Support for Alison Jaggar's Feminist Politics and Human Nature

Introduction Alison Jaggar discusses the relationship between the nature of work and capitalism on the theme of feminist politics and humanity, and compares it with economic democracy, which is my favorite economic system. Jaguar proposed rational and effective discussion about economic democracy. Capitalist advocates can not prove their claim that capitalism is better than economic democracy. It is only a small part of the population.

There are many philosophical criticisms about the way of ability. This article will focus on the criticism of global feminist ethics, especially the criticism advocated by Alison Jaggar who is widely writing about feminist concerns. Criticism of Alison Jaggar is important because it embodies many questions about power relations (Jaggar, 1991, 1998, 2006; Kleist, 2010). The criticism of Jaggar is limited to Nussbaum and her version of competency method, and it solves the logical rationale and the central competency list.

If morality relates to human liberation, the summary of Allison Jaguar on the four functions of feminist ethics can not be improved in any way. According to Jaguar's opinion, all feminists accept ethics, (1) clarify moral criticisms of actions and practices, (2) prescribe a morally reasonable way to resist these practices and practices It is to be. (3) an ethical and sensible alternative to such behavior and practice; (4) not seriously thinking women's moral experience seriously (Jaggar, "Feminist Ethics", 1992). Feminist ethicists should first focus on improving the overall situation of women, especially children, elderly, invalid, disabled, disadvantaged groups and other vulnerable groups.

Little attention has been paid to women's lives and profits. Alison Jaggar explains this in the article "Feminist Ethics: Problems, Project Prospect" by Claudia Card (ed.) Feminist Ethics (1991: University of Kansas Press). She said that ethical issues such as areas related to women (no matter how tilted), families, "private" areas are ethical and how truly ethical matters are problems in the public and political sectors It was pointed out. Emphasize rationality. Utilitarianism and Kantoism deny feelings implicitly or explicitly making moral decisions. Bentham is proud of his "objectivity" of the story - moral calculations can do any rational person and can reach the same conclusion. Likewise, Kant completely refuses to include emotions in making moral decisions - in fact, for Kant, their tolerance can compromise any morality that may be involved. Like Paul Taylor said: