July 29, 2022 • 19 mins
Should you do what’s right for you—even if it means causing discomfort for someone else? That’s the kind of choice most of us face at some time in our lives. Dr. Saltz advises a listener who’s dealing with such a dilemma, and shares how the great philosophers have wrestled with these questions.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
These are challenging times, but you don't have to navigate
them alone. Welcome to how can I Help? I'm Dr
Gail Salt. I'm a clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at
the New York Presbyterian Hospital, a psychoanalyst, and best selling author,
and I'm here every week to answer your most pressing questions,
(00:26):
hopefully with understanding, insight and advice. We continue to live
in some very very stressful times. One of the stresses
is certainly that we are finding ourselves very divided as
a country in terms of many of our morals and values.
(00:47):
This kind of division can cause people to not only
have very different thoughts from one another, but also different behaviors,
expectations for behaviors, and even attempt to force others to
have certain behaviors. Today, I'm answering a question from a
listener who is struggling with the decision to make about
(01:09):
how she wants to behave in the face of family
members who have a different set of morals, values, and
even beliefs from her. I live in New York City,
where I often ride the train, and for everyone who
has ridden the train, the thought might cross their mind,
what if I just jumped the turnstile and didn't pay.
(01:32):
I could ride the train for free and probably no
one would notice and it won't really hurt anyone. The
way many people do not go on to make that
choice myself included, aside from the fear of breaking the law,
is by asking themselves what if everyone did that? The
answer is the system would likely go bankrupt and no
(01:55):
one would be able to ride the train anymore. It
would hurt many people. Moral philosophers have long believed that
this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best
way to make moral decisions. But do most people spontaneously
(02:16):
use this kind of moral judgment in their everyday lives.
In study of several hundred people, M I. T And
Harvard University did a research study that confirmed that people
do use this strategy in particular situations called threshold problems.
(02:36):
These are social dilemmas in which harm can occur if
everyone or a large number of people perform a certain action.
The authors devised a mathematical model that quantitatively predicts the
judgments that people are likely to make. They also showed
that children as young as four years old can use
(03:00):
this type of reasoning to judge right and wrong. They
found that this mechanism seems to be a way that
we spontaneously figure out what are the kinds of actions
that I can do that are sustainable in my community.
The concept of universalization has been included in philosophical theories
(03:22):
since at least the seventeen hundreds. It is one of
several strategies that philosophers believe people use to make moral judgments,
along with outcome based reasoning and rule based reasoning like
I don't want to break the law. However, there have
been few psychological studies of universalization, and many questions remain
(03:44):
regarding how often this strategy is used and under what circumstances.
And to look at those questions, this research team asked
participants to evaluate the morality of actions taken in situations
where harm could occur if too many people perform the action. So,
in one scenario, John, a fisherman, is trying to decide
(04:06):
whether to start using a new, more efficient fishing hook
that will allow him to catch more fish. But if
every fisherman in his village decided to use the hook,
there would soon be no fish left in the lake.
The researchers found that many subjects did use universalization to
(04:27):
evaluate John's actions, and that their judgments depended on a
variety of factors, including the number of people who were
interested in using the new hook and the number of
people using it that would trigger a harmful outcome. The
researchers created different versions of the scenario. In one, no
one else in the village was interested in using the
(04:49):
new hook, and in that scenario, most participants thought it
was acceptable for John to use it. But if others
in the village were interested but then chose not to
use it, then John's decision to use it was judged
to be morally wrong. In other words, it didn't matter
if the other people chose not to because they may
(05:10):
have been doing it for moral reasons, but the fact
that many people wanted to do it and if they
did it would be wrong, it was deemed wrong. Researchers
also found that they could use their data to create
a mathematical model that explains how people take different factors
into account, such as how many people want to do
(05:31):
the action, how many people doing it would cause harm,
and the model could accurately show or predict how people's
judgments change when these factors change. The researchers created scenarios
that they used to test judgments made by children between
the ages of four and eleven. One story featured a
(05:53):
child who wanted to take a rock from a path
and a part for his rock collection, and children were
asked to judge whether that was okay under two different scenarios.
