Axel Honneth reads the young Hegel as engaged in a debate with Hobbes over the social nature of the autonomous self. In the passages that are crucial for the development of Honneth’s own theory of recognition the Jena manuscripts nevertheless do not mention Hobbes by name. Attributing to Hegel an advance on Hobbes’s influential early modern account of individual autonomy, Honneth does not duly consider the polemical context in which Hobbes wrote. A re-examination of the polemical use to which Hobbes (...) puts the notion of individual autonomy raises questions concerning the extent to which Honneth can straightforwardly valorise individual freedom. (shrink)

What role should the physician's conscience play in the practice of medicine? Much controversy has surrounded the question, yet little attention has been paid to the possibility that disputants are operating with contrasting definitions of the conscience. To illustrate this divergence, we contrast definitions stemming from Abrahamic religions and those stemming from secular moral tradition. Clear differences emerge regarding what the term conscience conveys, how the conscience should be informed, and what the consequences are for violating one's conscience. Importantly, these (...) basic disagreements underlie current controversies regarding the role of the clinician's conscience in the practice of medicine. Consequently participants in ongoing debates would do well to specify their definitions of the conscience and the reasons for and implications of those definitions. This specification would allow participants to advance a more philosophically and theologically robust conversation about the means and ends of medicine. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to establish ethical guidelines for the use of paradoxical interventions in psychotherapy. These are defined as interventions which are counterintuitive, coercive, and which require non-observance by the client. Arguments are developed to show that such interventions are associated with a psychology that understands individuals solely in terms of their relationship: a 'strong interactionist' position. Ethical principles consistent with such a position are considered, and from these it is derived that: paradox is an ethical technique (...) with resistive patients; it requires consent; its content should be consistent with general ethical principles, especially those of beneficence and non-maleficence; non-paradoxical techniques should be preferred when possible; and it should not be used as an assessment procedure. It is concluded that research is needed to explore the effect of such ethical guidelines of effectiveness, though preliminary impressions are encouraging. (shrink)