The Soul of Ethics
and The Center for Story and Symbol
Course Review by Paul G. Mattiuzzi, Ph.D.
The essence of an ethical question is that it involves a dilemma that does not have an obvious answer. If the correct path can be found on a map, or the answer in a rule book, and if there are no values or mores to be weighed, the situation is not really a matter of ethics.
At the start of his course, The Soul of Ethics, Jonathon Young distinguishes between "normative ethics" (principles derived from rules), "care ethics" (principles that focus on the impact of choices made) and "virtue ethics." It is primarily the latter with which his course is concerned. The term "virtue ethics" refers to the character and motivations of the ethical person.
Describing the focus of his teaching, Young commented: "if we want to develop a professional (ethical) competency, we have to remain in touch with our inner sense of integrity." In words more specific to his approach, he said: "the process involves gaining access to our Self and inner wisdom."
To illuminate this central argument, he said that the task is to "listen to your better angels," as either Lincoln or Dickens might have advised (see the footnote below).
Young is a student of Jung. He was an assistant to and was the designated archivist for Joseph Campbell, and he is a proponent of Depth Psychology. His teaching model is neither Socratic nor didactic. His method involves story telling, mythic study, and the use of association and imagination in the interpretation of content. For the sake of convenience, it could be said that this is a "right brain" approach.
What he will explore during most of the course are the interpersonal tensions, character lessons, values conflicts and moral dilemmas presented in the films To Kill a Mockingbird and Fargo. Rather than explaining the story elements, Jonathon tells the stories and calls upon the audience to draw out the lessons.
Along with an animated presentation, Young provides rich comment on the films' visual elements, extended illustrations of their themes and dynamics, and comment on the historical and mythological allusions. In the process, much is revealed about the human condition, conflicting human passions, the therapeutic attitude and the therapeutic process. From this comes a connection to an attitude that is at the heart (or the soul) of ethical decision making. The learning process in this course is largely experiential. At the outset, Young says clearly that the meaning of the story cannot be understood if the story is not experienced.
The ethical values to be found in To Kill a Mockingbird are well known, most obviously involving the moral integrity and moral authority of Atticus Finch. In contrast, Fargo is a dark and twisted "comedy" with explicit elements of tragedy. Seemingly without any ethical core (it is more fundamentally an illustration of sociopathy), Fargo provides essential lessons about therapeutic detachment and objectivity that are associated with elements of character found in the protagonist, Marge Gunderson. Viewed as a film, it might be said that Fargo illuminates no redeeming values. Viewed as a story, we find that it provides warnings about the need to approach situations rationally, while (in Young's words), "artfully maintaining appropriate boundaries." The emphasis across both stories was on the task of "using role, power and authority with care."
Young was not trying to say that we should "feel" our way through the process of ethical decision making. A line from a poem presented in the class as a stimulus for a writing exercise reminded us that if we live just by our own intuitions, "we may follow the wrong god home."
Consistent with a recognition that you can't just look inside to find answers, and faithful to the demands of some licensing Boards, Young dutifully outlined essential rules of conduct and provided updates on various standards of practice. He did a good job talking about informed consent, HIPAA, Tarasoff, privilege, record keeping, mandatory reporting, etc. His course covers the necessary basics in an ordinary manner, and in covering the basics, it was only when he provided an update on Tarasoff that he demonstrated any unusual talent in presenting basic material. The most important update on the Tarasoff front is Ewing v. Goldstien, and because it is an actual case, rather than just a rule, it provided him with a story that could be told and animated. He told the story well, emphasizing the tragedies, hubris, betrayals and other human failings involved.
This is not a course for those who are preparing to pass a licensing exam. It is not a course that can be recommended for those who need specific guidance on specific situations. Jonathon Young does not provide a forum for those who need to work through how you should "do this" when "that" particular situation arises. He is not offering rule based or case specific analyses, and you will be disappointed if you expect debate and discussion about the infinite permutations that might alter the way we respond to any particular situation.
