Morality constitutes the standard of behaviors ascribed to all individuals in a society. These standards lie on a spectrum that guides human behavior, with one end of the spectrum consisting of right morals and the other end of wrong morals. For decades, researchers have tried to standardize the definition of morality but unfortunately, the concepts of right (fair) and wrong (unfair) are very subjective. This subjectivity can be explained using the theory of moral relativism. According to G. Harman, moral relativism claims the existence of different moral realities amongst people, and these differences are often visible in the different ways in which people behave in morality-related situations. These differing moral realities make it difficult for different people to act consistently in similar situations. Apart from the subjectivity concern, one other aspect that makes the phenomena of morality even more complicated is the sex differences when it comes to approaching situations of moral dilemmas.
A recent study shows that men and women approach moral codes and social situations differently. Furthermore, it is posited that moral decisions are culturally sensitive, and hence, the prevalent sex differences in endorsing moral situations also interact with these cultural variations. They attribute gender differences across cultures to the social structure of the society as well as the evolutionary roles levied on both sexes. In the study, cultural variations seemed to affect the level of difference that existed in the moral conduct of both the sexes. Interestingly, all three studies that implemented the moral foundation’s theory framework (a theory used to explain how cultural values affect the foundations of one’s moral codes), show that women, more than men, endorsed morality using the constructs of care, fairness, and purity across different cultures whereas for loyalty and authority the results were variable. This finding can be theoretically supported by using the evolutionarily defined gender roles and power distance that exists within the sexes. Evolutionarily, males are more inclined toward maintaining power, social status, and leadership roles whereas females are more inclined towards care and protection of the offspring.
Evolutionary psychology looks at this gender bias as an evolution that arises from the differences in males’ versus females’ adaptive concerns. In simple words, females are more adept at childbearing activities and hence have an empathetic approach as opposed to the breadwinning man who deals with moral dilemmas more logically. This difference in approach does not make one superior over the other. A study conducted to understand the different strategies employed by males versus females in moral reasoning concluded that females predominantly use care approaches. Since sex differences injustice or logical approaches were not very evident in the study, it was stated that both sex and context should be considered while understanding reactions to moral dilemmas.
These sex differences in morality can also be explained using the theory of biosocial roles. This theory states that the gender differences in morality are a result of differences in upper-body strength and reproductive capacities. Hence the division of labor based on these leads to men gaining a higher social status in society as opposed to females; this, in turn, affects the moral, motivational, and emotional behaviors of the two genders differently.
An older view on sex differences in morality dates to 1982 by Gilligan. According to her, there are differences in the way men versus women conceptualize moral decisions. She stated that women tend to base moral judgments on care and carefully avoid hurting or garnering negative consequences whereas, men simply look at moral problems as abstract, logical questions that concern social order.
Kohlberg expresses that men show superior moral advancement as compared to women. To assess the applicability of this, a study showed no sex differences in Kohlberg’s moral development stages (Stage 3), but supplementary findings point towards differences in the way the two sexes approach moral reasoning. Additionally, it was noted that females resort to a more empathetic approach than males when making moral judgments, and furthermore, females also recruit more conscience appeals i.e., considering interpersonal dynamics like self-esteem and self-respect more in comparison to males (Stage 4 of Kohlberg's moral development) when concerned with moral judgments.
Some research indicates very small differences in males versus females throughout the lifespan, in terms of moral reasoning. The author suggests that rather than studying the extent of moral advancements in males versus females, it would be beneficial to look at the exact reasons that lead to the claim of male superiority in moral situations over females, in spite of the lack of evidence.
In conclusion, it is essential that the direction of future research is tuned to the difference in strategies employed by the sexes rather than the superiority of morality in males versus females. Morality is a multifaceted construct and hence, is susceptible to all the processes (emotion, justice, fairness, costs, care, responsibility) that surround it. It is important to study not just the gender differences in moral reasoning but also in the processes that surround it. Lastly, it is also essential to bust the myth of gender-based superiority in moral reasoning as different styles of reasoning does not allow comparison.
Urvi Mange
