Egalitarian Sexism: A Framework for Assessing Kant’s Evolutionary Theory of Marriage I

Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe) 1 (7):35–55 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This first part of a two-part series exploring implications of the natural differences between the sexes for the cultural evolution of marriage assesses whether Kant should be condemned as a sexist due to his various offensive claims about women. Being antithetical to modern-day assumptions regarding the equality of the sexes, Kant’s views seem to contradict his own egalitarian ethics. A philosophical framework for making cross-cultural ethical assessments requires one to assess those in other cultures by their own ethical standards. Sexism is inappropriate if it exhibits or reinforces a tendency to dominate the opposite sex. Kant’s theory of marriage, by contrast, illustrates how sexism can be egalitarian: given the natural differences between the sexes, different roles and cultural norms help to ensure that females and males are equal. Judged by the standards of his own day and in the context of his philosophical system, Kant’s sexism is not ethically inappropriate.



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Kant's Sexual Contract.Hanley Ryan - 2014 - Journal of Politics 76:914-27.
As implicações do conceito de igualdade no direito cosmopolita de Immanuel Kant.Angélica Godinho da Costa & Camila Dutra Pereira - 2023 - Philosophica: International Journal for the History of Philosophy 31 (1):33-49.
A Universal Estate: Kant and Marriage Equality.Jordan Pascoe - 2018 - In Larry Krasnoff, Nuria Sánchez Madrid & Paula Satne (eds.), Kant's Doctrine of Right in the 21st Century. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. pp. 220-240.


Added to PP

601 (#30,765)

6 months
158 (#22,588)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen R. Palmquist
Hong Kong Baptist University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations