Moral Sentimentalism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Wed Jan 29, 2014
For moral sentimentalists, our emotions and desires play a leading role in the anatomy of morality. Some believe moral thoughts are fundamentally sentimental, others that moral facts make essential reference to our sentimental responses, or that emotions are the primary source of moral knowledge. Some believe all these things. The two main attractions of sentimentalism are making sense of the practical aspects of morality, on the one hand, and finding a place for morality within a naturalistic worldview, on the other. The corresponding challenges are accounting for the apparent objectivity and normativity of morality. Recent psychological theories emphasizing the centrality of emotion in moral thinking have prompted renewed interest in sentimentalist ethics.
The entire page is here.
Editor's note: Reading a great deal of philosophy recently, it seems like many psychologists would embrace this approach to morality (and perhaps free will).
So, ethics educators may want to add Moral Sentimentalism to the other, regularly taught philosophical foundations, including deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases
By GINA Kolata
The New York Times
Originally posted February 3, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Genetic testing of embryos has been around for more than a decade, but its use has soared in recent years as methods have improved and more disease-causing genes have been discovered. The in vitro fertilization and testing are expensive — typically about $20,000 — but they make it possible for couples to ensure that their children will not inherit a faulty gene and to avoid the difficult choice of whether to abort a pregnancy if testing of a fetus detects a genetic problem.
But the procedure also raises unsettling ethical questions that trouble advocates for the disabled and have left some doctors struggling with what they should tell their patients.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Originally posted February 3, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
Genetic testing of embryos has been around for more than a decade, but its use has soared in recent years as methods have improved and more disease-causing genes have been discovered. The in vitro fertilization and testing are expensive — typically about $20,000 — but they make it possible for couples to ensure that their children will not inherit a faulty gene and to avoid the difficult choice of whether to abort a pregnancy if testing of a fetus detects a genetic problem.
But the procedure also raises unsettling ethical questions that trouble advocates for the disabled and have left some doctors struggling with what they should tell their patients.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Suicide and the 'Impure' Soul
New research says moral bias against suicide often comes from disgust over a tainted soul.
By Matthew Hutson
The Atlantic
Originally published January 9, 2014
Around the world, about one million people die of suicide each year, according to the World Health Organization. Each death causes immeasurable harm: Friends, family members, and coworkers suffer loss, guilt, and confusion, and the immediate victim loses a future. Many of those friends and family members consider suicide to be morally wrong. But new evidence shows that people who consider suicide wrong might have other reasons than the harm it brings. There is a more abstract—and at the same time more visceral—consideration at play.
(cut)
The notion that suicide is wrong because it taints the soul might sound foreign to atheists. But even when only non-religious liberals were considered (those who rated themselves below the midpoint on religious belief and political conservatism), the wrongness of the suicides was still predicted by ratings of purity and not by ratings of harm. According to Rottman, the pattern holds even among people who gave themselves the lowest possible rating on religiosity (1 of 7). Concern about the soul’s purity is not just for church-goers.
The entire article is here.
By Matthew Hutson
The Atlantic
Originally published January 9, 2014
Around the world, about one million people die of suicide each year, according to the World Health Organization. Each death causes immeasurable harm: Friends, family members, and coworkers suffer loss, guilt, and confusion, and the immediate victim loses a future. Many of those friends and family members consider suicide to be morally wrong. But new evidence shows that people who consider suicide wrong might have other reasons than the harm it brings. There is a more abstract—and at the same time more visceral—consideration at play.
(cut)
The notion that suicide is wrong because it taints the soul might sound foreign to atheists. But even when only non-religious liberals were considered (those who rated themselves below the midpoint on religious belief and political conservatism), the wrongness of the suicides was still predicted by ratings of purity and not by ratings of harm. According to Rottman, the pattern holds even among people who gave themselves the lowest possible rating on religiosity (1 of 7). Concern about the soul’s purity is not just for church-goers.
The entire article is here.
Ten Things I Learned About Me
And maybe about you, too, while writing a book about the self.
By Jennifer Ouellette
By Jennifer Ouellette
Slate
Originally published January 30, 2014
Here are some excerpts:
But while I might not have found the Ultimate Answer to the source of the self, it proved to be an exciting journey and I learned some fascinating things along the way.
1. Genes are deterministic but they are not destiny. Except for earwax consistency. My earwax is my destiny. We tend to think of our genome as following a “one gene for one trait” model, but the real story is far more complicated.
(cut)
2. It’s nature and nurture, not one or the other, ....
(cut)
3. My brain scan—courtesy of neuroscientist David Eagleman’s lab—told me nothing about who I am, but it did confirm that I have very clear sinuses.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Episode 2: Prescriptive Authority for Psychologists - Where are we now?
 |
| Bob McGrath |
At the end of the podcast, the listener will be able to:
1. Describe two reasons why psychologists are seeking prescriptive authority;
2. Explain two benefits for patients who work with a prescribing psychologist; and,
3. Name two states that permit appropriately trained psychologists to prescribe
medication.
Click here to purchase 1 APA-approved Continuing Education credit
Find this podcast in iTunes
Or listen directly on this page
Resources
Fairleigh Dickinson Masters Degree in Psychopharmacology
Contact Bob McGrath via email
Lynn Merrick, Legislative Reference Bureau, State Capitol, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Bob McGrath
APA Resources
Designation Criteria for Education and Training Programs in Preparation for Prescriptive
Authority (2009)
Division 55 Home Page - American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy
Model Legislation
Prescriptive Authority Page
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The wealth gap and inequality can and should be fixed
In his column dated 27 January, Johann Redelinghuys argues that economic inequality is part of the natural order of things, and that attempts to fix it are, essentially, a waste of time and resources. He is wrong on every level: morally, practically and factually.
