who is having sex with whom?

The normative facts, or statutes, as distinct from superstitions, religious beliefs and myths, and crowd/group/mob psychology are very different from natural law which is no longer abided in any jurisdiction in the West.

As for problems like slavery or intolerance of others due to race, ethnicity or class, we do live in a capitalist society where socio-economic status and kinship terminology 'set' social relations on a stage with definite determining factors. Therefore, it is hard not to perceive that propaganda, govt policies, and rank hierarchy in the societies of the West give many people the sense of being an authority over others and positing many people as servants or inferior or persona non grata.

The gestalt switch between citizen and criminal, between honesty and liars, between the prejudiced-asocial and the social is a fine line that was apparently worse under natural law and religious orders and is today somewhat better under the positive laws of the judicial system, but is this any way to order a society with laws and punishments and the exceptions - the breaking of laws without punishments!

It helps in the calculation of consequences, in the prediction of behavior but there are so many variants - I think many people have a natural law heart and are astonished or resisting positive law normativity. There are laws, norms, judgments which transcend and contain impulses and beliefs.

As for monogamy, we live in societies and cultures where the belief in monogamy is countered by No Fault Divorce, remarriage, and so-called adultery - a euphemism for deviance. The effect of monogamy is not only jealousy and its behavioral-attitudinal nexus but its social restriction: stay at home, no friends, impersonal/depersonalization...

                                                       Teaching philosophy

 The pragmatic aspect of teaching philosophy is often contrasted between Inquiry and Direct Instruction. The objection to Inquiry approaches is the non-conformist or individualism of the approach which delimits the use of Direct Instruction which tends to put many students in a situation of incomprehension. The prior knowledge and skills of each particular class of students is a necessary factor to determine the trade-off between Inquiry and Direct Instruction, or how much guidance is appropriate

One of the significant consideration for understanding the learner, and thus deciding upon a particular teaching method at the moment under the social-political context of daily life in the classroom, is to define motivation. In past Motivation was considered an attribute of the learner. Now, motivation resides in the interaction between the learner and the subject matter, so the teacher focuses on what the relation may be between the student's dispositions and the particular subject matter the teacher wants learned. It is ultimately the learners who make choices about how to construct knowledge.

 Kuhn in her article (Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right Question) states that

we need to focus our attention on what sense students are making of things. The key to improving learners’ performance is examining what it is that they are undertaking to learn, what they think it means, how they construe the meaning of this material in relation to themselves, and whether they can see it as worth learning.

I value students’ centered approach in teaching. Being a lecturer I believe that The role of a professional educator, like any other professional, eliminates love, hatred, blind faith, submissive attitude, emotional, and personal elements from the classroom, especially today when casteism, capitalism, racism, sexism in its many forms, bullying, social class distinctions, etc., can be so disruptive to a particular cooperative setting.

Really our personal teaching philosophy only becomes important to the parts of a program for which we are responsible and they must fit in to the organisational needs, how we teach has to be pragmatic. If your teaching very large groups it very much limits your options but its a good idea to consider the assessment process as a part of the teaching, it focuses the student’s attention and always consider the learning outcomes these tell you what you want to achieve, good outcomes should be measurable so putting something in about evaluating sessions is a good idea.

This means before you start you know what you want to achieve and know how you’re going to check if you've achieved it. You’re going to have to match this to your particular needs

I'll try to give an example, one of the programs I lead was for people who already had a professional qualification and who worked in mental health. It was around developing skills in Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy. In the specification document in the teaching and learning section, I put;

As psychotherapy itself can be described as a process of social learning.  It is useful to utilize teaching and learning strategies that are congruent with the theoretical and philosophical ideas underpinning the chosen model. Therefore, to facilitate learning, a range of approaches, consistent with Cognitive and Behavioral theories and practice will be used to inform the methods of delivery.

Initially the strategies are designed to facilitate the development of the knowledge structures or cognitive schema's that will underpin future learning. To facilitate the learning of a wide range of ideas, early in the course much of the content will be delivered using didactic teaching techniques, with some individual supervision to link the content of the modules to their practice. Over the length of the course the students will need to elaborate on these knowledge structures in terms of depth or level of learning and breadth of knowledge. This will be facilitated by more student centered, practice related content used to focus discussions and review by the whole group. As students will be from varied backgrounds in relation to their profession, area of practice and previous learning experiences, the use of their past and current experiences will be an important part of this learning process. Skills development will require an increasing use of role play. The assessment process will reflect this increased emphasis on practice informed by theory

The techniques used will reflect the view that learning is a developmental process and that methods to facilitate learning should reflect the student’s particular needs at the different stages in this process.

