Types of Ethical Dilemmas for Psychologists

Types of Ethical Dilemmas for Psychologists

       There are numerous ethical dilemmas for each job. But being a psychology is like being a priest .You share the same confidentiality as a priest. Even if the patient has things that might endanger himself or others around him you cannot tell anyone. But as a psychologist we can always put them in the mental hospital if necessary. Though there are some things which you cannot solve like a sexually-active patient with HIV, you can always advice the patient to do the right thing. 

         If a psychologist is ever given a patient who he is close to and it may affect his judgement, he can always direct the patient to another available psychologist. If you get too emotionally attached to a patient that it affects the treatment, try to the right thing and refer him to another psychologist. There never was any problem with this. I just had to include it because it as part of the ethical dilemmas mentioned. I instead gave solutions to it.

      Dealing with payment is an issue. Getting psychiatric help is very expensive and as a person and a psychologist you have to choose what is more important. Helping someone or getting money to survive. It all depends on the situation. If you have more than you can ask for, you can always help those in need. This may pose as dilemma to others but to the remaining ones it may come down to common sense. Helping yourself or a person you don't know.

Major Lessons Learned in Philosophy

Major Lessons Learned in Philosophy

     Well first let me just say that the topics I will mention below are the things I've learned during the finals period only. Then let's begin. The most memorable one is the topic about laws. As a teenager going to adulthood it's good to know your rights and duties as a citizen. Like "The right to redress in the event of a violation of these rights". I don't know what that means but I'm sure it'll come in handy someday. Okay so I've just read that it means remedy or compensation for a wrong or grievance. Which makes sense than changing the dress or wearing a red dress.

       The next one is about bioethics. Bioethics is the morality concerned in improving one's self or humanity. An example of this is self enhancement. The type of self enhancement that uses medicine and genetically engineering the human's DNA. There are 4 things to consider for bioethics in self enhancement. Safety -Tampering with DNA is very risky so it can cause health problems. Cheating - Of course we may use self enhancement to cheat our way through life, and cheating in itself is immoral. Excessive Pride- The enhancers propose radically altering our genes in an evolutionary blink of an eye. They want to start adding DNA to embryos and manufacturing new genes to insert in our eyes and ears and muscles. Can the brain and body handle such extraordinary shake-ups? Equality - The rich will be enhanced first. Only folks with cash to burn will be able to afford the fancy new memory drugs or fiendishly complicated new gene transfer technologies. BUT if they ever have an advancement that can get me spiderman powers then I'm all in. I've always dreamed of doing a back flip. 

Human Person and Logical Fallacies

Human Person and Logical Fallacies

      When we choose to put ourselves in to the public, we must expect to receive so much criticism. You will soon find that people will go out of their way just to prove you wrong, and they will use anything they can think of, even hurt you emotionally. Of course, people who often insist upon hurting a person while avoiding the real argument that person presents find fault in his or her conduct or character. This personal attack is the classic fallacy know as argumentum ad hominem or simply"attacking the person."Ad hominem attacks may or may not be true. The point is that an ad hominem is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of your opponent's arguments or assertions.

       Logical fallacies are arguments that have no meaning or unreliable. Ad hominem is one of the best and most used fallacy so I made it as an example. Some people even believe that some logical fallacies can be used as an actual argument. For example the famous Argumentun ad Populum. Celebrities advertising products they know nothing about but the watchers believe it because  he/she is popular. To stop falling for logical fallacies we must ask ourselves. Is the argument related to the topic? If so is it backed up by real evidence?

Cienca y Virtud

Cienca y Virtud 

            Good afternoon everyone. I am much honored to speak before you today. I was always the guy how had so much laziness that if the apocalypse happened outside my window I would still be sleeping in my bed. So much has happened that made me what I am today. But I’ll give you the short version. It was all because of ciencia y virtud, science and virtue. It was the middle of my second semester during my first year here in CEU. As usual I was coming to class without a care in the world and only did enough so that I would pass. But when I received my grade in a particular subject I felt nervous. I had gotten 3.5. It was just the prelims but I got terrified because I might fail. I knew that I needed to get it back somehow so I studied hard. I thought that I could just cheat and get it over with. But that would be wrong plus this subject was something that you could not cheat. I’m not saying that I would if it was plausible. Okay maybe I would. Anyway during the first quiz at midterms I knew that I was ready and I could actually pass. It was an awesome feeling. That feeling when you pass and you actually studied. I never truly felt this before. Because of that I eventually passed. Maybe I did get lazy again from time to time but I always picked up myself whenever. Time came when I really got serious because of this gnawing feeling that all the years I have spent studying would be for nothing.

