"The Nature of the Beast" and "Harassment Blues"

Paper Summary:

The following paper compares the way in which Anita Hill and Naomi Munson formulate their arguments in their articles "The Nature of the Beast" (Anita Hill) and "Harassment Blues" (Naomi Munson). The writer argues that neither Hill nor Munson look at society as a whole, since both authors focus on the sexual harassment of women, without mentioning cases where men are the victims. This paper asserts that their approach is based more on the rights of the individual and a pro or anti-feminist stance than on any utilitarian or egalitarian perspective.

From the Paper:

"Sexual harassment can be seen on many levels as down to the views of individuals. However, there is also a degree of ethical value involved as what one person may perceive as a bawdy joke, another may take as sexual harassment. To achieve fairness though, society does not just consider the views of individuals, but instead tends to look upon the needs of the whole. This means that for the greater good of society the needs of all are greater than those of a single person and this can be related to utilitarianism. The basis of this doctrine is that the value of any item or service is determined only by its usefulness. In adopting this philosophy a state should pursue actions that will bring about the most benefit to the largest number of citizens. In utilitarianism the greatest benefit is seen as the actions that result in the greatest happiness, which by any interpretation is a controversial view. "

More papers on "The Nature of the Beast" and "Harassment Blues":

• Comparison Essay # 16835 : "The Nature of Freud, Socrates and Plato"
• Analytical Essay # 142302 : "The Nature Of Life: Epicurus And Aristotle"
• Essay # 87639 : "The Nature of the Ring and Its Relationship with Gollum"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: