UC Berkeley

The study examined moral reasoning amongst Iranian men and women regarding gender inequality that is sanctioned by religious and legal laws in Iran. Through interviews with 32 recent Iranian immigrants to Australia aged 22 to 44 years, half of whom were male and half female, the study explored moral judgments on gender inequality and restrictions on women’s rights in familial contexts in Iran. The study investigated both the evaluations and justifications provided by participants regarding: (i) specific practices of gender inequality (by men) sanctioned by religious and legal laws, and (ii) transgressions (by women) of religious and legal laws that sanction gender inequality. The practices addressed involved restrictions on females of the rights to travel, work, maintain ownership of financial assets after divorce, and choose whether to wear a hijab. The study also investigated participant evaluations and justifications regarding the mutability of existing laws that sanction gender inequality, by rule abolition, authority dictates from religious and governmental leaders and God, and common practice in countries outside of Iran.

It was found that Iranian men and women engage in critical evaluation of existing social arrangements pertaining to gender inequality, specifically practices that are religiously and legally sanctioned in Iran. The majority of participants of both sexes evaluated practices that enact gender inequality unacceptable. Most participants also approved of the dissolution of such laws, the prospect of support from religious and legal authority figures for the abolition of such practices, and the practices of other countries which denote gender equality in these areas. Reasoning provided by participants for their evaluations were predominantly moral justifications pertaining to human rights, equality and the well-being of persons. Concern with relationship harmony and honesty were also common concerns. Participants demonstrated a plurality of moral, conventional and personal concerns and engaged in coordination of concerns within and amongst these domains.

While most participants evaluated practices that sanction gender inequality as unacceptable, and also condoned the cessation of such laws and practices, there were variegated evaluations regarding the acceptability of transgressions of existing gender restrictive laws. Justifications amongst male participants largely involved concern for honesty and disapproval of the deception involved in violating existing laws. Female participants also demonstrated concern with honesty in their justifications, but this was accompanied by concerns with the wellbeing of females who transgress existing laws and the imperative of challenging unjust social practices.