• adult: put the toilet seat down after you use it
• boy: but I picked it up and my sister doesn’t have to put it down!
• adult: you’re so (lazy/inconsiderate/mean)

I can’t ignore a lacking argument. This common interaction of gendered education is exactly that. It falls into one of the most common logic traps of the ad hominem attack. The adult can only convince the boy to act how they want through personal attack. It’s well-intended lesson has shifted from “do this action” to “you’re a problem,” a lesson that’s hard for children no matter their brain chemistry. What I have found just recently is that my brain, and those like me, need to understand in order to remember.

So what are good arguments to be had? What I can come up with is this is one key premise:

• Since anyone can pee with a clean seat that’s down, it’s the default way we keep it in our home.

What follows are many options on how to frame the conclusion:

• peeing standing up is an optional privilege. Men can sit without more or less effort. To choose not to sit comes with the obligation to leave the seat in the same usable condition for the next person.
• women have more to lose based on men’s action (fall in or need to wash off). Based on the degree of harm, it is the responsibility of those who could cause the harm to prevent it.
• family is about caring, even when inconvenient or inequitable. When your parent or sibling express something is causing them harm, it’s always worth listening to them. It is also important to take action by making the change, when fair to you, or explaining why it won’t work for you and finding an alternative solution.

This logic is a mix of ethical frameworks – from social contract theory, assumed responsibility, utilitarianism, to care ethics – which all teach, implicitly, lessons in morality. A conscious review of these underlying assumptions can help a parent feel more confident about the lesson they’re teaching a boy, helping him grow into the type of man that gives a shit about others for the right reasons.‰

1. Assumed Risk: This principle holds that when individuals voluntarily engage in certain activities, they assume the responsibility for managing the risks and consequences associated with those activities. In the context of peeing standing up, men choose to do so, knowing it requires additional responsibility (putting the seat down). This principle is often discussed in legal contexts but has philosophical underpinnings in moral responsibility.
2. Moral Responsibility: Theories of moral responsibility, particularly those emphasizing intentional actions and their foreseeable consequences, support the idea that individuals are responsible for the outcomes of their voluntary actions. If a man chooses to stand while urinating, he is morally responsible for ensuring that this choice does not negatively impact others, such as by leaving the seat up and causing inconvenience.
3. Doctrine of Double Effect (def): Although traditionally used in ethical discussions about permissible actions with both good and bad effects, this doctrine can also be applied here. It suggests that if an action (peeing standing up) has a foreseeable negative consequence (seat being left up), the actor has a moral duty to mitigate the negative effect (putting the seat down).
4. Duty of Care: This concept from ethics, particularly in healthcare and social ethics, emphasizes that individuals have a duty to care for the well-being of others when their actions can impact them. By choosing to stand and pee, men have a duty to ensure that their actions do not harm others, which translates into the responsibility to put the seat down.
5. Libertarian Paternalism: This theory, which combines elements of libertarianism and paternalism, suggests that while people should have the freedom to make their own choices, they should also be guided to make decisions that do not harm others. Applying this to the toilet seat scenario, men have the freedom to choose how they urinate but should be guided to consider the impact on others and act accordingly
6. Practical Reasoning and Fairness: The argument that peeing standing up is an optional privilege can be seen as a form of practical reasoning, which evaluates actions based on practical considerations and consequences. If men choose to exercise the privilege of standing up to pee, they take on the practical responsibility to ensure the seat is left in a neutral position (down) for the next user. This aligns with the principle of fairness: those who create a situation that requires adjustment should be the ones to make the adjustment.
7. Harm Principle: The argument that women have more to lose if men leave the seat up, potentially causing them to have a wet butt, can be framed using the harm principle. This principle, often associated with the philosopher John Stuart Mill, posits that individuals should be free to act as they wish unless their actions cause harm to others. In this context, leaving the seat up can cause inconvenience and discomfort (harm) to women. Therefore, men should lower the seat to prevent this harm, respecting the well-being of others.
8. Utilitarianism: This philosophical approach evaluates actions based on their outcomes, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, the small effort required for men to lower the seat after use prevents greater discomfort for women, thereby increasing overall utility and well-being in a shared living environment.
9. Care Ethics: Rooted in the feminist philosophical tradition, care ethics emphasizes the importance of relationships, empathy, and the moral significance of caring for others. Adjusting the toilet seat can be seen as an act of care and consideration, acknowledging and addressing the needs of others in the household. This approach underscores the importance of nurturing and maintaining respectful and considerate relationships.
10. In ethical philosophy, justifying a fair “default” standard involves considerations of fairness, inclusivity, practicality, and moral reasoning. The process of defining what constitutes a “default” standard can be complex and involves multiple ethical theories and principles. Here’s how it can be justified and who might be involved in defining it:

Justification of a Fair “Default” Standard

1. Fairness and Equality:

   • John Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Rawls proposes the idea of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” as a method for determining a fair standard. Individuals, ignorant of their own particular circumstances, would choose principles that ensure fairness and equality for all. This theoretical framework helps justify standards that do not favor any particular group and are designed to be fair to everyone.
   • Principle of Equal Consideration: This principle asserts that everyone’s interests should be considered equally when establishing a standard. It ensures that no group’s interests are unduly prioritized over others.

2. Inclusivity and Democratic Deliberation:

   • Deliberative Democracy: This approach emphasizes the role of inclusive, participatory decision-making processes in defining default standards. It argues that fair standards emerge from the active participation and dialogue of all affected parties, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered.
   • Public Reason: According to philosophers like Jürgen Habermas, standards are justified through rational discourse in which individuals exchange reasons and arguments in a public forum, aiming for mutual understanding and consensus.

3. Practicality and Social Contract:

   • Social Contract Theory: Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue that fair standards are those agreed upon by individuals collectively to ensure social order and cooperation. The social contract reflects mutually accepted norms and rules that govern behavior.
   • Utilitarianism: This ethical theory, associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, suggests that a fair default standard is one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering. The standard is justified if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.

Who Defines the “Default” Standard?

1. Ethical Theorists and Philosophers: These individuals propose foundational principles and theories that help guide the establishment of fair standards. Their work provides the intellectual framework for justifying what constitutes a fair default.
2. Legal and Political Institutions: Governments, courts, and legislative bodies play a crucial role in defining and implementing default standards through laws and policies. These institutions often rely on ethical principles and public deliberation to ensure that standards are just and equitable.
3. Community and Stakeholders: In democratic societies, the active participation of community members and stakeholders in the decision-making process is essential. Public consultations, referenda, and community meetings are mechanisms through which people contribute to defining fair standards.
4. Interdisciplinary Committees and Experts: Often, default standards are established by committees composed of experts from various fields, including ethics, law, sociology, and economics. These committees aim to balance different perspectives and knowledge areas to create well-rounded and fair standards.