From the Good Will to the Formula of Universal Law1

In the First Section of the Groundwork, Kant argues that a good‐willed person “under subjective limitations and hindrances” is required “never to act except in such a way that [she] could also will that [her] maxim should become a universal law.” Call this argument “K”. Although recent commentators (including Barbara Herman, Christine Korsgaard, Nelson Potter, and Allen Wood) have done much to clarify and defend many of the important claims Kant makes in the First Section, they have accurately identified neither K's premises nor the reasoning by means of which K's conclusion is derived. The result of this is that K's strengths are underappreciated. My aim is to rectify this state of affairs, by providing a detailed reconstruction of K, and thereby bring out the various ways in which the argument deserves our recognition and praise.     

Programmatic Writing: A “What To” Option for Professional Publication

The authors examine programmatic writing as a method of increasing expertise and success for counselors desiring professional development and recognition through publication.     

The Position of the Single-Parent Father

This article presents the profile and roles of the single-parent father. Problems that fathers face at work and at home are discussed. Recommendations are presented for counselors who work with single-parent fathers.     

Posthypnotic suggestions and behavior change: Highly hypnotizables compared with simulators

The authenticity of a posthypnotically released emotion was examined to see whether this emotion also could modify the reaction times (RTs) of subjects. The simulant design proposed by Orne (1979) was utilized, with 10 highly hypnotizable subjects and 10 non-hypnotizable simulators participating in the experiment. The subjects received a post-hypnotic suggestion to the effect that every presentation of a light stimulus would release a feeling of discomfort and that a second light stimulus would be neutral. They were informed that they could terminate the stimulation by pressing a RT switch and received a suggestion of amnesia for the posthypnotic suggestion. The simulators skilfully imitated the objective behavior of the hypnotic subjects; their physiological reactions increased and their RTs were shorter when exposed to the aversive stimulation. The main differences occurred in the subjective reports. The hypnotic subjects reported that the emotion was released involuntarily and found relief in escaping from it, while the simulators reported no corresponding experiences, saying that they had deliberately manipulated the objective behavior.