One only one child wanted a rock, and in the
other many children wanted to take a rock home for
their collection, And they found that most of the children
(06:14):
deemed it wrong to take a rock if everyone wanted to,
but okay if there was only one child who wanted to.
But the children were not able to specifically explain why
they had made those judgments, unlike the adults, and so
it's important to understand that children, while they may not
be able to articulate it, do use universalization as a
(06:38):
method of deciding what is morally wrong. Though we have
laws and government regulations to legislate universalization, we can still
use this moral reasoning in those scenarios and in others,
especially if there isn't And I bring this up because
now as laws are changing and being debated, we need
(07:02):
to think about our own moral code. At the start
of the pandemic, before there were laws or regulations because
it was so new from agencies, various towns and communities
came together anyway to require masking for the safety of everyone.
There are many moral choices where we don't come together
(07:25):
using universalization issues like climate change and gun control. And
in the United States, especially this country, which rates highest
in the world on the scale of individuality, many people
think of the good of the individual ahead of the
(07:46):
good of the group, and that undermines the use of
this important technique of moral reasoning. So with that, right
after the break, we'll get to my listeners question. Welcome back.
(08:13):
Let's get to my listeners question and see how can
I help, dear doctor Saults. I am a gay woman.
I have known this since I was thirteen years old,
and at four years old, I would like to be
able to be my authentic self with my family. But
my parents are Evangelical Christian and they believe that being
(08:38):
gay is a sin, that being gay means you will
never be redeemable, and I fear their disapproval, their rejection,
and frankly, the loss of their love. I guess I
could continue there, don't ask, don't tell, policy, and just
avoid the topic. But at the same time, I hate
(08:59):
pretending to other than myself and lying about why I'm
not dating don't have a boyfriend, as well as having
the sense that it makes me feel bad about me.
I know it's no longer so unusual to come out,
but I also know that most people don't have such
religious parents. On the one hand, I feel like being
(09:22):
myself isn't hurting anyone, so why can't I be. On
the other hand, I do realize that being myself will
in all likelihood really hurt my parents, and I love
them and I don't want to hurt them. I don't
know how to make the best decision here. First, let
(09:44):
me say, as you suggest, this choice is yours and
yours alone, and what's right for someone other than you
may or may not be right for you. You can
choose whether, when, how, how much, and where to tell.
(10:06):
If you are considering telling, it's important, and I would
advise you to have someone or possibly a few people
who do know in your life that you are gay,
and who can be a support system for you in
the case that this doesn't go as you would hope
initially and you do need support. Your parents don't have
(10:28):
the right to demand you be a particular individual for them.
You are an adult, and who you are is who
you are. Your responsibility is to do the best by
yourself for yourself. I see that you are using the
principle of universalization and you are stuck with the idea
(10:50):
that you can't hurt them. But this moral reasoning idea
is about hurting large groups of people, and here you
are weighing yourself versus them. As an adult, the healthy
choice has to be you. But in order for the
(11:10):
choice to be healthy, you should consider various possibilities. Is
one parent more likely to be accepting. If so, I
would consider talking to that parent alone first and getting
their support as you tell the other parents. Is this
likely to be a completely safe conversation, in which case
(11:34):
a relaxed, non pressured private place is good. Or could
this become volatile and maybe even unsafe, in which case
a public venue which adds safety is what you should do.
Don't expect something positive at first. Reveal, give them time
(11:55):
to think about it, to ask questions, give them time
to process say. It can take time or an unaccepting
parent to realize that love outweighs everything else and to
be able to be accepting. Share only the part you
want to which may just simply be I am gay.
(12:19):
It may not be about partners or specifics. If you
don't wish it to be, you do not need to apologize.