Some people make ethical errors because they are lacking in ethical values. Greed, pride, lust, sloth, convenience or prejudice might be determining factors in ethics related failings. Others commit errors with ethical implications because they misjudge facts or situations. Sometimes, clinicians are felled by the power of their good intentions. What Young is focusing on in this course is not the process of interpreting rules or the exercise of risk-management oriented thinking. Instead, what he presents is a values based argument. His suggestion is that we need to remain faithful to our "better angels," that we need to look to the values of our core Self, and that we need to guard against the Shadow elements in our unconscious life, the elements of our personality that might lead us astray.
At a practical level, what he is saying is that we can learn from the examples presented in timeless stories, and that in certain films, we can find "vivid images of characters who exemplify the virtues we should wish to emulate."
Rather than focusing on common rules, this course focuses instead on uncovering and celebrating uncommon integrity. To those who might wish to disparage or eschew the rules, asserting that they are dogmatic or bureaucratic, Young's response is that this attitude is misguided. As he noted, "if we were simply to apply moral principles, those principles would result in rules quite similar to the rules as they exist."
In discussing practical situations, Young duly noted that obtaining consultation is essential when faced with an ethical challenge. He correctly indicated that when a situation arises, you need to take careful notes and to seek advice, and that you have to go back and read the rules, even if you think you know them well. The only thing that was missing from his presentation was an assertion that relying just on your own counsel, alone, is in itself an ethical failing, whether it be the result of pride, hubris or fear. The only thing missing was a story to illustrate this point.
Review by paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d.
Based on attendance on March 22, 2008.
Full disclosure: I attended as a guest. My fee waiver for this and other courses was in exchange for an ad placement at psyris.com. No consideration was exchanged for the posting of this review.
Footnote: the phrase "better angels" is usually associated with Lincoln's First Inaugural. Jonathon noted that Charles Dickens was an original source. Neither advised that you should "listen to your better angels." Cursory research does not provide documentation that Lincoln lifted the phrase from Dickens, or that Lincoln's use can be sourced to Dickens. It was in 1861 that Lincoln said: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." In 1841, in Barnaby Rudge, Dickens wrote: "... the shadows of our own desires stand between us and our better angels, and thus their brightness is eclipsed.
At the start of his course, The Soul of Ethics, Jonathon Young distinguishes between "normative ethics" (principles derived from rules), "care ethics" (principles that focus on the impact of choices made) and "virtue ethics." It is primarily the latter with which his course is concerned. The term "virtue ethics" refers to the character and motivations of the ethical person.
Describing the focus of his teaching, Young commented: "if we want to develop a professional (ethical) competency, we have to remain in touch with our inner sense of integrity." In words more specific to his approach, he said: "the process involves gaining access to our Self and inner wisdom."
To illuminate this central argument, he said that the task is to "listen to your better angels," as either Lincoln or Dickens might have advised (see the footnote below).
Young is a student of Jung. He was an assistant to and was the designated archivist for Joseph Campbell, and he is a proponent of Depth Psychology. His teaching model is neither Socratic nor didactic. His method involves story telling, mythic study, and the use of association and imagination in the interpretation of content. For the sake of convenience, it could be said that this is a "right brain" approach.
What he will explore during most of the course are the interpersonal tensions, character lessons, values conflicts and moral dilemmas presented in the films To Kill a Mockingbird and Fargo. Rather than explaining the story elements, Jonathon tells the stories and calls upon the audience to draw out the lessons.
Along with an animated presentation, Young provides rich comment on the films' visual elements, extended illustrations of their themes and dynamics, and comment on the historical and mythological allusions. In the process, much is revealed about the human condition, conflicting human passions, the therapeutic attitude and the therapeutic process. From this comes a connection to an attitude that is at the heart (or the soul) of ethical decision making. The learning process in this course is largely experiential. At the outset, Young says clearly that the meaning of the story cannot be understood if the story is not experienced.
