Sexual Harassment debate:
What would be the main claim and supporting arguments on this?
Sexual harassment cannot be defined in terms of behaviour, but must make reference to the mental states of the perpetrator and victim. It is essentially a form of invasive communication that violates a victim's privacy rights. What is inappropriate in sexual harassment is not what is proposed, but the failure to show respect for the victim's rights.
- In reply to the claim that sexual harassment can be defined in terms of behaviour, Wall argues that identical behaviours must be distinguished on the basis of motive. A 'sensual' touch might be physically identical to a 'friendly' touch considered as a physical action, yet one might be inappropriate and the other not.
- In reply to the claim that sexual harassment necessarily involves a dominant group exploiting a subordinate group, Wall suggests that what seem to be cases of sexual harassment can occur where this is not the case, e.g. sexual harassment by employees of equal rank.
- In reply to the claim that the sexual harassment of women is a form of sex discrimination, Wall argues that, although many cases of sexual harassment will involve sex discrimination, sexual harassment does not invariably involve sex discrimination and thus should not be defined in terms of sex discrimination. A bisexual harasser might, for example, might indiscriminately threaten or proposition without giving consideration to the gender of his victims.
You might also like to view...
According to Ockham, universal terms such as "human" refer to
a. the Platonic form of humanity. b. a single, universal quality that is found within each individual human. c. simply the sum of particular, individual human beings. d. nothing at all, for universal terms are meaningless.
What type of meaning could our lives have, according to Taylor?
a. Religious b. Subjective c. Objective d. Universal
INSTRUCTIONS: Select the conclusion that follows in a single step from the given premises. Given the following premises: 1 . G • ˜A 2 . K ? (G • ˜A) 3 . G ? M
A) (K ? G ) ? ˜A 2, Exp B) K ? (˜A • G) 2, Com C) (K ? G) • ˜A 2, Assoc D) K 1, 2, MP E) M 1, 3, MP
Brandt's Utilitarian Heir thought experiment is intended to show that
A. act-utilitarianism could mandate murder. B. act-utilitarianism would forbid killing in every circumstance. C. maximizing happiness is more important than rights. D. act-utilitarianism would never obligate us to murder someone if that would maximize happiness.