Come in confident. You know yourself, You like yourself. You
aren't trying to hurt them. You're letting them into no
better who you are because you love them and are
(12:40):
willing to be closer and more vulnerable with them. This
is a good way to present it. If you want
more time to not share the information, that is okay too.
You know your parents, and in certain, albeit sad circumstances,
no information is say for But most of the time,
(13:03):
except under circumstances of toxic intolerance, it does feel better
for you and often even for the parents, to be
your authentic self. I hope that was helpful. There are,
of course, other ways to make moral decisions about what
to do in our lives, and much of them are
(13:25):
steeped in a long and important philosophical history. Here are
a few. Utilitarianism was conceived in the nineteenth century to
help legislatures determine which laws were morally best. They suggested
that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance
(13:46):
of good over evil. To analyze an issue using utilitarian approach, first,
identify the various courses of action available. Next, ask who
will be affected by each action and what benefits or
harms will be derived from each, and third, choose the
action that will produce the greatest benefit and the least harm.
(14:10):
The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest
good for the greatest number. Another method is called the
right's approach. It has its roots in philosophy of the
eighteenth century thinker Immanuel Kant, who focused on the individual's
right to choose for himself or herself. According to this philosopher,
(14:33):
what makes human beings different from mere things is that
people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely
what they will do with their lives, and they have
a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People
are not objects to be manipulated. It is a violation
(14:56):
of human dignity to use people in ways they do
not freely choose. Many other rights exist in this reasoning
as well. These other rights can be thought of as
different aspects of the basic right to be treated. As
we choose the right to the truth, we have a
right to be told the truth, and to be informed
(15:18):
about matters that significantly affect our choices. We have the
right of privacy to do, believe, and say whatever we
choose in our personal lives, so long as we do
not violate the rights of others. We have the right
not to be injured, to not be harmed unless we
freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment, or we
(15:42):
freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries. And we
have the right to what is agreed to, what has
been promised by those with whom we have freely entered
into a contract or agreement. In deciding whether an action
is moral or im more are all, and using this
second approach, we have to ask does the action respect
(16:06):
the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the
extent that they violate the rights of individuals. The more
serious the violation, the more wrongful the action. Another approach
is the common good approach to ethics, which assumes a
(16:27):
society compromising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to
the good of the community. Community members are bound by
the pursuit of common values and goals. The common good
is a notion that a rigidated more than two thousand
years ago in writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Sisera. We
(16:49):
focus on ensuring the social policies, social systems, institutions, and
environments on which we depend and which are beneficial to all. So,
for example, common good means things like affordable healthcare, effective
public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and
(17:11):
an unpolluted environment. So in appealing to the common good,
it's important to view ourselves as members of the same community,
reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society that
we want to become and how we are to achieve
that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals
(17:33):
to pursue their own goals, the common good approach challenges
us to recognize and further those goals that we share
in common. One last approach I wanted to discuss is
the virtue approach, which assumes there are certain ideals towards
which we should strive, which provide for the full development
(17:54):
of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection
on what kind of people we have the potential to become,
Because virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us
to be and act in ways that develop our highest potential.
They allow us to pursue the ideas that we have adopted. Honesty, courage,
(18:19):
from passion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self control, and prudence.
Those are all virtues, and once acquired, they become characteristic
of a person, and a person who has developed virtues
will naturally be disposed to act in ways consistent with
(18:40):
moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person. So
I just explain all this and hopes that all of
you would think about how you on a day to
day basis, and then within your community make your moral choices.
What benefit and what arms will each course of action
(19:01):
you do produce? And which alternative will lead to the
best overall consequences. What moral rights do the affected parties have?
And which course of action best respects everyone else's rights
as well? And which course of action treats everyone the
same except if there is a morally justifiable reason not
(19:25):
to and doesn't show discrimination for favoritism overall? Which course
of action will you take today that advances the common good?
