On Being an Ethicist
February 10th, 2008[Editor's note: Mark Yarhouse is blogging for us during the month of February.]
Let’s continue our discussion of a couple of specific and relevant concepts from Alan Tjeltveit’s book, Ethics and Values in Psychotherapy, In chapter three Tjeltveit defines an ethicist, and he makes the distinction between psychotherapist as ethicist and moralist. An ethicist is someone who has knowledge and perhaps training, who shows discernment, careful evaluation, and good judgment, and who is recognized for these qualities within a community. Ethicists hold ethical convictions and influence others either directly or indirectly. According to Tjeltveit, a psychotherapist/ethicist can function in many ways, such as teaching, consulting, coaching, and advocacy, to name a few.
Tjeltveit contrasts being an ethicist with being a moralist. While an ethicist creates space for others to reason, draw their own conclusions, and make their own decisions, a moralist is one who attempts to impose his or her beliefs upon others.
One of the main fears secular psychologists appear to have about Christian psychologists is that Christian psychologists will function as moralists in therapy. My question is whether that is a legitimate concern? What influences exist that would lead a Christian psychotherapist toward being either an ethicist or a moralist? Do these same concerns exist for other psychotherapists? In other words, we do not want to treat Christian psychotherapists as different from other psychotherapists, if the same concerns exist for others who provide therapy out of central, organizing convictions about significant aspects of reality.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:07 am
[...] Being ethical vs. being moralistic “While an ethicist creates space for others to reason, draw their own conclusions, and make their own decisions, a moralist is one who attempts to impose his or her beliefs upon others.” [...]
February 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
These are important considerations for us as Christian psychotherapists. Thank you for your thought-provoking comments In thinking about the questions you ask,Mark,
1. Is that a legitimate concern? (The fear that Christian psychologists will function as “moralists” in therapy.) I think it is a legitimate concern that any person (Christian or not Christian) will attempt to impose his or her own beliefs on others. All of us have the inherent tendency to expect others to think like we do and to value what we value. It is not uncommon for a non-Christian therapist to impose his/her beliefs on their client: for example, “You just need to go out and have sex with others…”
2. What influences exist that would lead Christian psychotherapists toward being an ethicist or a moralist?
If you are defining an ethicist as Tjeltveit does (one who creates space for others to reason, draw their own conclusions, and make their own decisions), I think we as Christian psychotherapists should be influenced toward being ethicists. Why? Because that is how God responds to us. He created us with our own will. He gives us the information about what He has done, and His recommendations concerning what is best for us, but then He allows us to make our own decision concerning believing in Him and chosing to obey Him. I do not see us (as Christian psychotherapists) being the ones who should attempt to impose our beliefs on others. That doesn’t mean we can’t be honest about our beliefs…but our clients need to know that accepting our beliefs is not what would give them worth/value.
Unfortunately, even within our Christian culture, we do not usually recognize or acknowledge God’s healthy boundaries with humans. So, instead of seeing and imitating how God reaches out to us and invites us to consider His nature and character, and to make a decision based off His actions toward us, we fall into the very human tendency of trying to pressure, persuade, or “guilt” others into accepting the beliefs we have accepted. We tell them what we think they ought to do, or say, or think.
I have not had the opportunity to read Tjeltveit’s
book, but the description of the difference between an ethicist and moralist in your blog above seems to be a re-labeling of the same accusation that has been used in recent years of “tolerance” and “intolerance.”
February 24th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
First, let me introduce myself so you will understand the context of my comments. I am an “empty-nester” and am in my first year of graduate school at a secular university, studying Mental Health Counseling, with an initial goal of becoming a Licensed Professional Counselor.
One course I am taking this semester is “Legal and Ethical Issues”. The types of questions raised in this blog have been in my mind lately as I observe the thinking of those around me.
What I have seen in my little corner of the world is that “Ethics” are the rules we follow to protect our butt. –– Please excuse the lack of scholarly language. I AM with a group of pagan mostly 20-somethings after all! The language in class is a LOT worse!