MORALITY AND CULTURE

Morality does not depend on culture. What is right and what culture designates as what one may say or think or do, or how to judge, may be different.

Culture changes individuals thru socialization, legal requirements and institutional forces; individuals change culture thru discussion, critique, insights and innovations, and rebellion.

Culture defines what is right in the legal sense, culture is at its base, the law. The law does change also.

The moral - legal difference is where cultural right or law and moral judgment conflict. If there is an ethical totality, then the legal and moral viewpoints have to equilibrate.

Another way of looking it this is to speculate on the degree of plurality in a culture. I don’t mean that the law or justice is different for different groups, but that difference in viewpoint, worldview, perspective, understanding, feelings and attitudes is accepted without too much violence. The opposite is despotism which is too common in work organizations, family arrangements and relationships.

Individual autonomy should be recognized as the goal of development in our life.

Generally speaking, most people are only concerned with rules, laws and regulations, not with right or wrong and why.

Moral development also demonstrates a gap between moral judgment and moral action. Persons who can state what is right or wrong do not necessarily act morally. This is most obvious in racism and sexism which Gordon Allport discusses in “Prejudice.” Specifically, he investigated cases where people act prejudicially but admit in interview that prejudice is immoral. I don’t think Allport got at the reasons for the covert prejudice, eg mating practices and legal marriage laws, cultural pride and family pride, but he does point to this problem.

Hegel critiqued Kant over Kant’s natural law theory of rights which established the antimony between duty and inclination. Hegel and Kant however both point to the problem of the lack of control over thinking - psychological havoc and the wish to harm being so common!

Without going into the bush, the problem is that the inclination to conform overrides the duty to be fair, in many cases.

Usually people are not giving reasons or justifying themselves. They are giving orders and taking advantage of any legal loopholes they can find; the only venue or context of justification - explanation and reasoning - is in a court of law, and even then perjury occurs.

For example, parents make up superficial reasons for children during their why-phase otherwise it’s discipline and psychological control. Organizations and kinship structures are bastions of coercion completely eclipsing any concept of autonomy, by any definition of the term.

If freedom means anything, we only experience its loss.

People see themselves as out for number one, themselves. The only way they accept being a subordinate is by contract - the rules and regulation way - this is not morally acceptable to them but merely a condition of the “natural social reality.” Incentives are used for their cooperation but strict disciplining also lurks begins their backs and over their heads.

“Good” is not a clear standard and rather immature at that - responsibility and honesty as well as practicality are the missing factors.

To believe that people think of themselves as good yet cannot explain conflict means that good is just an appearance!

Some conflicts are misunderstandings, most are mistreatments by one against another: superfluous domination.

The issue is whether an inequality is required for practical and technical reasons or whether the behavior and or psychological interaction is superfluous, unnecessary and/or based on false beliefs, habits or alienation, eg prejudice, status, pride, etc.

This bit about being good, a good boy or good man or good wife or whatever conceals the effects a person has, and the degrees of affect that a person has to others and experiences from others are needs, drives or feelings. The problem is their compulsiveness and rigidity. Some people never change, they want others to kow tow to them and they mistreat others, induce emotional blackmail, and of course never show any respect.

Respect was the basis of the moral law; that cannot be said today bc even if another shows behavioral candor and expresses apparent honesty, their psychological attitude of resentment is often just as transparent as their speech!

So, I don’t buy anyone's “good” self attributions - one must be lacking in certain experiences of learning what is right and wrong, or forgetting, to think they are good in a moral sense which is really nothing but an impression that you conform and without awareness of the laws and rules you unconsciously follow which you might question and even resist. It’s a long way to the boundary of conventions which can just as quickly bite you whether you follow them or not!

Without being naive about introspection, reflection, self-knowledge and moral awareness, there are multiple meanings of good, and none are very significant - people think of themselves as mediocre, blasé and stereotyped.