Do you have a problem I can help with? If so,
email me yet? How can I help? At Seneca women
dot Com, all centers remain anonymous and listen every Friday too.
(19:51):
How can I help with me Dr Gail's Salts
These are challenging times, but you don't have to navigate
them alone. Welcome to how can I Help? I'm Dr
Gail Salt. I'm a clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at
the New York Presbyterian Hospital, a psychoanalyst, and best selling author,
and I'm here every week to answer your most pressing questions,
(00:26):
hopefully with understanding, insight and advice. We continue to live
in some very very stressful times. One of the stresses
is certainly that we are finding ourselves very divided as
a country in terms of many of our morals and values.
(00:47):
This kind of division can cause people to not only
have very different thoughts from one another, but also different behaviors,
expectations for behaviors, and even attempt to force others to
have certain behaviors. Today, I'm answering a question from a
listener who is struggling with the decision to make about
(01:09):
how she wants to behave in the face of family
members who have a different set of morals, values, and
even beliefs from her. I live in New York City,
where I often ride the train, and for everyone who
has ridden the train, the thought might cross their mind,
what if I just jumped the turnstile and didn't pay.
(01:32):
I could ride the train for free and probably no
one would notice and it won't really hurt anyone. The
way many people do not go on to make that
choice myself included, aside from the fear of breaking the law,
is by asking themselves what if everyone did that? The
answer is the system would likely go bankrupt and no
(01:55):
one would be able to ride the train anymore. It
would hurt many people. Moral philosophers have long believed that
this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best
way to make moral decisions. But do most people spontaneously
(02:16):
use this kind of moral judgment in their everyday lives.
In study of several hundred people, M I. T And
Harvard University did a research study that confirmed that people
do use this strategy in particular situations called threshold problems.
(02:36):
These are social dilemmas in which harm can occur if
everyone or a large number of people perform a certain action.
The authors devised a mathematical model that quantitatively predicts the
judgments that people are likely to make. They also showed
that children as young as four years old can use
(03:00):
this type of reasoning to judge right and wrong. They
found that this mechanism seems to be a way that
we spontaneously figure out what are the kinds of actions
that I can do that are sustainable in my community.
The concept of universalization has been included in philosophical theories
(03:22):
since at least the seventeen hundreds. It is one of
several strategies that philosophers believe people use to make moral judgments,
along with outcome based reasoning and rule based reasoning like
I don't want to break the law. However, there have
been few psychological studies of universalization, and many questions remain
(03:44):
regarding how often this strategy is used and under what circumstances.
And to look at those questions, this research team asked
participants to evaluate the morality of actions taken in situations
where harm could occur if too many people perform the action. So,
in one scenario, John, a fisherman, is trying to decide
(04:06):
whether to start using a new, more efficient fishing hook
that will allow him to catch more fish. But if
every fisherman in his village decided to use the hook,
there would soon be no fish left in the lake.
The researchers found that many subjects did use universalization to
(04:27):
evaluate John's actions, and that their judgments depended on a
variety of factors, including the number of people who were
interested in using the new hook and the number of
people using it that would trigger a harmful outcome. The
researchers created different versions of the scenario. In one, no
one else in the village was interested in using the
(04:49):
new hook, and in that scenario, most participants thought it
was acceptable for John to use it. But if others
in the village were interested but then chose not to
use it, then John's decision to use it was judged
to be morally wrong. In other words, it didn't matter
if the other people chose not to because they may
(05:10):
have been doing it for moral reasons, but the fact
that many people wanted to do it and if they
did it would be wrong, it was deemed wrong. Researchers
also found that they could use their data to create
a mathematical model that explains how people take different factors
into account, such as how many people want to do
(05:31):
the action, how many people doing it would cause harm,
and the model could accurately show or predict how people's
judgments change when these factors change. The researchers created scenarios
that they used to test judgments made by children between
the ages of four and eleven. One story featured a
(05:53):
child who wanted to take a rock from a path
and a part for his rock collection, and children were
asked to judge whether that was okay under two different scenarios.