The reason why CEU’s motto is ciencia y virtud is because having only one isn’t enough. Be it only science would be living without caring what is right or wrong, just doing what is in your knowledge to succeed and not caring about other people. Even though it looks right at some point, you’ll never succeed in life without virtues for they help you make connections and friends. No man is an island; everyone needs help at some point in their lives. This works vice versa. Having only virtue means that not having enough knowledge to get by. Do you know why this is CEU’s motto? It’s because it’s their job to help us succeed. We could just take this lightly and ignore it but it was made for a reason. It’s perfect for helping us be what we want and need to be.

Major Lessons Learned

D.

Major Lessons Learned

     I'll be blunt. I don't remember some of the lessons we discussed because of my unreliable memory. The things I remember are truth vs. reality, cultural relativism and logical fallacies. In truth vs reality I learned that truth means a fact accepted by an individual while reality are facts that are accepted by everyone. For example, others don't believe the lunar landing with Neil Armstrong(refer to the link below) while we know for sure that it happened. For reality everyone knows that when you throw an apple  upwards it will eventually fall.

            Cultural relativism states that morals are varies from culture to culture. For example in China death penalty is legal, but in the Philippines it is not.

              Logical fallacies are used to make a statement seem true even thought they're not. For example:

Noisy children cause headaches

Aspirin makes headaches go away

Therefore, aspirin makes noisy children go away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZ_LCnkE7A

Science vs. Philosophy

C.

The Similarities and Differences Between Science and Philosophy

      Before enumerating the similarities and differences between the two let me define them first. According to the dictionary philosophy means "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.", while science means "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural". With enough change from the fallacy of equivocation, it can be said that they have the same meaning... and that is wrong. They used to be the same when philosophy meant science but now philosophy is different being every person who says an inspirational quote can be said as a philosopher, well of course they're not. In many aspects they help each other become better and more broad. Speaking for how broad they are, there are so many categories in each subject that they can make the universe look like an ant in a field of crops.

         I got a little off topic because they are just that broad that you can't help but cite other examples. Science helps philosophy by using facts from discoveries to use as evidences for making generalizations while philosophy helps science by using it's unique world-view and universal principles. In other words, with every advancement in the field of science, it also develops the philosophical methodology. On the other hand, philosophical statements are used for summing up achievements in specialized sciences. In conclusion, science helps philosophy more if viewed in a measurable way but one cannot function without the other.

References: Dialectical Materialism (A. Spirkin)Chapter 1. Philosophy As A World-View And A Methodology

Philosophy Is Not a Science by Julian Friedland

             It is what the title implies. The author states that philosophy is not a science and cites examples to prove his point. In summary it says there that philosophy back in the day used to be "all that" but for an idea to be counted as a philosophical discovery it needs to be investigated in it's own terms or else it would be in another branch of science. In the end, scientific discoveries are less likely  to succeed in gaining permanent place in the heart of logic whereas discoveries made in the philosophical way gains immortality because of the unique way of proving statements that philosophy uses.

My Ideal Philosopher

B

My Ideal Philosopher

       Bertrand Arthur William Russell (b.1872 – d.1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. Russell is generally recognized as one of the founders of modern analytic philosophy.[1]

      He became one of my favorites because of his saying "Common sense, however it tries, cannot avoid being surprised from time to time". It's similar to Socrates' saying "I know that I know nothing" in the sense that even with the knowledge available to us through advances in science and technology, we can't help but be surprised by new knowledge. Sometimes common sense isn't the only basis for judgement.  Common sense, in itself is unexplainable because the word common varies from one person to another.

Reference: 

1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/