Is this a "thinking error" or a promotion of moral relativism?

[JChapel]

My (secular) therapist gave me a short article yesterday about thinking errors. While most of them make a lot of sense, like overgeneralization and emotional reasoning, I came across one which to me, sounds at least a little like its promoting moral relativism:

“Shoulds: You have a list of ironclad rules about how you and other people should act. People who break the rules anger you and you feel guilty if you violate the rules.”

What do you think?

 

[JChapel]

Here’s another definition from the back of the paper:

“Shoulds/or ‘Shoulds’ Statement: Operating from a list of inflexible rules about how you and other people ‘should’ act. There is no allowance for yourself or others, for variations in situations or changing conditions. Examples: I have to do it this way or else. I should never get angry. I should never make a mistake.”

 

[underacloud]

It depends on what you mean by "rules’ and “should”.

For example, table manners will differ from place to place, and what is acceptable at the table in one culture may be greatly offensive in another. These sorts of rules or shoulds are very subjective.

There are certain moral norms than are common though. Murder, adultery, etc are objectively wrong.

But keep in mind that the first statement you quote sounds a little like how the Pharisees behaved. Jesus taught us that mere adherence to rules is not the basis for moral behaviour, but our morality is based on love for God and our neighbour. Getting angry with people who break rules doesn’t sound like actions that are based in love.

 

[Dale_M]

“Shoulds: You have a list of ironclad rules about how you and other people should act. People who break the rules anger you and you feel guilty if you violate the rules.”

What do you think?

I think the “rules” being referred to aren’t connected to morality, but to neutral conduct e.g. depositing one’s dirty clothing into a laundry hamper instead of simply discarding them on the floor. Doing such a thing may be a sensible idea, but how upset should a person become if one’s children or spouse break the rule?

However, if you are concerned that the therapist doesn’t believe in the acceptability of believing in absolute morality, perhaps you should ask him or her about the topic.

 

[carn]

My (secular) therapist gave me a short article yesterday about thinking errors. While most of them make a lot of sense, like overgeneralization and emotional reasoning, I came across one which to me, sounds at least a little like its promoting moral relativism:

“Shoulds: You have a list of ironclad rules about how you and other people should act. People who break the rules anger you and you feel guilty if you violate the rules.”

What do you think?

Its absolutely correct, such things are errors of thinking and highly irrational. I for example have the irrational idea that one should not put babies on the garbage dumb to die. Most humans are plagued by such mistakes.

 

[RPRPsych]

As a (very part-time) therapist myself, this is an interesting discussion.

The concept of cognitive errors, also called thinking errors, is largely derived from the work of Aaron Beck, a psychotherapist who began his work largely in the field of depression, but subsequently worked on anxiety and marital troubles as well. However, the father of the concept is probably Albert Ellis, who developed a form of therapy called REBT (rational-emotive behavior therapy) that is the forerunner of modern cognitive therapies.

Beck noticed that many people who suffer from depression or anxiety tend to make errors in thinking. The “shoulds” that he referred to (also called “black-and-white thinking”) are not so much about moral issues - I’m not sure about Beck’s moral beliefs myself, so I won’t comment here - as on the assumptions we make about ourselves and others. They refer not so much to the rules we live by, as to an unnecessarily rigid and unrealistic interpretation of those rules.

A slightly facetious example: If I believe that my wife SHOULD show affection to me regularly, and that this entails that she SHOULD give me a cup of tea every evening when I get back from work, I would tend to feel angry or depressed if she didn’t do so, even if she had a good reason (such as being ill herself, or busy) for the omission.

On the other hand, if I believe that thou SHOULD not kill, I would certainly be justified in feeling angry or outraged about, say, abortion or female infanticide.

The difference between the two is that the first is a failure to grasp the shades of gray in an ordinary, day-to-day situation, whereas the latter is a moral rule that I (and many others!) live by. A good therapist is one who tries to help his or her clients with the first, but strictly respects the second and does not label it a “cognitive error”.

Of course, cognitive theory (like all human learning) does not exist in a vacuum - and if not applied with discernment and a moral compass, it can lead to relativism, as can most other psychological theories. So the answer to your question is “If interpreted prudently, no: if interpreted imprudently, yes”.

 

[Contarini]

Here’s another definition from the back of the paper:

“Shoulds/or ‘Shoulds’ Statement: Operating from a list of inflexible rules about how you and other people ‘should’ act. There is no allowance for yourself or others, for variations in situations or changing conditions. Examples: I have to do it this way or else. I should never get angry. I should never make a mistake.”

This approach certainly could reflect moral relativism, but it could also reflect a nuanced, healthy approach to virtue.

One can believe that certain things are intrinsically evil and still recognize that a rigid, rules-based approach to life is unhealthy. Ethics is based on principles and virtues–rules exist, but they are secondary.

Some things are always wrong, because there is no way that a virtuous person informed by moral principles could commit them (rape being an obvious example, or killing an innocent person).

But most decisions one makes in life aren’t that simple. People who assume that everything must be black-and-white are heading for serious trouble. Very few things are, and even the two examples mentioned above have some nuances. (For instance, some folks on this forum have suggested that a woman who chooses to have sex with her husband in order to “pay the marital debt” even though she doesn’t really feel much like it at the time is a victim of rape; and, of course, what counts as “killing an innocent person” can get very confusing in issues like pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, or withholding life-prolonging measures, or bombing campaigns against military targets in a just war, or the imposition of the death penalty based on the fallible judgment of judges and juries.)

Edwin