Rights-talk Will Not Sort Out Child-abuse: comment on Archard on parental rights

ABSTRACT  Argument about Rights can be either purely formal or substantial—meant to affect conduct. These two functions, which need different kinds of support, often become confused. The source of much confusion is the idea that rights-language is an all-purpose 'moral theory' which is in competition with others such as Utilitarianism. Since these are not really rivals but complementary aspects of moral thinking—parts of it, both of which need to be used along with many others—attempts to establish one of them as sole ruler are doomed to incoherence. The ambition to deploy an all-purpose thought-system is distinct from the moral motivation to change the world, and the two aims inevitably interfere with one another. Among these 'moral theories', however, the language of rights is specially ill-suited for all-purpose use. This becomes plain when philosophers, taking its adequacy for granted, conduct moral argument in terms of it alone, as if it were obviously appropriate, without background discussion. Rights-language is of particularly limited use because it is simply the most competitive and litigious of such thought-systems. Its win-or-lose formula allows no more scope for doing justice to defeated claims than a lawcourt does. For the serious conflicts of value that underlie large moral problems, this is disastrous.     

Exploring the Paradox of the Enjoyment of Sad Films

The concept of met emotions (appraisals of emotional reactions) was used in three studies designed to explore the enjoyment of sad films and to develop a scale that would reflect such gratifications. Study 1 showed that sad reactions in response to this type of entertainment were positively related to enjoyment and that females reported stronger reactions both in terms of enjoyment and in terms of sad responses than males. The Sad-Film Scale (SFS) developed in Study 1 was positively associated with measures of empathy, femininity, and positive appraisals of sad emotions. Study 2 found evidence of the scale's reliability and validity. Study 3 demonstrated predictive validity of the SFS in terms of the enjoyment of a specific sad film and in terms of favorable ratings of met emotions reported directly after viewing a sad film.     

Values and Ethics in Family Therapy

This article is an introduction to this special issue on values and ethical issues in family therapy. The author discusses the historical context for the rising interest in these issues in family therapy, describes the rationale for this special issue, and presents a framework for analyzing the core values of the prominent models of family therapy. The ethical debate over use of paradoxical techniques in family therapy is used as an illustration of a values clash between different models of family therapy.