People in conflict think they are right but these are not moral judgments, reasons are not given, descriptions are not reflected upon, the desired outcomes and consequences are not moral outcomes. Each believes they represent the common good and thus are justified in exploiting and dominating the other. The feelings and affects are not moral feelings, often they are clearly immoral: sadistic and contemptuous! Force and the desire to harm lie behind any claims to care, or love. There is no self-sacrifice, no patience, and no real discussion. The rights of the other are trammeled by one’s own sense of “being right.” The degree of disrespect, of blatant immoral responses if any real responses are even proffered, is even considered normal and justified in their self-righteousness.

When we consider our impressions or what stimulates us,  consider epidemiology and sociological statistics, then the perception of human motives and feelings will turn.

When people in certain groups characterize their self-understanding, as good and yet engage in terrorism, or sadism, or despisement and contempt, certain terms like macho, chivalry and patriarchal authoritarianism come to mind. For example, ISIS is a cult that practices sharia law - stoning, chopping off of limbs and heads, sadistic murder, and has been fighting a war against its own people and several nations! So, it looks like they think they are very very "badass." But, whatever vocabulary characterizes their self-understanding, and it is not "good!"
If they reflect and they hold any moral standards, they would immediately recognize their self as bad!

So either they are deceiving or they have a false conscience.

STRAIGHT UP AND QUEER

The problem is that queer politics does not occur only in upper middle class settings, it is that so-called heterosexuals engage in homosexual behaviors and do not then align their identity with their behavior, and vice versa, especially among the working classes.  Heterosexuals label others identities as homosexuals, gay, lgbtq, whatever, regardless of the lack of any homosexual behaviors, and even under conditions where the person being labeled is conforming to heteronormative lifestyles: successful transition from loser virgin to married cuck!  Identity becomes a linguistic object distinct from any behavior and the labeling process of the other as gay-queer is a substitute for racism (in both directions: by the majority character against the minority character, and by the minority character against the majority character - racism is not simply a one-way process), classism and ageism.

The issue is not the number of lgbtqs in the population. The problem is that all sexual expressions are restricted. People are socialized in a sex repressive manner and then there are the legal issues related to sexual behavior, e.g. harassment, abuse, rape, assault, etc.  Heteronormativity is not merely the restriction of sexual expressions to the minimal sexual behaviors needed to form a family and the family roles of husband, wife, father, mother where all other family roles are prohibited from sexual activity or expressions, and then the legal framework of the State which orders the marital regulations in a doubly binding Family x State dualism.

Heteronormativity also involves the perverted form of heterosexual identity as engaging in abusive homosexual behaviors, including labeling of others as homosexual in order to dominate, but not changing their identity to align with their behaviors. So, many straight people engage in homosexual behaviors, especially homosocial behaviors, while maintaining a heterosexual identity. The problem is that identity and behavior are differentiated for some people who have the social capital to reject the naming of their behavior as implicating their identity while at the same time forcing others to embody an identity which is not established by their behaviors or sticking some of the people with labels that align with their behaviors. Some people are seeking surgery for sexual reassignment because they are completely unable to reconcile the social power that has labeled their identity with their gender!

RACE

The real issue is that race is the representative sign for mate selection. In anthropology it is called exogamy and there is a demarcation line, called race. The practice is endogamy or marry-in your own race. There is some miscegenation but this is usually mediated by class. The ""NORM"" is anti-miscegenation. Since all of the so-called races, even ethnicities practice these marriage rules, interbreeding or cross-cultural relationships or interfaith marriages become controversial.  Race is not realized at the genetic level since all humans can interbreed, but race is realized at the cultural and political levels. Today, we are experiencing increasing integration of the "races," that is, organizations are wiling to hire individuals of varied racial backgrounds if their social capital, e.g. education, is appropriate. But, we are not experiencing an increase in "assimilation" or intermarriage. Some groups intermarry more than others, but the White-Black intermarriage rate is low, whereas, the Asian-any other group is the highest.

Great  Philosophers Never Marry because they develop Libido towards ideas.  They are spiosexual. 

Once Nietzsche’s remark that true philosophers never marry and that Socrates did so only ironically.  The number of philosophers who never married is startling: Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, Benedict Spinoza, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon, Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ludwig Wittgenstein are some of the other prominent names that could be added to the list. 

