Bonnie steinbeck. Works by Bonnie Steinbock 2022-12-20
Bonnie steinbeck Rating:
6,1/10
402
reviews
Bonnie Steinbeck was a pioneer in the field of psychology and a leading figure in the development of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Born in 1919 in New York City, Steinbeck received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College and her master's degree in psychology from Columbia University. She later went on to earn her Ph.D. in psychology from New York University.
Steinbeck's early career focused on the study of learning and conditioning in animals, but she eventually turned her attention to the study of human behavior and cognition. She became particularly interested in the role that thoughts and beliefs play in shaping our emotions and behaviors. This interest led her to develop CBT, which is a form of therapy that focuses on helping people identify and change negative thought patterns and behaviors that are contributing to their emotional distress.
Throughout her career, Steinbeck made significant contributions to the field of psychology and helped to establish CBT as a widely recognized and effective treatment for a variety of mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. She also wrote several influential books on CBT, including "Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders," which remains a classic text in the field.
In addition to her work as a researcher and therapist, Steinbeck was also an advocate for mental health awareness and education. She believed that everyone should have access to quality mental health care and worked to promote the importance of seeking treatment for mental health issues.
Bonnie Steinbeck's legacy in the field of psychology is significant and enduring. She made important contributions to our understanding of how thoughts and beliefs shape our emotions and behaviors, and her work has helped millions of people around the world overcome mental health challenges and live happier, healthier lives.
Rights of Animals: Peter Singer' and Bonnie Steinbock' Views
That is why Singer places at the basis of the demandfor equality, not intelligence or reason, but sentience. Human beings are manifestly not equal, differing greatly in intelligence, virtue and capacities. Secondly, although rationality accords human beings a higher standing than animals, to the extent that they are equal, equality in treatment should apply. While we are not compelled to discriminate among people because of different capacities, if we can find a significant difference in capacities between human and nonhuman animals, this could serve to justify regarding human interests as primary. What is philosophically interesting is whether we are justified in having different standards of necessity for human suffering and for animal suffering. Nevertheless, even this recognition will mean some radical changes in our attitude toward and treatment of other species. Steinbock also puts forward the interests view, which limits moral status to people who have interests in their future and restricts the possession of interests to people who are conscious of the world around them.
This is the conclusion Singer arrives at. As a student reads Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, the material continuously adapts to ensure that he or she is focused on the content most crucial to closing specific knowledge gaps. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. . If we value the lives of human beings more than the lives of animals, this is because we value certain capacities that human beings have and animals do not. Singer is right, I think, to point out that it will not do to refer vaguely to the greater value of human life, to human worth and dignity: Faced with a situation in which they see a need for some basis for the moral gulf that is commonly thought to separate humans and animals, but can find no concrete difference that will do this without undermining the equality of humans, philosophers tend to waffle.
Bonnie Steinbock (born February 6, 1947), American Philosophy educator
. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support jstor. Learn More The difference does not necessarily mean inequality. JSTOR 's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work.
To point this out is of course only to say that the justification for the treatment of an entity will depend on the sort of entity in question. For example, human beings are normally held to be responsible for what they do. Yet, she insists there is nothing wrong with us extending special care to members of our own species before the wellbeing of other …show more content… She would easily defend her claim saying that humans have the obligation to take care of their own. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine: Contemporary Readings in Bioethics, Eighth Edition, is a comprehensive, state-of-the-art anthology that covers both traditional and emerging issues in the field of biomedical ethics with engaging case studies and reflective papers written by leading scholars. For example, human beings are normally held to be responsible for what they do. This means that our moral dealingswith animalsare necessarilymuch more limited than our dealings with other human beings. We are sometimes motivated simply by the recognition that someone else is in pain, and that pain is a bad thing, no matter who suffers it.
In The Netherlands voluntariness and unbearable suffering are required for euthanasia. But there may be some ends, which are very good such as the advancement of medical knowledge , which can be accomplished by subjecting animals to pain in experiments. It does rule out altruistic motivation in the sense of motivation due to the recognition that the 9 Singer, 266-267. For Steinbock 251 , the issue of cruelty toward animals is not of philosophical interest. Secondly, human beings can be expected to reciprocate in a way that nonhuman animals cannot. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work.
They resort to high-sounding phrases like 'the intrinsic dignity of the human individual'. One has a prima facie reason not to pull the cat's tail whether or not the cat has rights because it hurts the cat. But I doubt that the value of an entity's life can be separated from the value of its suffering in this way. The moral philosopher has to ask what relevant difference justifies this difference in treatment. In order to answer this question, we have to give some sense to the phrase, 'All men human beings are created equal'. Huck Finn felt guilty at helping Jim escape, which he viewed as stealing from a woman who had never done him any harm.
Now this particular reason extends not only to human beings, but to all sentient creatures. This seems to be a platitude, but Williams denies that it is trivial. It is being "speciesist" in a perfectly reasonable use of the word. February 6, 1947 New York City Assistant professor, College of Wooster, Ohio. It has been suggested by Peter Singer1 that our current attitudes are 'speciesist', a word intended to make one think of 'racist' or 'sexist'.
Bonnie Steinbock "Most Abortions are Morally Legitimate" Textual Analysis
It is Singer's contention that claims to equality do not rest on factual equality. Should such directives be implemented even though, at the time, the person. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine: Contemporary Readings in Bioethics A Doody's Core Title for 2015! Secondly, human beings can be expected to reciprocate in a way that non-human animals cannot. If this is speciesism, it is stripped of its tone of moral condemnation. Such considerationsmight affect our attitudes toward zoos and circuses. It also includes a corpus of the standard thought on the debate by Jonathan Bennet, Daniel Dinello, Jeffrie Murphy, John Harris, Philipa Foot, Richard Trammell, and N. .
The principle of equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. To think it is justifiable to experiment on an adult chimpanzee but not on a severely mentally incapacitated human being seems to be focusing on membership in a species where that has no moral relevance. However, there is a need to define to what extent humans are equal to non-human animals or what rights are sharable between animals and humans. There is, however, an important difference between racism or sexism and 'speciesism'. Necessity, then, is defined in terms of human benefit, but this is just what is being called into question. For example, there are many mentally retarded individuals in the world. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Writers on equality have focused on this capacity, I think, because it functions as some sort of lowest common denominator, so that whatever the other capacities of a human being, he is entitled to equal consideration because, like everyone else, he is capable of suffering. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Is it relevant or irrelevantthat it looks like a human being? I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. Publisher contact information may be obtained at. It is not racist to provide special care to members of your own race; it is racist to fall below your moral obligation to a person because of his or her race.
