Psychology and ethics: Interactions and conflicts

Abstract

The relationship between psychology and ethics is determined by whether psychology is conceptualized as a natural or a human science. If the former, then psychology is incapable of identifying universal moral imperatives because of the fact/value dichotomy that rejects the possibility of logically deriving moral principles or social policies from factual statements. In addition, the inevitability of moral pluralism raises the question as to how natural science methodology can select moral truths or social policies from a variety of presumed alternatives. In contrast, human science psychology, which emphasizes phenomenological experience as a source of psychological truths, has attempted to bridge the fact/value gap. Upon close examination, this approach has failed to suggest a rule as to how the "correct" set of values can be identi ed. The conclusion is that facts cannot dictate moral principles or social policies but they can help illuminate their consequences. Policy decisions become the responsibility of a democratic society, not of psychology.

Moral education today: Ascendancy and fragmentation

“…Moreover, conflicts between competing moral demands (such as honesty versus considerateness) are common and stand, from a moral educational point of view, in need of reflectively guided adjudication. Psychologists, however, cannot possibly become internally engaged in such adjudications (as distinct from viewing those from the outside) since that would demote them, for good, from their role as 'disenchanted' scientists (see for example, Kendler, 2002).…”

The character–personality distinction: An historical, conceptual, and functional investigation

“…That it is the latter that most psychologists care about can be clearly seen in two recent papers by Kendler (1999, 2002), who issues a stern warning that any psychological project developed along the lines of what he calls “the enchanted science” 20 and motivated by the belief that psychology itself can discover moral truths can lead not only to Gestalt psychology’s holism or humanistic psychology, but also to the quasi-scientific justification of “Nazi and Communist ideology” (1999, p. 828). And it is in order to prevent these kinds of abuses that Kendler (1999) refers to what he calls “the fact/value dichotomy ” or “an unbridgeable chasm between fact and values” (p. 829).…”

“…A false impression that it is the case might result from the conflation between the fullfledged version of the fact-value distinction and the original, and relatively modest, Humean dictum that "no valid argument can move from entirely factual premises to any moral or evaluative conclusion" (MacIntyre, 2013, p. 67). 19 That it is the latter that most psychologists care about can be clearly seen in two recent papers by Kendler (1999Kendler ( , 2002, who issues a stern warning that any psychological project developed along the lines of what he calls "the enchanted science" 20 and motivated by the belief that psychology itself can discover moral truths can lead not only to Gestalt psychology's holism or humanistic psychology, but also to the quasi-scientific justification of "Nazi and Communist ideology" (1999, p. 828). And it is in order to prevent these kinds of abuses that Kendler (1999) refers to what he calls "the fact/value dichotomy" or "an unbridgeable chasm between fact and values" (p. 829).…”

The Ethics of Psychology's Role in Politics and the Development and Institution of Social Policy

“…Psychology may not be able to reveal moral principles or dictate the "right" social policy. However, psychological research can help to educate the public about the consequences of various social policies and social phenomena, thus informing the democratic process through which social policy decisions are made (Kendler, 2002).…”