FALSIFICATION VS VERIFICATION OR WHY POPPER BEAT AYER?

The difference between verification and falsification is that verification looks merely for the evidence stated in the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is 'all swans are white,' and the scientist looks out and observes only white swans then he takes this evidence as verifying the hypothesis. Falsification however is the event where the hypothesis is refuted by evidence of a black swan. Now, the scientists know that the hypothesis is false. In effect, Popper is saying that we cannot know by induction whether an hypothesis is truth, but we can know if it false and therefore we should set up falsification experiments or sincerity and severity tests.

The definition of corroboration is messy: an observation statement supports an hypothesis when it follows from, agrees with, or is an instance of the hyp. However, for Popper this is not a severe test which attempts to refute the hypothesis and searches for counter instances.  Also, Popper stated that the term, 'degree of confirmation or corroboration' seems to reduce induction to probability which he thought was wrong because 'a degree of' does not lead to practical results.

Where Carnap posited a degree of confirmation, Popper claimed that degree of corroboration meant in terms of 'logical content' and not 'amount of evidence.' Also, he claimed that corroboration of an hyp. could increase if rival theories were falsified or refuted and where evidence emerged which was completely unexpected given the original conditions and background knowledge of the hyp. and test statements. Popper was trying to differentiate inductive logic from probability logic.

_Critique of Pure Reason_

Our knowledge springs from two fundamental sources of our mind the first is to receive representations (receptivity of impressions), the second is the faculty of knowing an object through these representations (spontaneity of concepts). Through the first an object is *given* to us, through the second the object is *thought* in relation to that representation (which is a mere determination of the mind). Intuition and concepts constitute, therefore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts can yield knowledge. Both are either pure or empirical. They are empirical when they contain sensation (sensation presupposes the actual presence of the object). They are *pure* when no sensation is mixed in with the representation. Sensation may be called the matter of sensible knowledge. Pure intuition, therefore, contains only the form under which something is intuited, and the pure concept contains only the form of thinking an object in general. Pure intuitions and pure concepts alone are possible *a priori*, empirical intuitions and empirical concepts only *a posteriori*.

We call sensibility the receptivity of our mind to receive representations insofar as it is in some wise affected, while the *understanding*, on the other hand, is our faculty of producing representations by ourselves, or the *spontaneity* of knowledge. We are so constituted that our intuition can never be other than *sensible*; that is, it contains only the mode in which we are affected by objects. The faculty, on the contrary, which enables us to *think* the object of sensible intuition is the *understanding*. Neither of these properties is to be preferred to the other. Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our concepts sensible (i.e., to add the object to them in intuition) as to make our intuitions understandable (i.e., to bring them under concepts). These two faculties or capacities cannot exchange their functions. The understanding cannot intuit anything, the senses cannot think anything. Only from their union can knowledge arise. But this is no reason for confounding their respective contributions; rather, it gives us a strong reason for carefully separating and distinguishing the one from the other. We therefore distinguish the science of the rules of sensibility in general, i.e., aesthetic, from the science of the rules of the understanding in general, i.e., logic."

―Immanuel Kant, from_Critique of Pure Reason_. Transcendental Doctrine of Elements. Transcendental Logic

   Fundamental Philosophical Issues




I.  Introduction
II. Mind-Body relationship
III.Determinism vs indeterminism
IV. Value-free science
V.  Mental health and morality
VI. Autonomy vs conformity
VII.Conclusions

               -------------------------------------------

I. Introduction:
     Adherents to the different theoretical orientations take sides on
numerous philosophical issues concerning the nature of humanity.  These
issues lie at the heart of some theoretical controversies and the
conflicts between professionals.  These controversies and conflicts
reflect implicit, unexamined, gut-felt metaphysical beliefs, in addition
to scientific knowledge.  To understand the various theoretical
paradigms and why there are different paradigms, we must understand
these beliefs.  As we progress in this course, these issues will arise
again and again in our discussions.  By way of introduction, we will
make them explicit now.  (This discussion is based in part on Weckowicz,
1984)

II. Mind - Body Relationship

A. Overview: Philosophy of Mind

     Numerous positions have historically been held and perhaps
just as many positions are currently held, regarding the
relationship of the mind to the body.  These include dualism,
materialism, identity theory, and others (Churchland, 1984).

