gender

Choice of topic: Random.

The following article is from the ST Forum and can be found here, together with some comments from other netizens.

Gender equality or old Asian values?


THE population dearth is indeed a desperate situation which requires desperate measures. Are Singaporeans prepared to face the desperate truth, which is that the Singapore identity and culture that we were debating not long ago is fast becoming extinct? In recent years, Singapore has had to 'fake' its population by opening the floodgates to foreigners.

I agree with Mr Thomas Ling ('Tackle the problem not the symptoms', Aug 20) that upping financial incentives and maternity, paternity or childcare leave is barking up the wrong tree. This illustrates the adage that money cannot buy everything. Much reflection is needed on attitudes to life, career and relationships.

For one thing, young women today are almost totally lacking in fu dao (the way of women), a Confucian ethic. According to Confucius, 'a woman should serve her family first and herself last'. Young women today are too arrogant, too loud and don't even know how to sit properly. It makes one wonder about their parents and shudder at the thought of them becoming mothers.

Give the men a break. Changing nappies is a woman's job. Men are made for greater things than this. You wouldn't ask a woman to carry a tonne of bricks, would you? Girls have to be taught their domestic duties and women have to be more hardworking at home. Girls should not grow up thinking the home is not their responsibility.

It is best for women to sacrifice a few years of their working life to nurture their families. Men, too, should be made more accountable on their role as breadwinners. This will create a win-win situation for all parties, including employers and children.

Our neighbourhoods are cold these days because of the absence of chatting mothers and mingling children.

In Chinese philosophy, women are yin and men are yang. They are complementary but not equal. When their energies are not balanced, there is disharmony.

A country that was built on Confucian ethics should perhaps rebuild on Confucian ethics. Unfortunately, this will not create the instant results we need. However, whatever is worth having will not come easily.

Jennifer Wee (Ms)

The controversial solution to the population put forth by the author (that is, to emphasise Confucian ethics in the same way it was in the past) does not seem to carry much weight and is especially annoying due to its condescending tone. (As we are students of gp, I shall not bother elaborating(ranting) about the tone, but shall (attempt) to target the arguments in a (hopefully) more coherent manner).

I feel that the value judgement she makes ie the proposition that women are inferior to men is not justified. eg "Changing nappies is a woman's job. Men are made for greater things than this. You wouldn't ask a woman to carry a tonne of bricks, would you? ". While it has been proven that males have more muscle fibre than females and can therefore take on heavier physical tasks, that does not suggest that one task is more important than another.

It is hence rather ironic for the writer to bring in the concept of yin and yang in her discussion ("In Chinese philosophy, women are yin and men are yang. They are complementary but not equal."). The two are definitely not identical, but the word 'complementary' seems to imply that both are equally important. It would seem more fair for both sides for men and women to approach one another as individuals with different abilities but with an equal responsibility in the relationship, and allocate their tasks appropriately.
___________________________________________________

Attached is a well argued critique posted by one of the Straits Times netizens in response to the article.

I disagree with the writer. Firstly, Confucian values are of the past and are hardly applicable in a modern, advancing society. Women today are becoming increasingly educated, and with education comes the knowledge that they can perform as well, if not better, than their male counterparts. Why should they then sacrifice their potential to stay at home and mind the children when they can perform better than the men?

Secondly, children are as much the men's as the women's; women should not have to shoulder the responsibility of having to raise them by themselves. Some might argue that the men are the one bringing home the bacon, and that this is how they contribute to the child's development. Is this how the family unit is to progress? Throw some money at the wife and kids and that's it, duty done?

I don't dispute the fact that women should take care of the children, but I believe men should shoulder half of that responsibility. What makes the writer think that raising kids is not as "great" as earning money? In fact I would argue that nurturing children would take more energy and effort than bringing home the bacon would. Also, the writer's comment on men being made for "greater things than this" implies that men are superior to women, that women are lowly, should be subservient and is indirectly implying that all women are made for is to be there to supply to their husbands' wants and needs, to mind the children and clean the house. This just undoes everything that feminists have worked to achieve over the past decades.

Thirdly, the home is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's; both have a part to play. If the writer feels that women should give up a few years to "nurture their families", she might as well go the whole nine yards and say women should not work at all, but stay at home altogether. In fact, this is exactly what she is implying by "cold neighbourhoods" and the "absence of chatting mothers and mingling children". So, women should not work at all, and if they aren't going to work, there is absolutely no point in them studying, since all that studying will go to waste anyway. They should all to finishing school and learn how to be model mothers and wives. Is that it? For a country whose only natural resources are humans, I fail to see how shutting women up in the home will help to advance society.

