Non-Naturalist Moral Realism,Autonomy and Entanglement

It was something of a dogma for much of the twentieth century that one cannot validly derive an ought from an is. More generally, it was held that non-normative propositions do not entail normative propositions. Call this thesis about the relation between the natural and the normative Natural-Normative Autonomy (or Autonomy for short). The denial of Autonomy involves the entanglement of the natural with the normative. Naturalism entails entanglement—in fact it entails the most extreme form of entanglement—but entanglement does not entail naturalism. In a ground-breaking paper “The autonomy of ethics” Arthur Prior constructed some intriguing counterexamples to Autonomy. While his counterexamples have convinced few, there is little agreement on what is wrong with them. I present a new analysis of Autonomy, one which is grounded in a general and independently plausible account of subject matters. While Prior’s arguments do establish shallow natural-normative entanglement, this is a consequence of simple logical relationships that hold between just about any two subject matters. It has nothing special to do with the logical structure of normativity or its relation to the natural. Prior’s arguments (along with several others) leave the fundamental idea behind natural-normative Autonomy intact. I offer a new argument for deep entanglement. I show that in any framework adequate for dealing with the natural and the normative spheres, a purely natural proposition entails a purely normative proposition, and vice-versa. But this is no threat to non-naturalist moral realism. In fact it helps ameliorate the excesses of an extreme non-naturalism, delivering a more palatable and plausible position.     

Recording supervision: Educational,therapeutic, and enhances the supervisory working alliance?

Aims: To explore the impact of listening to an audio‐recording of their latest supervision session on supervisees. Method: Participants recorded a supervision session, listened to it and were interviewed about this experience of listening to it within seven days of listening to the recording. The phenomenological interviews informed by the researcher's knowledge were analysed using grounded theory. Participants: Fifteen participants with 0–20 years’ experience, representing person‐centred, CBT, psychodynamic and integrative approaches, and qualifications ranging from student to doctorate formed the theoretical sample. Findings: Listening to the audio‐recording allowed participants to re‐experience their thoughts and emotions. Participants recalled and re‐experienced events which had been forgotten, unnoticed or (arguably) repressed. This re‐experiencing was usually less emotive than in real‐time; but suppressed emotions could be more intense. As participants integrated both these noticed and unnoticed events, they were able to accept what had been unacceptable, gaining self‐awareness, which was potentially therapeutic. Noticing what had been unnoticed permitted insights into many aspects of therapy and supervision, which was more than just ‘reflection‐on‐action’. Conclusion: Listening to an audio‐recording of the latest supervision may be educational for any supervisee; it may be therapeutic by facilitating challenge of maladaptive beliefs and behaviours; and it also seems to strengthen the supervisory working alliance.