Timmermann,Forschler, and The Attempt to Bridge the Kantian‐Consequentialist Gap

Scott Forschler defends R. M. Hare's rationalist‐universalizing‐utilitarian moral approach against Jens Timmermann's critique of it. He argues that Timmermann fails to see that Kant's ethical rationalism might be consistent with utilitarianism, and argues that Timmermann merely assumes that Kant's deontology follows logically from his ethical rationalism. In Forschler's estimation, it has not been established that either Kant's or Hare's ethical rationalism is inconsistent with utilitarianism. This article, however, argues that, in his response to Timmermann on behalf of Hare's rationalist‐universalizing‐utilitarian approach, Forschler has overlooked something very significant at the foundational level of Hare's moral approach, and that this oversight undercuts his response to Timmermann. The analysis also invites a metaethical investigation of preference satisfaction as it is found in Hare's moral approach. The article uncovers some fundamental metaethical presuppositions in Hare's normative approach, presuppositions overlooked by Forschler.     

An Interview With the Association for Spiritual,Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling Leaders: Craig S. Cashwell and J. Scott Young

American Counseling Association Fellows, past presidents of the Association for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling (ASERVIC), and close friends, Drs. Craig S. Cashwell and J. Scott Young have made a significant impact on the field of spirituality counseling over the past 20 years. This interview emphasizes their involvement in ASERVIC and the spirituality counseling field over the course of their careers and in the present, as well as the wisdom they have gained from their experiences.     

Anti-Autonomism Defended: A Reply to Hill

In the current issue of this journal, Scott Hill critiques some of my work on the “is”-“ought” controversy, the Hume-inspired debate over whether an ethical conclusion can be soundly, or even validly, derived from only non-ethical premises. I’ve argued that it can be; Hill is unconvinced. I reply to Hill’s critique, focusing on four key questions to which he and I give different answers.

Construct validation of the Self-Control Schedule

The present paper describes an investigation of the construct validity of the English version of M. Rosenbaum's (1980, Behavior Therapy, 11, 109–121) Self-Control Schedule (SCS). A total of 121 Brigham Young University students took the SCS and several other measures. t tests were conducted between the Brigham Young University student SCS means and the SCS means of samples from two midwestern universities. Pearson correlations between the SCS, the SCS subscales, Rotter's I-E scale, the Manifest Anxiety scale, and the Religious Orientation scale were computed. Reliability analyses were conducted on the SCS subscales. The results (a) provide additional normative data about the SCS, (b) further establish the comparability of the Hebrew and English versions of the SCS, (c) expand the nomological network and support the construct validity of the SCS, and (d) indicate that the SCS may have potential as a multidimensional instrument.     

Personality differentiation and prediction of persistence in physical science and engineering

Discriminant analyses techniques were applied to freshmen California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and Holland Vocational Interest Inventory (VPI) data for 914 male students and were used to predict curricular membership after two years of university education. The results suggest that those who persist in physical science, engineering or other curriculum are significantly discriminable from one another on the basis of freshman personality data, and that these personality variables show reasonable predictive stability when applied to a cross validation sample. Physical scientists appear to be markedly differentiated from engineers or others along an introspection-intellectual versus social conventional dimension. The predictive power of CPI and VPI personality variables while statistically exceeding chance is considerably less than that previously reported for ability or interest measures.     

THE PRESENT STATE OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS: An Update

A survey of developments over the last forty years suggests that little progress has been made in the development of comparative religious ethics as a discipline. While authors working in this field have produced a number of interesting works, the field lacks structure, including an agreement on the basic purpose, terms, and approaches by which contributions may be evaluated as better or worse. I provide an account of this history, suggesting that a way forward will involve marrying ethicists' interest in arguments with close attention to the more and less formal structures by which groups of people organize the giving and taking of reasons.