Also, following the writer's yin and yang theory, men and women are unequal. I don't agree. Men and women might be different, yes, but that does not mean they are unequal.

Men and women both have equal roles in the workplace and at home. These Confucian values belong in the past, not the present, and certainly not in the future.

Is there a duty to die?

Is there a duty to die?

It sounds an odd question - most of us would say 'no', except perhaps for military and similar personnel in certain circumstances.

After all, when we say someone did their duty when they gave up their life to save others, we often mean that they did an act of heroism, well beyond the call of duty.

But some cultures, and some modern thinkers, think that there is a duty on a person to die in certain circumstances.

The ideas of John Hardwig

The philosopher John Hardwig re-opened this debate with an article in 1997. He says that an individual is not the only person who will be affected by decisions over whether they live or die. So, when deciding whether to live or die, a person should not consider only themselves; they should also consider their family and the people who love them.

What produces a duty to die?

Hardwig thinks that we may have a duty to die when the burden of caring for us seriously compromises the lives of those who love us:

• they may be physically exhausted by caring for us
• they may be emotionally exhausted by caring for us
• they may be financially destroyed by the cost of our healthcare
• they may be financially destroyed by having to give up work to care for us
• their home may become a place of grief and sickness
• other family members may be neglected as all attention is focussed on us

Hardwig says that there are no general rules - each case will be different, and he openly admits

I can readily imagine that, through cowardice, rationalisation, or failure of resolve, I will fail in this obligation to protect my loved ones. If so, I think I would need to be excused or forgiven for what I did.John Hardwig

Nor does Hardwig think that a person should make their final decision without consulting their family - although he points out the difficulties in doing this.

What makes a duty to die more likely?

He goes on to list various features of a person's situation that make it more likely that they have a duty to die:

• a duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens on our family and loved ones
• a duty to die becomes greater as we grow older, because we will sacrifice less of our life
• a duty to die is more likely if we have already lived a full life
• there is a greater duty to die if our loved ones' lives have already been difficult or impoverished
• a duty to die is more likely if our loved ones have already made great contributions or sacrifices to make our life a good one
• the duty to die is reduced if we can adapt well to our disease or disability
• the duty to die is reduced if we still make significant contributions (not just money) to the lives of others
• a duty to die is more likely when the part of us that is loved will soon be gone or seriously compromised
• there is a greater duty to die to the extent that we have lived a relatively lavish lifestyle instead of saving for illness or old age

It is one of the tragedies of our lives that someone who wants very much to live can nevertheless have a duty to die.John Hardwig

Taken from BBC - Religions and Ethics

The Principle of Double Effect

I think that the meaning of the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) given in the GP notes on euthanasia is vague. So I will try to elucidate the main points in regard to PDE.

According to Wikipedia (I know that the reliability of Wikipedia has been questioned on the premise that it is an open source online encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is in fact considered by many academics to be far superior to the Encyclopedia Britannica), PDE is a set of criteria for evaluating an otherwise well intentioned action which actually has negative 'side effects' at the same time (something like negative externalities in Economics).

Basically, the Principle states that such an action is justifiable if:
1. the nature of the action is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
2. the person intends the good effect and not the bad;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect and the person exercises all reasonable diligence to minimise the harm.

Thus, PDE is not merely a simplistic consideration of weighing the pros and cons.

Taking the example given in our notes, we first note that the decision to abort is intended to save Mrs Ong's life, and the death of the foetus is a secondary consequence of this action, which unfortunately cannot be eliminated.

Next, we apply PDE:
1. The decision to abort is out of good intention, because bearing the child would pose a threat to Mrs Ong's life. Thus the nature of the action is itself good.
2. The doctor means well; he advises Mrs Ong to abort to save her life, not to intentionally kill the foetus.
3. In this case, the good effect can be considered to outweigh the harm because if Mrs Ong carried the baby to term, both the lives of the mother and baby would be in danger. If, on the other hand, Mrs Ong chose to abort, she could save her own life.

Since the decision to abort satisfies the three criteria as stated earlier, by Principle of Double Effect, this decision is justifiable.

Hopefully, this post will help to clarify the issue on PDE.