the medication?”

When the researchers looked at the results of this test, they found that women didn’t do very well. They answered everything based on an extremely self-centered analysis. “What about me? What would happen to me if I got caught?” They had to set a different standard for women who took the test, so that women who didn’t give a rat’s ass about anyone but themselves could still pass.

So are women really morally inferior? Is it their evolutionary imperative to be only concerned with themselves and their kids??

Thanks.

Cite?

I shall be interested, when we get the cite, to see exactly how much effort was made to avoid prejudice in the design of the test…

I don’t understand; are there “right” or “wrong” answers or are there not?

Sorry, I’ve been looking for a cite, but so far no luck.

I read about this a few years ago.

Women are morally inferior to men because they don’t want to steal???

Huh?

It’s not a multiple-choice type of question. In my example, you could do well if you said you would steal the medication or if you refused to steal the medication, as long as the reasons for making your decision were based on the needs of other people and not just yourself (at least, that’s how you would be judged if you’re a man).

You’re talking about Kohlberg’s moral dilemnas. Lawrence Kohlberg was a professor of psychology and childhood development at Harvard, and he created a theory about moral development, saying that human beings work through various stages in deciding what’s morally right or wrong. One of the ways he came up with the theory was by setting up hypothetical situations for people of various ages, each of which contained a moral dilemna, and in finding out how they resolved the dilemna, and more importantly, what criteria they used to resolve the dilemna, he was able to build his theory. Here’s the scenario Surreal mentioned above:

Superiority and inferiority seem somewhat subjective, but morality is far more subjective.

One could say, for instance, that women are morally inferior to men because in history there are many fewer (if any) cases of women national leaders taking their nations into wars for good moral causes.

I see this headed for GD territory.

But aren’t there some moral systems which promote being primarily concerned with yourself? Rand’s positivism springs to mind. Under those moral systems, if the test results you mention are true, women would be more moral than men.

Kohlberg’s theory said that there were six stages of moral development. In the first stage, people acted according to what authority figures said out of hope of reward and fear of punishment. For example, someone at this stage might say: “Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because if he’s caught, he’ll be thrown in jail.”

In the second, they act based on what they consider to be their own best interests. “Heinz should steal the drug because he’d be upset if his wife died.”

In the third, they seek approval of society. “Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because people might disaprove of him being a thief.” or, conversely, “He should, because everyone will understand him saving his wife’s life.”

In the fourth, they seek to obey the law and their sense of duty. “He shouldn’t steal. It’s illegal and immoral to.”

In the fifth, they act out of interest for others and social mutuality. “He should steal it. His wife is suffering and he should seek to relieve her suffering because of his compassion for all the world.”

In the sixth, they act according to some sort of universal principle they’ve divined themselves. I can’t give you an example there. The sixth stage was one Kohlberg knew existed, but he couldn’t really find any of his subjects who had reached that level. It’s where you base your decisions on abstract moral principles.

Most people, he said, don’t get beyond stages 3 or 4 ever. Kohlberg said that most grown men are at stage 4…they base their morality on what the law says, and women, at stage 3, at what people will think of them. Unfortunately, in his studies, Kohlberg only used male subjects.

If women are morally inferior, why didn’t they just cheat on the test to make themselves look better? :slight_smile: Darn morally inferior women. Heh.

In my last post, I mentioned that Kohlberg only studied men. In the eyes of Carol Gilligan, another psychologist at Harvard, this is significant, because it means that Kohlberg never looked at the ways that men and women were socialized differently. According to Gilligan, men are trained in this country to be independent and aggressive, while women are trained to be passive and nurturing. Therefore, according to her:

For Gilligan’s women

So, ultimately, Gilligan suggested, we’re talking about two standards of moral values. Instead of looking at morality as ultimately based on abstract principles of justice, as Kohlberg suggests, if we base our moral view on reducing suffering, it develops a different kind of moral development.

Just as a side note, don’t confuse “at a low stage of moral development” with “immoral” or “morally inferior”. Neither Kohlberg or Gilligan intended it to mean that.

It’s not a “higher or lower scale” issue, it’s apples and oranges. It’s probably a fair assertion that overall most (not all) women are more concerned about the immediate and practical impact of an action to themselves or those they care about, vs its context in a larger paradigm of social rules and responsibilities, and potential violations of their moral and hierarchical duties in relation to that model. It’s not better or worse it’s just different and from a practical evolutionary point of view I think I’d rather have a wife or mother who was more immediately concerned about how something impacted the well being of the family and its members before worrying about whether some abstract rule was being broken.

But this would be a terrible example wouldn’t it? The number of opportunities for female leaders to have taken their nations into any wars, let alone those fought for good moral causes are vanishingly small.

If Kohlberg only used male subjects in his tests then we can draw no conclusions whatsoever from them about differing moral values between men and women. So Surreal, are these the tests you were talking about? If they were, how can such conclusions have been reached, or do you know of a repeat experiment in which the tests were applied to women as well as men?

Captain Amazing, thanks for taking the time for doing your posts.

Then how on earth did he decide women were at stage 3? :confused:

I don’t think Kohlberg said they were stage 3, I think it was other researchers who used the same methodology who found that was the case. Can’t find a cite though, other than Gilligan.

Man, if I was a Harvard psychologist, and my name was “Gilligan,” I’d change it to “Smith” pretty damn fast. Can you imagine the guff she has to take at Psychologist Conventions?