The conceptual issues surrounding theories and diagnoses of abnormal behaviour reflect prevailing social values and not necessarily objective science (Whitaker 2002, Moncrief 2010). Critically discuss this assertion with particular reference to the objectivity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The scientific basis of abnormal behaviour has become the focus of debate; the key debate is whether the diagnoses and theories of abnormal behaviour reflect objective science or whether they reflect social values. Some argue that abnormality is simply a concept and is socially constructed; this idea is supported by Thomas Szasz (1960), who argues that society has invented the concept of mental illness to control people who threaten the social order (Comer, 2013). Arguments for this are come from the constant changes to the DSM guidelines, for example the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder that could be treated.
Some people would argue that some ideas or images are simply too dangerous or radical to be displayed to the public. How can this be a sound argument, when the same people enjoy and actively reference their freedom of speech? Think about if influential books, articles, or movies were never published simply because they were too “indecent” or, dare I say it, too “thought-provoking”. Since when did people start sacrificing knowledge and intelligence for safety? It’s apparent that at least some people tend to disagree with censorship, recently being the Supreme Court.
This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.
For instance, a sexual intercourse scene would definitely be censored in a movie. This type of censorship is beneficial for the children and also individual ls. It inhibits individuals from negatively influencing from these inappropriate contents. In contrast to my example above let’s take the censorship in music as an example. Music censorship has been a controversial subject for a long time.
The superego is our moral authority this developed through identification of our parent’s moral rules and the social norms of society If the ego fails to balance the id and the superego this can lead to conflict and may result in a psychological disorder. If the id is not balanced by the ego and it becomes dominate this can lead to destructive tendencies and adverse pleasurable behaviour. However, if the superego becomes dominate an individual may be unable to experience any form of pleasurable gratification. This leads on to Defence mechanisms which convert unconscious impulses into more acceptable forms. For example, with displacement an impulse may be redirected away from its original target onto a more acceptable one (e.g.
Despite the attractiveness of this service, it is considered in most countries to be an illegal infringement on the copyrights of the television channels that originally purchased the works for broadcasting. The dilemma faced by viewers is whether or not it is wrong for them to view their favourite show at their convenience on one of these websites despite these legal issues. I will analyze this issue from two basic ethical points of view: deontological and utilitarian. Based on the results of these analysis, I will conclude with a summation of which I find to be more compelling and why. Deontology is form of normative ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.
Introduction • Definition of “Moral panic” Main body • Origins of the term “Moral panic” • Various types and examples of “Moral panics” • Moral panics and the media • Beneficial examples of “Moral panic” Conclusion • Harmful examples of “Moral panic” Moral panic The meaning of moral panic is a reaction of fear, anger or disapproval from a group of people that is created on a false impression or an emphasized perception, where cultural comportment is dangerously different and fakes a hazard to civilization. It has also been generally explained as a condition, episode, a person or a group of persons that has been defined as a threat for the sake of social interests. These are the side effects of the disagreements that put together arguments and social uncertainties, or sometimes cannot be that easily discussed, for some moral panics may also be forbidden to many people because of different cultures. The description of the reaction of a group of people as a moral panic involves the belief of the group’s abilities to understand the true nature that are unfounded or over emphasized. These civil reactions are mostly provoked by the media or false information around a social issue, and sometimes it can happen that unplanned moral panics also occur.
Tommy McDonald ‘Game culture is a justifiable panic. Young people are at risk from such media products’ I disagree with the statement that game culture is a justifiable panic; and that young people are at risk from such media products. In the following essay, I will be trying to prove that this statement is incorrect and that people can think for themselves without being affected by game culture. The media effects theory (hypodermic needle, cultivation and two-step theory), assumes that audiences are offended by media texts. An extract from the Newson report says: ‘The principle that what is experienced... will have some effect on some people is an established one, and is the reason why the media find it worthwhile to spend millions of pounds on advertising.’ This claims a response to the murder of James Bulger by two 10 year old boys (where they watched Chucky: Play time and were influenced by what they saw).
Our generation is not simply more self-centered or less moral than our predecessors. I contend that this appearance of moral degeneration is more accurately perceived as moral confusion. When we ask why individuals act unethically, we must also be prepared to ask why it is that our ethics make it seem to be in the individual self-interest to do so. Because our common morality limits our freedom to behave in ways we might otherwise choose to, it
This statement can be debated. Many people tell lies to protect others, not get ourselves in trouble, and even for our own self benefit. These topics will be discussed and proven that being truthful isn’t always the right thing to do.”Like the sun”, and “The Censors” by R.K Narayan and Luisa Valenzuela, both show that by not telling the truth, it may sometimes benefit the society in the future. To begin with, “Like the sun” and “The Censors” show that lying may benefit us in the future. Protecting others is one reason people lie.