David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 25 (1):51-67 (2012)
The paper explores an egalitarian norm widely accepted today, which I call the Marital Non-Hierarchy Standard. According to this standard, marital relationships should be non-hierarchical; neither partner may be more dominant than the other. The Marital Non-Hierarchy Standard is exceptional: in almost all associations, including many financial, professional, educational and recreational ones, in almost all spheres of life, some hierarchies, within certain limits, are widely believed to be morally legitimate. I argue that in marital relations, too, some hierarchies should be accepted as morally legitimate. It might be argued that marital relations should be loving, and love requires that lovers will have the same degree of power. However, contemporary analyses of love show that love is consistent with (some) hierarchies. It might also be argued that justice requires that lovers will have equal power. However, theories of distributive justice such as Rawls's, Sen's, Dworkin's, and almost all others allow some marital hierarchies. Thus, both the love requirement and the justice requirement allow some hierarchical marital relationships and conflict with the Marital Non-Hierarchy Standard. Until other justifications for this standard are presented, it is unclear why it should be endorsed
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. Giles Milhaven (1984). An Experienced Value of Marital Faithfulness in "Dubin's Lives". Journal of Religious Ethics 12 (1):82 - 96.
Wendy Lynne Lee (2011). Commentary on Eric M. Cave's "Marital Pluralism : Making Marriage Safer for Love". In Adrianne Leigh McEvoy (ed.), Sex, Love, and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love: 1993-2003. Rodopi.
Eric M. Cave (2003). Marital Pluralism: Making Marriage Safer for Love. Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):331–347.
Jack P. Gibbs (2001). Deviant Cases in Tests of the Status Integration Theory. Sociological Theory 19 (3):271-291.
Susan Mendus (1984). Marital Faithfulness. Philosophy 59 (228):243 - 252.
Rachel C. Sayers (2012). The Cost of Being Female: Critical Comment on Block. Journal of Business Ethics 106 (4):519-524.
Elaine Spitz (1982). On Shanley, "Marital Slavery and Friendship". Political Theory 10 (3):461-464.
Gavin Ardley (1969). The Meaning of Plato's Marital Communism. Philosophical Studies 18:36-47.
Mary Lyndon Shanley (1981). Marital Slavery and Friendship: John Stuart Mill's the Subjection of Women. Political Theory 9 (2):229-247.
J. E. Barnhart & Mary Ann Barnhart (1973). Marital Faithfulness and Unfaithfulness. Journal of Social Philosophy 4 (2):10-15.
Zofia Halina Archibald (2001). Ties That Bind E. Voutiras: Marital Life and Magic in Fourth Century Pella . Pp. Xvi + 151, 11 Pls. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1998. Paper, Hfl. 70. ISBN: 90-5063-407-. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 51 (02):285-.
Robert W. Korn (1994). Hierarchical Ordering in Plant Morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 42 (4):227-244.
Added to index2012-02-11
Total downloads27 ( #74,324 of 1,410,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,970 of 1,410,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?