One only one child wanted a rock, and in the
other many children wanted to take a rock home for
their collection, And they found that most of the children
(06:14):
deemed it wrong to take a rock if everyone wanted to,
but okay if there was only one child who wanted to.
But the children were not able to specifically explain why
they had made those judgments, unlike the adults, and so
it's important to understand that children, while they may not
be able to articulate it, do use universalization as a
(06:38):
method of deciding what is morally wrong. Though we have
laws and government regulations to legislate universalization, we can still
use this moral reasoning in those scenarios and in others,
especially if there isn't And I bring this up because
now as laws are changing and being debated, we need
(07:02):
to think about our own moral code. At the start
of the pandemic, before there were laws or regulations because
it was so new from agencies, various towns and communities
came together anyway to require masking for the safety of everyone.
There are many moral choices where we don't come together
(07:25):
using universalization issues like climate change and gun control. And
in the United States, especially this country, which rates highest
in the world on the scale of individuality, many people
think of the good of the individual ahead of the
(07:46):
good of the group, and that undermines the use of
this important technique of moral reasoning. So with that, right
after the break, we'll get to my listeners question. Welcome back.
(08:13):
Let's get to my listeners question and see how can
I help, dear doctor Saults. I am a gay woman.
I have known this since I was thirteen years old,
and at four years old, I would like to be
able to be my authentic self with my family. But
my parents are Evangelical Christian and they believe that being
(08:38):
gay is a sin, that being gay means you will
never be redeemable, and I fear their disapproval, their rejection,
and frankly, the loss of their love. I guess I
could continue there, don't ask, don't tell, policy, and just
avoid the topic. But at the same time, I hate
(08:59):
pretending to other than myself and lying about why I'm
not dating don't have a boyfriend, as well as having
the sense that it makes me feel bad about me.
I know it's no longer so unusual to come out,
but I also know that most people don't have such
religious parents. On the one hand, I feel like being
(09:22):
myself isn't hurting anyone, so why can't I be. On
the other hand, I do realize that being myself will
in all likelihood really hurt my parents, and I love
them and I don't want to hurt them. I don't
know how to make the best decision here. First, let
(09:44):
me say, as you suggest, this choice is yours and
yours alone, and what's right for someone other than you
may or may not be right for you. You can
choose whether, when, how, how much, and where to tell.
(10:06):
If you are considering telling, it's important, and I would
advise you to have someone or possibly a few people
who do know in your life that you are gay,
and who can be a support system for you in
the case that this doesn't go as you would hope
initially and you do need support. Your parents don't have
(10:28):
the right to demand you be a particular individual for them.
You are an adult, and who you are is who
you are. Your responsibility is to do the best by
yourself for yourself. I see that you are using the
principle of universalization and you are stuck with the idea
(10:50):
that you can't hurt them. But this moral reasoning idea
is about hurting large groups of people, and here you
are weighing yourself versus them. As an adult, the healthy
choice has to be you. But in order for the
(11:10):
choice to be healthy, you should consider various possibilities. Is
one parent more likely to be accepting. If so, I
would consider talking to that parent alone first and getting
their support as you tell the other parents. Is this
likely to be a completely safe conversation, in which case
(11:34):
a relaxed, non pressured private place is good. Or could
this become volatile and maybe even unsafe, in which case
a public venue which adds safety is what you should do.
Don't expect something positive at first. Reveal, give them time
(11:55):
to think about it, to ask questions, give them time
to process say. It can take time or an unaccepting
parent to realize that love outweighs everything else and to
be able to be accepting. Share only the part you
want to which may just simply be I am gay.
(12:19):
It may not be about partners or specifics. If you
don't wish it to be, you do not need to apologize.
Come in confident. You know yourself, You like yourself. You
aren't trying to hurt them. You're letting them into no
better who you are because you love them and are
(12:40):
willing to be closer and more vulnerable with them. This
is a good way to present it. If you want
more time to not share the information, that is okay too.
