These confusions are perhaps not altogether surprising, since REBT has on the whole been developed primarily by psychologists rather than philosophers. Recently, however, philosophers have begun to take an active interest in developing new, philosophically more sophisticated versions of REBT. The most notable such theorist is perhaps Elliot Cohen, author of a chapter of Essays on Philosophical Counselling developing a 'logic-based' approach to REBT. In the second part of the paper I will consider Cohen's approach. Although this paper is in many ways critical of traditional REBT, its primary aim is not to argue against REBT but, more constructively, to further inter-disciplinary debate.
Each theory has their own similarities and differences which includes strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is ideal for a professional counselor to explore, and implement, many theories in his or her career. Adlerian Theory Key Concepts Adlerian Theory was developed by Alfred Adler who shared the same ideas as Freud but eventually concluded that Freud's concepts were too deterministic and limited. Adler eventually established his own theory of human development and psychotherapy, which he called Individual Psychology. Alfred Adler believed that understanding people grew from knowledge of their goals and drives, their family constellations, their social contexts, and their styles of life.
Leaders are risk-takers who are willing to give for those they represent without expecting anything but support in return. And finally, real leaders are leaders who are regarded as models, arousing inspiration and enthusiasm from those who follow them just for being the leaders they are. Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther King had their own views, principles and opinions when it came to leadership styles. The question is, however, who had the better blueprint. Martin Luther King and Niccolo Machiavelli had opposing feelings about the extent to which a conscience should have a role in the decision-making process of a leader.
Human Nature Thomas Hobbs and John Locke both developed well known theories on human nature and political philosophy. When we refer to these philosophers today Locke is seen as the optimist while Hobbes the pessimistic. Their theories of human nature translated into their views on how a society should be run. Despite their vast differences in views on human nature, they both agree that it is best for a society to have some form of social contract and a government enacted by the people. Hobbes pessimistic view on human nature was most likely a result of how he took in his surroundings.
Virtues and vices are said to be the basis of moral behavior. Honesty, kindness, and patience are examples of this basis. Kohlberg rejected this focus because the practice was too complex. He believed that a better approach was to focus on the stages of moral development, which are critical. He also rejected the relativist point of view in favor of the view that certain principles of justice and fairness represent the summit of moral maturity.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
I will also attempt to identify the barriers to communication in this dialogue and explore the reasons why these skills were used ineffectively, and suggest how they could have been improved upon. Rapport-building is defined by Robbins (1986, p. 207, as cited in Study Guide) as ‘the ability to enter someone else’s world, to make him feel that you understand him, that you have a strong common bond’ I think it is at the very core of effective interpersonal communication because it ‘is one of the most important features or characteristics of unconscious human interaction’ and without it the purpose of the interaction cannot be achieved. It is ‘commonality of perspective, being in "sync", being on the same "wavelength" as the person with whom you are talking’ (http://www.inspirationalsolutions-lp.co.uk/theimportanceofrapport.pdf). Following that line of thinking it is essential to establish rapport as soon as possible in a didactic interpersonal conversation, whatever the purpose of the discussion is – to learn, to relate, to play or to help (De Vito, p.80). The very first sentence that Hanna says demonstrates an attempt to establish rapport “Howya doing?” (he does not wait for an answer and continues talking)
This paper describes the interplay between research, theory, and personal belief based on the controversial work of British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt. During his career, he was considered an influential and esteemed psychologist. However, after his death his reputation became tarnished due to charges of fraudulent research practice. The controversy, known as “The Burt Affair,” refers to his alleged falsification of data to support his theory that heredity influences intelligence more than does environment. This controversy brings up a second question about the importance of research over theory and personal belief.
In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers. Kant reasoned that the morality of an action lies solely in the cause and not in the effect; that is, in order to call an action morally good or bad, one must first analyze the motives for carrying out said action, making sure the action itself is from duty and not just coinciding with it. He also gave the groundwork for understanding how to determine if an action is morally good or bad by use of what he calls the “categorical imperative”, where you take a principle in a given situation (such as lying) and imagine a world where every person lied all the time. That would raise a contradiction and paradox in itself, because in order for lies to exist, there must be the existence of truth; this contradiction, Kant claims, is the reason why it cannot, under any circumstances, be morally permissible. However, the
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the