1. Dualism (eg: Descartes): The mental and the physical are
two distinct realities, composed of fundamentally different
"stuffs" - irreducibility.  The real you is not your
physical/material body, but a nonspatial, ghostly, perhaps
spiritual thinking substance: "mind stuff" (Churchland, 1984).
(Descartes: "I think, therefore I am").  This does not
necessarily mean that the physical world and the mental world
do not interact.  But it does commit you to the position that
the mental can not be explained or understood by reference to
the physical.  This position is certainly consistent with
various religious beliefs regarding the existence of a soul.
There is no way to understand the soul by looking at nerve
cells and the organs of the body.  Cells and organs are
something utterly different from a soul - as such, they
certainly can't explain how the soul works or even what a soul
is.

2. Materialism (eg: Paul and Pat Churchland):  In contrast to
dualism, this approach states that there is only one reality:
the physical.  No matter how much we believe there is a soul
or an otherwise nonphysical-something-about-us, there is not.
This position sees the only reality as that of the nerve cell,
the organ, and other physical (ie: "material") things.  There
are variations on this idea (eg: Classical (Skinnerian)
behaviorism, where all that is actually real is the
observable/physical behaviors of an organism); but they all
argue that there is no purely mental, mystical or spiritual
reality existing alongside the physical world.  Thus,
psychological theories that talk about mental-type things
(like beliefs, desires, love, unconscious conflicts, etc) are
wrong - these things (beliefs, desires, etc) do not actually
exist!  Some of the evidence for this position comes from the
fact that theories that attempt to explain human behavior
using these mental concepts often do a really poor job of
predicting, let alone explaining, that behavior.  Materialists
argue that this poor showing is because these theories are
using concepts that have nothing to do with the real world.

3. Identity Theory (eg: J.J.C. Smart):  Each and every type of
mental state is identical with some type of physical/
neurochemical state.  Eg: Just like "light" is identical to
electromagnetic waves, "pain" (a mental state) is identical to
stimulation of nociceptive fibers of the hippocampus (physical
state).  NB: This is claiming more than mere correlation of
states; there is an identity.  The identity theory is similar
to eliminative materialism in its emphasis on the physical
side of things, but here there is no need to throw out all our
mental terms and theories that refer to them.  These theories
and concepts can still be scientifically very useful.  In
other words, mental terms can be "translated" into physical
phenomena ("love" is actually the firing of these neurons).

B. Abnormal Psychology

1. Basic Question: Is the cause of mental illness in the mind
or in the body?

2. The Body: Medical Models of psychopathology.
        a) disease models - an altered state of the organism, a break
           with its natural state caused by some etiological agent.

        b) constitutional models - inherited disorder, an inborn
           characteristic.

        c) diathesis-stress models - a constitutional/inborn
           vulnerability plus environmental factors (ie: general or
           specific stress) (Meehl, 1962).

        d) combination - some combination of (a), (b) and (c).

        Sum: Psychopathology is caused by physiological and biochemical
             activities of the body and especially the brain.  Mental
             phenomena are a) symptoms, and b) epiphenomenal (for the
             most part).

3. The Mind:
The causal factors are in the mind: desires, conflicts,
motives, attributions, delusions, dreams, plans, implicit
theories; whether conscious or unconscious.  Thus,
psychological phenomena are meaningful (causal) in their
own right.  These inner experiences are necessary to
explain psychopathology.

There are various theoretical orientations that see the
mind as important:  eg - psychodynamic theories (Freud and
others), where it is argued that unconscious psychological
conflicts and the various psychological processes we engage
in to deal with these conflicts accounts for who we are and
what we do.

Note: There are also theories that focus on neither the mindnor
the body:

4. The Environment: Behavioral models.
The cause of psychopathology is unique sequences of
environmental events: contingencies and conditioning.

5. The Social: Interpersonal approaches.
The roots of this orientation are with the school of
Symbolic Interactionism (eg: G.H. Mead, Cooley).  The
emphasis was on reflected appraisals and the "looking glass
self" - we come to see ourselves as others see us.  Thus,
the Interpersonal approaches today perceive the cause of
psychopathology to be in our interpersonal communications.

