Natural Moral Sense as Basis for Professional Ethics: An Important Proposal but Unlikely to Produce Excellence

Psychologists' neglect of the very important basis for professional ethics and other ethical dimensions of psychology can be overcome, in part, by Hathaway's (2001) proposal to ground ethics, not on certain foundations provided by reason, but on natural moral sense. Strengths of this approach are discussed, including a qualified ethical realism and attention to nature and embodied ethical practice. Problems include: the extent to which it is legitimate to talk about a "natural" moral sense; a neglect of the cultural and historical origins of our moral sense; a failure to justify adequately how we can legitimately move from our sense that something is right to establishing that it really is right; a failure to provide a sufficiently substantive intellectual and motivational basis for practice; an invitation to rely on implicit and often problematic ethical assumptions; a failure to take sin seriously enough; and a failure to make room within an ethically pluralistic profession for particular ethical groundings (including those of Christian faith) for ethical practice. An approach to the ethical foundations of practice that builds upon Hathaway's approach, yet avoids its weaknesses, is sketched out briefly. Hathaway's (2001; this issue) argument that we need to better ad dress the foundations of psychology's ethics codes is most welcome. The basis for ethical ideas and actions -- what it means to be ethical and why we should act ethically -- is a crucial topic most psychologists neglect. Hathaway also rightly emphasizes the vital role played by stories, practical experience, and an embodied (as opposed to a purely abstract) approach to questions of what is good, right, and virtuous. I also think he's right to look for a middle ground between relativism and grounding ethics on "certain" beliefs or methods. Finally, I appreciate Hathaway's valid critique of the attempt to base ethics solely on reason. As MacIntyre (1984) argued convincingly, drawing in part upon Nietzsche's devastating critique of rationalistic ethics, the Enlightenment Project in ethics has failed. The essential question, then, is this: Upon what basis should ethics for psychologists be based? Although I do nor believe Hathaway has proposed the b est alternative for reasons I will address, I think his contribution moves the field in the direction of a better approach. The following vignette serves to illustrate my arguments: Dr. Struggling Disciple is a theologically trained Christian psychologist working in a large Christian counseling center in a local church. He is appointed by the local chapter of the United Way to a committee examining "value issues" in United Wayfunded programs. Joining him on the committee is Dr. Genial Free, a well-regarded, kind private practitioner who has no religious affiliation and who describes himself privately as a spiritual, atheistic, scientist-practitioner. Philosophically, he has been influenced by Derrida, Foucault, and Nietzsche, who see ethical assertions as veiled attempts to gain power over others rather than concern over what is really right or wrong, good or bad. The basis of his professional practice is that he feels good about himself and fulfilled when helping others. He consciously uses the language of helping others because it seems to produce greater change in clients, which makes him feel better about himself because his ethical perspective is individualistic, egoistic, and hedonistic. Acting proactively, the United Way wants values addressed in all funded programs, including psychological services, because in recent years, some on the right have withheld contributions to the United Way on ethical grounds because Planned Parenthood is funded. Others, on the left, have done the same on different ethical grounds because the Boy Scouts are funded. The United Way leadership wants the committee to analyze ethical issues in mental health programs. "Let's get at the base of the values of these programs," states the chair of the board, "so we can avoid any trouble in the future. …