The ethical values to be found in To Kill a Mockingbird are well known, most obviously involving the moral integrity and moral authority of Atticus Finch. In contrast, Fargo is a dark and twisted "comedy" with explicit elements of tragedy. Seemingly without any ethical core (it is more fundamentally an illustration of sociopathy), Fargo provides essential lessons about therapeutic detachment and objectivity that are associated with elements of character found in the protagonist, Marge Gunderson. Viewed as a film, it might be said that Fargo illuminates no redeeming values. Viewed as a story, we find that it provides warnings about the need to approach situations rationally, while (in Young's words), "artfully maintaining appropriate boundaries." The emphasis across both stories was on the task of "using role, power and authority with care."
Young was not trying to say that we should "feel" our way through the process of ethical decision making. A line from a poem presented in the class as a stimulus for a writing exercise reminded us that if we live just by our own intuitions, "we may follow the wrong god home."
Consistent with a recognition that you can't just look inside to find answers, and faithful to the demands of some licensing Boards, Young dutifully outlined essential rules of conduct and provided updates on various standards of practice. He did a good job talking about informed consent, HIPAA, Tarasoff, privilege, record keeping, mandatory reporting, etc. His course covers the necessary basics in an ordinary manner, and in covering the basics, it was only when he provided an update on Tarasoff that he demonstrated any unusual talent in presenting basic material. The most important update on the Tarasoff front is Ewing v. Goldstien, and because it is an actual case, rather than just a rule, it provided him with a story that could be told and animated. He told the story well, emphasizing the tragedies, hubris, betrayals and other human failings involved.
This is not a course for those who are preparing to pass a licensing exam. It is not a course that can be recommended for those who need specific guidance on specific situations. Jonathon Young does not provide a forum for those who need to work through how you should "do this" when "that" particular situation arises. He is not offering rule based or case specific analyses, and you will be disappointed if you expect debate and discussion about the infinite permutations that might alter the way we respond to any particular situation.
Some people make ethical errors because they are lacking in ethical values. Greed, pride, lust, sloth, convenience or prejudice might be determining factors in ethics related failings. Others commit errors with ethical implications because they misjudge facts or situations. Sometimes, clinicians are felled by the power of their good intentions. What Young is focusing on in this course is not the process of interpreting rules or the exercise of risk-management oriented thinking. Instead, what he presents is a values based argument. His suggestion is that we need to remain faithful to our "better angels," that we need to look to the values of our core Self, and that we need to guard against the Shadow elements in our unconscious life, the elements of our personality that might lead us astray.
At a practical level, what he is saying is that we can learn from the examples presented in timeless stories, and that in certain films, we can find "vivid images of characters who exemplify the virtues we should wish to emulate."
Rather than focusing on common rules, this course focuses instead on uncovering and celebrating uncommon integrity. To those who might wish to disparage or eschew the rules, asserting that they are dogmatic or bureaucratic, Young's response is that this attitude is misguided. As he noted, "if we were simply to apply moral principles, those principles would result in rules quite similar to the rules as they exist."
In discussing practical situations, Young duly noted that obtaining consultation is essential when faced with an ethical challenge. He correctly indicated that when a situation arises, you need to take careful notes and to seek advice, and that you have to go back and read the rules, even if you think you know them well. The only thing that was missing from his presentation was an assertion that relying just on your own counsel, alone, is in itself an ethical failing, whether it be the result of pride, hubris or fear. The only thing missing was a story to illustrate this point.
Review by paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d.
Based on attendance on March 22, 2008.
Full disclosure: I attended as a guest. My fee waiver for this and other courses was in exchange for an ad placement at psyris.com. No consideration was exchanged for the posting of this review.
Footnote: the phrase "better angels" is usually associated with Lincoln's First Inaugural. Jonathon noted that Charles Dickens was an original source. Neither advised that you should "listen to your better angels." Cursory research does not provide documentation that Lincoln lifted the phrase from Dickens, or that Lincoln's use can be sourced to Dickens. It was in 1861 that Lincoln said: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." In 1841, in Barnaby Rudge, Dickens wrote: "... the shadows of our own desires stand between us and our better angels, and thus their brightness is eclipsed.