III. Determinism vs Indeterminism
A. Basic Question: Do humans have free will?  Is there such thing
as free will, or is it a myth? 

B. Determinism: Medical models, Behavioral approaches.
     Events have causes, and by altering the things that caused the
events you can influence the course of future events.  Behavior is
predictable and controllable.  Typically, this position is
expressed thusly: A combination of heredity and environment causes
human behavior. (ie: Nature and nurture make us do what we do).
Therapy is therefore directed at discovering the underlying causes
and changing them: through drugs, surgery, or behavioral
engineering.

C. Indeterminism:  Humanistic and Existential approaches.
     Human beings possess the capacity for free will and they are
responsible for their acts - this is the essence of our humanness
and dignity. (Sartre: "I am my choices".  Weckowicz (1984): "We are
the architects of our own lives").  This emphasis on freedom and
choice means people are unpredictable, and therefore
uncontrollable.  Indeed, to control someone is to deny them what is
essential to their humanness - their free will.

D. Intermediate positions: Psychodynamic, Cognitive, Interpersonal.
     Behavior is caused by various events, but also their is to
some extent a degree of indeterminism.

eg: Freud:  On the one hand, there is determinism:
psychological determinism (unconscious drives, motives,
conflicts).  We experience this when we feel compelled by our
compulsions and fears - our free will feels restricted.  On
the other hand, psychoanalysis allows more conscious control
and the ability to make free(er) choices.  The patient moves
from being a slave to his/her passions to being a rational
free individual.  However, Freud does admit that we are rarely
completely free of the unconscious forces. 

IV. Value-Free Science
     Abnormal psychology is a branch of Scientific psychology.  A
science strives to be value-free so as to provide veridical accounts and
explanations of reality.  However, it is increasingly recognized that
values do influence the scientific process (Howard, 1985; Kuhn, 19  ;
Weckowicz, 1984).  Different values are espoused by the various theories
of psychopathology, either explicitly or implicitly.  This is especially
important when the science is an applied one, such as Abnormal
Psychology (Weckowicz, 1984). 

The role of values in the science of psychology  George Howard, in
American Psychologist, 1985:

A. Making value judgments is an essential part of the work of
science.  The question is not whether but how values are embedded
in and shape science, and what that means in fields like Psychology
where the subject matter is human beings.  Current beliefs,
assumptions and values influence what you choose to study, the
findings you expect, the results you actually obtain, and how you
interpret the results.  For example: Shields (1975) reviewed sex
difference research of the past century and found that instead of
correcting society's misperceptions, the research findings
reflected the dominant values of the period.  Howard is not arguing
that science is actually just values in disguise.  But he is
arguing that values play a part in the scientific process, even
though scientist rightly control them as much as possible.

B. Traditionally, the scientist is supposed to just observe nature.
Nature is not supposed to react to being observed.  However, as
quantum physics has taught us, it isn't always so:  the nature of
what the physicist observes depends on being observed and how it is
observed - depending on the physicist's assumptions and methods of
observation, he/she will either see a particle atomic phenomenon or
a wave atomic phenomenon.  Or let's look at an example of this in
the field of psychology:  Why do psychologists like to observe
people through one-way mirrors?  Obviously it's because if the
person being observed is aware of the observer, his/her behavior is
likely to be altered.  [Of course, it's not so certain that the
presence of the mirror and the person's knowledge that someone is
behind it watching them doesn't also effect the person's
behavior!].  So, when the "things" being observed are people, it is
very possible that the mere act of observing them will influence
them. 
     The role of values becomes particularly salient given the
unique nature of psychology's subject matter - human beings.
Humans, argues Howard, are active agents in the world; as we watch
them, they are watching, deciding and acting based on their own
models, scripts, and implicit theories which they construct.  Given
this unique nature of the human being (the watcher/actor/theory-
maker), an interesting thing may be happening in our science:
There is a reciprocal relationship or interaction between the
scientist-observer and the individual-object. 
     Analogous to the observations the physicist made of atomic
phenomena, the observations psychologists make of humans and the
theories psychologists construct will affect humans.  For example,
humans may come to believe the results, the models and the theories
and act accordingly.  If I'm observing you, and you are aware of
that, and if you also know that I believe you are mentally ill or
that I think being emotionally expressive is the best way to be,
then after awhile you may come to act accordingly, especially if
you believe me to be an Expert a scientist, psychologist, etc).  My
beliefs and values can influence you.

