Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:23:00.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Moody-Adams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comment/Reply
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Card, Claudia. 1995. Review of Feminist morality. Ethics 105(4): 938–40.Google Scholar
Deveaux, Monique. 1995. Shifting paradigms: Theorizing care and justice in political theory. Hypatia 10(2): 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1982. The political “testing” of moral theories. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 7: 343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1989. Rights and goods: Justifying social action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1993. Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1984. Womb envy: An explanatory concept. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory, ed. Trebilcot, Joyce. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Moody‐Adams, Michele M. 1990. On the alleged methodological infirmity of ethics. American Philisophical Quarterly 27(3): 225–36.Google Scholar
Moody‐Adams, Michele M. 1996. Feminist inquiry and the transformation of the “public” sphere in Virginia Held's Feminist morality. Hypatia 11(1): 155–67.Google Scholar
Slote, Michael. 1995. Review of Feminist morality. Philosophical Books 36(2): 122–24.Google Scholar
Whitbeck, Caroline. 1976. Theories of sex difference. In Women and philosophy: Toward a theory of liberation, ed. Gould, Carol C. and Wartofsky, Marx W.New York: Putnam.Google Scholar