By Marelise van der Merwe
Daily Maverick
Originally published January 29, 2014
Let’s take the factual level first. In essence, Redelinghuys argues that “individual differences and inequality are clearly established elements in the natural order of things” and that they are “the predictable outcomes of the capitalist economic system which most of the world now subscribes to”. Crucially, he mentions neither the degree of inequality nor the way that it got there, which I would argue is central to the discussion. Certainly, a degree of difference is arguably natural; but glaring or crippling inequality, especially if it got there by unnatural means, is not.
I’m not attacking capitalism. I have no interest in a socialism-vs.-capitalism standoff, which I believe to be unnecessary, since unlike Redelinghuys, I don’t believe gross inequality to be an inevitable or “predictable outcome” of the capitalist system. I believe it is possible to be both capitalists and decent human beings.
The Workplace and Social Networking - Got Boundaries?
By Kate Anthony
Online Institute
Originally published January 23, 2014
Negotiating the boundaries between our professional and personal lives is increasingly a part of our work as therapists. If you use social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn you are probably aware of the sometimes inappropriate statuses or updates people post. Even if you are not a user of them, you will likely have seen the media reports about an staff’s Facebooks posts made while off sick coming back to haunt them, or ill-advised crude tweets resulting in an employee instantly losing their job despite having deleted it within 14 seconds of posting (see example here).
The entire article is here.
Online Institute
Originally published January 23, 2014
Negotiating the boundaries between our professional and personal lives is increasingly a part of our work as therapists. If you use social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn you are probably aware of the sometimes inappropriate statuses or updates people post. Even if you are not a user of them, you will likely have seen the media reports about an staff’s Facebooks posts made while off sick coming back to haunt them, or ill-advised crude tweets resulting in an employee instantly losing their job despite having deleted it within 14 seconds of posting (see example here).
The entire article is here.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Paul Russell on Free Will and Responsibility
Many philosophical theories try to evade the uncomfortable truth that luck and fate play a role in the conduct of our moral lives, argues philosopher Paul Russell. He chooses the best books on free will and responsibility.
Fivebooks.com
Interview by Nigel Warburton
Originally published December 3, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Q: Most people feel, to some degree, in control of how they behave. There may be moments when they become irrational and other forces take over, or where outside people force them to do things, but if I want to raise my hand or say “Stop!” those things seem to be easily within my conscious control. We also feel very strongly that people, including ourselves, merit praise and blame for the actions they perform because it’s us that’s performing them. It’s not someone else doing those things. And if we do something wrong, knowingly, it’s right to blame us for that.
A: That’s right. The common sense view — although we may articulate it in different ways in different cultures — is that there is some relevant sense in which we are in control and we are morally accountable. What makes philosophy interesting is that sceptical arguments can be put forward that appear to undermine or discredit our confidence in this common sense position. One famous version of this difficulty has theological roots. If, as everyone once assumed, there is a God, who creates the world and has the power to decide all that happens in it, then our common sense view of ourselves as free agents seems to be threatened, since God controls and guides everything that happens – including all our actions. Similar or related problems seem to arise with modern science.
The entire interview is here.
Fivebooks.com
Interview by Nigel Warburton
Originally published December 3, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Q: Most people feel, to some degree, in control of how they behave. There may be moments when they become irrational and other forces take over, or where outside people force them to do things, but if I want to raise my hand or say “Stop!” those things seem to be easily within my conscious control. We also feel very strongly that people, including ourselves, merit praise and blame for the actions they perform because it’s us that’s performing them. It’s not someone else doing those things. And if we do something wrong, knowingly, it’s right to blame us for that.
A: That’s right. The common sense view — although we may articulate it in different ways in different cultures — is that there is some relevant sense in which we are in control and we are morally accountable. What makes philosophy interesting is that sceptical arguments can be put forward that appear to undermine or discredit our confidence in this common sense position. One famous version of this difficulty has theological roots. If, as everyone once assumed, there is a God, who creates the world and has the power to decide all that happens in it, then our common sense view of ourselves as free agents seems to be threatened, since God controls and guides everything that happens – including all our actions. Similar or related problems seem to arise with modern science.
The entire interview is here.
ICD-10 and DSM-5: The Reality
Are You Ready For Two Code Sets on October 1?
By Lisette Wright
Behavioral HealthCare
Originally published January 29, 2014
The ICD-10 transition is proving to be a formidable challenge in the healthcare industry for everyone involved. Provider organizations need to train their clinical staff, worry about revenue cycle disruption, and conduct internal and external testing with all parties. Third-party vendors such as Electronic Health Record companies are also struggling to keep up, with Meaningful Use Stage 2, 2014 Certification, and the ICD-10 transition. Fortunately, there are many trainings available to help you understand the what the ICD-10 transition involves. Unfortunately, most of these trainings are medically-focused, not given by those in the mental health or substance use industry, and they do not really explain how the DSM-5 fits into this transition.
The entire article is here.
By Lisette Wright
Behavioral HealthCare
Originally published January 29, 2014
The ICD-10 transition is proving to be a formidable challenge in the healthcare industry for everyone involved. Provider organizations need to train their clinical staff, worry about revenue cycle disruption, and conduct internal and external testing with all parties. Third-party vendors such as Electronic Health Record companies are also struggling to keep up, with Meaningful Use Stage 2, 2014 Certification, and the ICD-10 transition. Fortunately, there are many trainings available to help you understand the what the ICD-10 transition involves. Unfortunately, most of these trainings are medically-focused, not given by those in the mental health or substance use industry, and they do not really explain how the DSM-5 fits into this transition.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)