It would be highly unethical for a psychiatrist to treat morals she doesn’t like as if it were an illness.
This statement requires some disambiguation.
On the face of it, you are claiming it would be immoral for a psychiatrist to treat what s/he believes are the malformed moral ideas of others as illnesses.
It may be, in fact “moral” for the psychiatrist to do just that. If an immoral patient sincerely believes that it is morally “right” to kill all prostitutes, the psychiatrist rightfully should treat this ostensibly “moral” belief as an illness.
The reason your statement is so confused is because the meaning of “morals” in “to treat morals” simply means the extant moral beliefs of patients. These beliefs are not necessarily correct as moral beliefs, so the psychiatrist has no compelling prima facie reason to treat them as legitimate merely because the patient believes them to be “moral” beliefs.
The psychiatrist has no ethical warrant for condoning or commending the beliefs as “moral” beliefs merely because the patient has them.
The other error you make is in assuming that the psychiatrist’s “moral” beliefs are not legitimately “moral” beliefs but merely on par with those of the patient.
Your most mistaken assumption is that there is no possible means by which to distinguish correct moral beliefs from errant ones. Thus you assume moral relativism is the de facto moral truth.
Moral philosophers may disagree somewhat on the content of what constitutes moral thinking, but the one point that is almost universally agreed upon is that moral relativism is logically incoherent. Yet, that is the ground of your position.
Why should anything be “highly unethical” for a psychiatrist if ethical simply reduces to what any individual thinks, as a matter of fact, what is right or wrong for them. Your position, allows that a psychiatrist who thinks it “acceptable” to treat morals they don’t like as illnesses has just as much warrant for doing so as your psychiatrist who believes otherwise, since “morals” including his own are merely individual and subjective in nature.
The disambiguation that is required is with regard to your use of “morals” in “treat morals she doesn’t like.” What you mean here is the set of moral beliefs currently held by the patient. Unfortunately, for you, at least, “moral” has another meaning - what is objectively good or bad for moral agents. Whether some, or even all, moral agents know or acknowledge such principles is irrelevant as to whether such principles exist.
Tacitly, you admit this, by claiming it is “highly unethical” for a psychiatrist to act in a certain way. Meaning all psychiatrists ought to be bound by such ethical principles as a matter of objective reality, whether they agree or not.