Although the phrase “do no harm” is commonly stated in our courses, I sense disconnect in the minds of my classmates. Perhaps it is because they live with a different mind-set. What is “harm” after all? If “truth” is a fluid construct, it makes sense that “harm” would also be fluid in their minds.
Of course, I am being taught that we don’t give advice; we let the client choose what they want. We aren’t to impose our “values”, “beliefs” and implicitly, “morals”, onto them.
I am told, “Whatever is true for you”, and “Whatever is good/right/best for you”. I challenged that first thought (when said to me by a person of my generation) by explaining that truth exists that is the same for everyone whether I/we acknowledge it or not. It doesn’t go away just because we don’t believe in it.
She closed the conversation by saying “Well, that sounds too much like philosophy”. I let it go, musing once again how people think they can separate themselves from “philosophy”. We all have our weltanschauung whether we know the fancy German word or not.
We may say truth is relative, but it is impossible to live consistent with that belief. I have wondered how people who say, “Whatever is true for you” can at the same time be such strong proponents for empirically validated/supported treatments. I suppose, perhaps, they consider them different kinds of truths. However, I digress…
I think a split between values, morals and ethics is impossible. I do view them as separate entities. My perspective is that values are the weight you give to things delineating their relative importance. Ethics are the consensus of belief about the way we are to act and interact. Our morals spring from our being and existential understanding. Ideally, all three of these are built on the foundation of truth. The reason our ethics are frequently synonymous with the ethics of non-Christians is that we are all the same: Beings created by the same God who have the same morals hard-wired into our hearts. (see Romans 1)
Yes, morals are what we think to be right or wrong, good and bad. Do I then, as a Christian counselor impose my moral values upon the client? I would ask you, is that the way God works with people?
I only understand morality because God has redeemed me from the darkness. My redemption is all of grace. Why would it be any different for another? God forbid I impose my morality upon another and create a “good” person who dies without the only goodness that counts, the goodness of Christ in us.
Another thing I have observed about the people around me is that many of them have a bad taste in their mouths about Christianity and Christians. Too many of us have been offensive in our “witness”. By this, we have clouded the view of the only offense they should consider, which is the offense of the gospel.
In my classes, I am being taught the importance of personal autonomy for the client. I wholeheartedly agree, although I probably have a different slant on what that means than do my professors.
If I am to be a Christ-like counselor, I won’t proselytize or impose my moral views. Will I share Christ if the opportunity arises? Certainly! Yet, I want my sharing to be with grace, seasoned with salt. I want to rely on the Holy Spirit for when to speak, when to keep silent and for the right words to say when I do speak. After all, it is only God who can truly change a heart. My joy is that just like a child helps mommy make cookies, He lets me help as He works in the lives and hearts of people.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Kathy,
Thanks for you thoughts. I do think that it is a legitimate concern – that psychologists could function as moralists. But I agree with you that it is a concern for anyone who functions in a mental health role. It is not just a concern for Christians (although it is often raised by people who are concerned about Christians conducting psychotherapy – while they seem to overlook, in my view, their own tendency toward bias and influence in therapy).
I also agree with you that Christians would do well to function as ethicists rather than moralists, not only for the reasons you state, but also because it is how meaningful, sustained changes actually take place. What I mean by this is that change often can be short lived when people try to respond to another’s influence. But unless they really think through their decisions and reach conclusions by which they choose to live, I find that people often will not stay with the “change” they have attempted.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Debbie,
Thanks for sharing a little about your training setting. Sounds challenging, to say the least! I think your decision not to impose values is likely in keeping with what Tjeltveit wants to caution us about being a moralist. The concept of being an ethicist may be helpful to you, especially as you consider how to help clients think through complext moral and ethical concerns. It involves helping them think well about the circumstances they are facing, their own reasoning and decision-making, and so on. It also helps us as Christian clinicians think through our approach to ethical decision making.