Lecture notes Psychological Ethics
Lecture 1 – Introduction to the course
In today’s lecture
1. Ethics and psychology
2. Introduction to ethics
a. Ethical dilemma’s
b. Ethics & morality (ethics is very much about reflection on morality, it’s
reflective and has certain rules, is structured and systematic, whereas
morality is about intuitive ideas about what is good and bad)
c. Metaethics (what is ethics really, can we think about ethics? Etc.)
3. Acculturation
4. Practical matters
Ethics and psychology
There is some sort of relationships between the two, they influence one another and there is
overlap as well
Psychology
Psychologist = working with people benefit them (as patients, clients, employees, citizens,
participants)
Psychology = “the helping profession”
Psychology according to Neill:
“Psychology has become the default way in which we conceive of ourselves”
Was born in the late 19th century
Wants to be a science. However, the psyche, the thing it wants to study isn’t something
we can access and measure
“The object of psychology and the agent hoping to explore that object are categorically
the same. Whatever truths psychologists uncover or posit as to the mind and behaviour
of human being, there is no escaping the fact that they themselves are one of the
categories they would seek to explain”
“Can we have an ethics which is not somehow already psychological? Can we have a
psychology, or do a psychology, which is not somehow already imbued with ethical
questions?” – Calum Neill
Ethics and psychology
Faced with ethical questions
Should we intervene in clients’ lives against their will?
Is it morally right for a psychologist to deceive a research subject/patient?
Can I share confidential information of my client with someone else (when I think it is
necessary to benefit the client or avoid arm to another)?
Is it ok to hug a client (or e.g. touch them by the shoulder)?
…
“By the very nature of their professional role, psychologists have an obligation to think well
and wisely about what it means to benefit others and avoiding harming them” – Kitchener
Two famous experiments
,The Milgram experiment in the public eye:
Taught us everyone can become a monster?
Teaches us something about responsibility?
Teaches us something about authority?
The Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo) in the public eye:
Taught us that people are capable of everything in certain situations?
Tells us something about the power of roles, group identity, dehumanization, and
deindividuation
“The Zimbardo experiment appears to alert us to the fact that we need to be protected from
psychologists (a certain set up might be harmful to the people involved). The Milgram
experiment perhaps tells us that we need to be protected from psychology itself (certain
ideas might be off when we generalize them)” – Calum Neill
Acculturation and ethical environment
Culture and acculturation (Handelsman et al.), psychology is a certain culture, and just as a
culture it can change and be shaped, you can identify with it fully or not
What culture am I entering into?
What is this group?
Who is this “we”?
Ethical environment (Lloyd & Hansen)
Ethical environments change over time
Exploring the ethical basis for a law or rule can be a way to understand the ethical
environment within which the law operates, certain laws/rules/codes follow from a
certain ethical environment, the authors state that we shouldn’t just follow them, but ask
questions about the environment where they are about
“Whereas the natural environment dictates what is possible, the ethical environment
selects out the many possibilities those that ought and ought not to be done.”
Psychological ethics
This course is about:
Recognizing normative aspects of psychology and psychological practice
Learning about the ethical theories, principles, and codes of conduct for psychologist (and
their limitations)
Identify and reflect on ethical issues and dilemmas (in psychological practice)
Getting to know your intuitive morality and get to a reflective, critical level
Learning to do this together: we need each other, workgroups, colleagues
Three levels, three roles:
Personal level (as a human being, a daughter, mother, etc.)
Disciplinary level (as a professional)
Societal level (as a citizen)
Within these roles things can be seen as wrong or right
Ethics and morality
Ethics or moral philosophy
Systematic reflection (beyond the intuitive) on morality
Critical evaluative
As a discipline: theoretical, normative, and practical science
, Guiding, improving, developing, and evaluating morality
Ethos or morality
Ethos (= ‘custom’, ‘habit’)
The guiding ideals, attitudes, and habits that characterizes a person or community
Gut-feelings (based on culture, upbringing, religion, gender, etc.) and also biases
Immediate, pre-reflective response
Ethics and ethos
There is an idea of an ethical iceberg, below the surface you find ethos, these aren’t
reflected on when reflected on you find ethics above the surface. But they influence
one another, what do I want to reflect on? Systematic reflection on ethical rules and
principles will ultimately become part of our redefined intuitive sense. - “Noticing the
ethical environment can be like asking a fish to notice the water it swims in and
breaths” (Llyod & Hansen, 2003)
Three main areas of ethics
Metaethics Normative ethics Applied ethics
reflection on ethics itself Reflection on morality & Reflection on morality
(How should we think about moral behavior within a specific discipline,
ethics?) area, profession
Foundations, concepts, Seeks to set criteria to Concerns the practical
assumptions, e.g., what separate the morally right application of ethics in a
defines “good”? from the morally wrong: specific discipline, such as:
“what is the right thing to medical ethics,
do? How should I live my psychological ethics,
life?” bioethics, animal ethics,
environmental ethics, …
Taking a step back: What is Classical theories:
the status of morality? Are consequentialism,
moral standards relative or deontology (Kant), virtue
absolute? Are we egoistic or ethics
altruistic by nature? Etc.
Contemporary theories:
pragmatic ethics, care ethics
Metaethics
Universalism & relativism
Nothing is wright or
wrong in itself, there is
no outside view from
which we can compare
them, because it is just
relative. An advantage
is that ethics is then a
set of agreed upon
human principles, and
, this can then explain the possibility of moral knowledge, without the help of an outside
source (e.g., a god). So, it can explain moral diversity without arguing that one is better than
the other, can also explain moral disagreement in the world, the existence of ethical biases,
can recognize multiple ethical systems as legitimate and it can explain why it’s hard to
compare those systems. Some disadvantages however are that a certain prejudice or bias of
a person of culture can turn into moral truths, we can’t resolve cross-cultural or cross-
individual disagreements (because no outside standers can try to help us in which is right,
and which isn’t) and we cannot legitimize our own moral relativism. We can only disapprove
with things but cannot disagree. Main disadvantage: there’s no room for moral progress
However: is it possible to occupy a neutral position (stand “outside” an ethical question)?
In moral absolutism it is based upon an
external ground and there is no room to
argue that actions were good or wrong in
a certain time or situation. Moral
objectivism is based on human rationality
which states that due to this rationality it
gives rise to certain things that we all
agree upon.
“Is there the possibility of a universalism
which is not simply a particularized universalism?”
Ethical dilemmas
What is an ethical dilemma?
Ethical: about morals (values, norms, principles)
Vs.
Dilemma: conflicting contradicting morals
o No easy ‘solution’
o And not only one
o Downsides to all options
o Not the same as ‘problem’
E.g.,
Freedom vs. safety
Privacy vs. preventing harm
Loyalty vs. integrity
Friendship vs. truthfulness
Is vs. ought
The is-ought distinction
David Hume’s law: we cannot derive an ought from an is,
Moving from descriptions (facts) to prescriptions (values, norms)
But: a fact alone can never give rise to a normative conclusion about what needs to be
done