C. The issue is this:  If human nature is influenced by how science
views it, not only should we consider whether values can be removed
from psychological research (which is unlikely), but we must also
consider if they should be removed.  There are many who argue that
"yes, we must remove values from any science".  However, to do away
with values (what's good/bad, the shoulds/oughts, ideals) we may
run the risk, argues Howard, of constructing an impoverished,
overly rigid vision of humanity, ignoring what humanity could
become.

D. Howard's solution:  Because values and thus theoretical
orientations inevitably influence our findings, psychological
research findings should be looked at not as demonstrating what
necessarily occurs in the world (some objective reality), but what
is possible if human beings are considered from a particular
perspective.  Each perspective has something to offer; no one is
the correct perspective.

E.  The theoretical controversies we will confront in this course
arise largely because each perspective is claiming itself to be the
model of objective reality.  The controversies and debates are seen
in a different light, perhaps less hot, when viewed from Howard's
position.

V. Mental Health and Morality
A. The terms "mental health" and "mental illness" are entangled in
moral and legal issues.  Can mental illness/abnormality be
distinguished from sin, crime, and immorality?  "Mad or Bad?"  Here
is the dark side of the humanist's coin: if people have free will
and are responsible agents, then are they not accountable for all
their actions?

B. The Insanity Defense:  Freedom of choice/free will is
constrained and distorted by mental illness - the person acts under
duress and is therefore not responsible.  With most crimes,
conviction requires proof of the particular act (actus reus) plus
proof of a particular mental state (mens rea = culpable mind)
(Ennis, 1982).  In other words, in addition to showing that the
person did the crime, it must also be shown that the person had a
conscious objective to commit the act.  This is the heart of the
Insanity Defense used with people like John Hinckley, Jr. (Hinckley
tried to assassinate President Reagan on March 30, 1981 - he
succeeded in wounding both Reagan and an aide.  He was tried and
found not guilty by reason of insanity.  He was confined to a
mental hospital).
     The controversy is concerned with how you tell whether an
adult has free will?  It is a highly subjective judgement - there
is no clear criterion.  Expert witnesses contradict each other.
"One person's delusion may be another's religion" (Cohen, 1982); or
in the words of Lily Tomlin: "If you speak to God, it's a prayer,
if God speaks to you it's schizophrenia".  The question is: does
mental illness impair free will?  This is an unresolved, inherently
philosophical question.

VI. Autonomy vs Conformity
A. The basic question: What is the basis of mental health?
Autonomy of the individual or conformity to society?

B. Conformity: A model of humankind and society which argues that
the best world is one in which there are few disruptions, where
conflict is rare or even nonexistent.  The best way to achieve this
is for people to conform to particular ideals or ways of acting,
etc.  The goal is for smooth, undisrupted functioning.

C. Autonomy:  An "open system model", with a goal of growth,
development and change.  (eg: humanistic psychology's emphasis on
self-actualization; conformity leads to mental illness).

D. A Combination:  Some people claim (C) is the "best" - especially
in the U.S. where so much value is placed on individualism.  But
imagine what life would be like if there was no conformity?
Imagine what your life would be like if you never attempted to
conform.  Most theories of mental health (explicitly) take the
position that a combination of conformity and autonomy is important
for mental health.  However in practice (ie: implicitly) there is
still much debate whether the various theoretical orientations are
taking a combination approach (Rappaport, 1977).

This leads us to the issue of the rights of individuals (especially
mental patients) vs the rights of society.  Sometimes these may be
incompatible.  What choice the clinician makes is crucial for defining
his/her role as clinician.

VII. Conclusions
     We have discussed 5 philosophical issues that are fundamentally
intertwined in the topic of Abnormal Psychology: The relationship
between the mind and body, determinism vs indeterminism, the place of
values in psychology, mental health and morality, and autonomy vs
conformity.  These issues will arise repeatedly throughout this course
and it will be important to explore them as they do.  Such explorations
may help us clarify some of the confusion across the different
theoretical orientations.