You know your parents, and in certain, albeit sad circumstances,
no information is say for But most of the time,
(13:03):
except under circumstances of toxic intolerance, it does feel better
for you and often even for the parents, to be
your authentic self. I hope that was helpful. There are,
of course, other ways to make moral decisions about what
to do in our lives, and much of them are
(13:25):
steeped in a long and important philosophical history. Here are
a few. Utilitarianism was conceived in the nineteenth century to
help legislatures determine which laws were morally best. They suggested
that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance
(13:46):
of good over evil. To analyze an issue using utilitarian approach, first,
identify the various courses of action available. Next, ask who
will be affected by each action and what benefits or
harms will be derived from each, and third, choose the
action that will produce the greatest benefit and the least harm.
(14:10):
The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest
good for the greatest number. Another method is called the
right's approach. It has its roots in philosophy of the
eighteenth century thinker Immanuel Kant, who focused on the individual's
right to choose for himself or herself. According to this philosopher,
(14:33):
what makes human beings different from mere things is that
people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely
what they will do with their lives, and they have
a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People
are not objects to be manipulated. It is a violation
(14:56):
of human dignity to use people in ways they do
not freely choose. Many other rights exist in this reasoning
as well. These other rights can be thought of as
different aspects of the basic right to be treated. As
we choose the right to the truth, we have a
right to be told the truth, and to be informed
(15:18):
about matters that significantly affect our choices. We have the
right of privacy to do, believe, and say whatever we
choose in our personal lives, so long as we do
not violate the rights of others. We have the right
not to be injured, to not be harmed unless we
freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment, or we
(15:42):
freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries. And we
have the right to what is agreed to, what has
been promised by those with whom we have freely entered
into a contract or agreement. In deciding whether an action
is moral or im more are all, and using this
second approach, we have to ask does the action respect
(16:06):
the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the
extent that they violate the rights of individuals. The more
serious the violation, the more wrongful the action. Another approach
is the common good approach to ethics, which assumes a
(16:27):
society compromising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to
the good of the community. Community members are bound by
the pursuit of common values and goals. The common good
is a notion that a rigidated more than two thousand
years ago in writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Sisera. We
(16:49):
focus on ensuring the social policies, social systems, institutions, and
environments on which we depend and which are beneficial to all. So,
for example, common good means things like affordable healthcare, effective
public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and
(17:11):
an unpolluted environment. So in appealing to the common good,
it's important to view ourselves as members of the same community,
reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society that
we want to become and how we are to achieve
that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals
(17:33):
to pursue their own goals, the common good approach challenges
us to recognize and further those goals that we share
in common. One last approach I wanted to discuss is
the virtue approach, which assumes there are certain ideals towards
which we should strive, which provide for the full development
(17:54):
of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection
on what kind of people we have the potential to become,
Because virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us
to be and act in ways that develop our highest potential.
They allow us to pursue the ideas that we have adopted. Honesty, courage,
(18:19):
from passion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self control, and prudence.
Those are all virtues, and once acquired, they become characteristic
of a person, and a person who has developed virtues
will naturally be disposed to act in ways consistent with
(18:40):
moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person. So
I just explain all this and hopes that all of
you would think about how you on a day to
day basis, and then within your community make your moral choices.
What benefit and what arms will each course of action
(19:01):
you do produce? And which alternative will lead to the
best overall consequences. What moral rights do the affected parties have?
And which course of action best respects everyone else's rights
as well? And which course of action treats everyone the
same except if there is a morally justifiable reason not
(19:25):
to and doesn't show discrimination for favoritism overall? Which course
of action will you take today that advances the common good?
Do you have a problem I can help with? If so,
email me yet? How can I help? At Seneca women
dot Com, all centers remain anonymous and listen every Friday too.
(19:51):
How can I help with me Dr Gail's Salts
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.