Psychoethics: How Faulty Thinking Impairs Moral Reasoning & Decision-Making
A new field of study, “Psychoethics,” is emerging from Logic-Based Therapy (LBT), examining how self-defeating thought patterns can impair moral reasoning and decision-making, according to research published today by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D., MSW.
Psychoethics posits that individuals often deduce destructive emotions and behaviors from flawed emotional reasoning, specifically identifying patterns like demanding perfection, self-damnation, “can’tstipation” – an inability to allow oneself to do things – catastrophizing, and a belief that the world revolves around one’s own experiences. These patterns, Cohen argues, aren’t simply psychological issues, but can actively undermine a person’s ability to function as a moral agent.
The approach builds on Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), developed by Albert Ellis in the 1950s, which emphasized the role of beliefs in shaping emotional consequences. LBT, created by Cohen in the mid-1980s, adds a formal logic component to this framework, analyzing the validity of the premises underlying emotional responses. According to the Logic-Based Therapy & Consultation Institute, LBT aims to apply diverse philosophical theories to client problems using a logic-based framework.
Cohen’s research illustrates these concepts with case studies. One example involves a client who experienced intense guilt for declining a movie invitation from a friend, despite lacking the financial means to attend and not wanting to see the film. The guilt, Cohen explains, stemmed from a perfectionistic demand that she “ought never” to offend anyone, a demand she deduced from a belief that she should never cause harm. This absolutistic thinking prevented her from recognizing the moral permissibility of prioritizing her own needs and resources.
Another case involved the same client engaging in self-damning, labeling herself a “bad person” for upsetting her friend. This pattern, Cohen notes, was rooted in a history of childhood emotional abuse and the internalized voices of critical family members. By challenging the underlying perfectionistic demand, the client could potentially dismantle this self-destructive tendency and engage in more rational ethical reasoning.
A third case study focused on a client prone to catastrophizing, who struggled with the decision of whether to invite her father – who had a history of alcohol abuse and sexual abuse – to her grandchild’s first birthday. While her father had been sober for a decade, the client initially fixated on the potential for traumatic memories to resurface. Although she ultimately decided to invite him, she also considered keeping the details of his past abuse secret from her daughter, fearing disastrous consequences. Cohen argues that this catastrophizing prevented the client from adequately assessing the risks and benefits, potentially overlooking the importance of informing her daughter about her grandfather’s history.
According to a paper published by the National Philosophical Counseling Association, LBT and its offshoot, Logic-Based Consultation, are distinct. While both utilize the logic-based framework, practitioners of Logic-Based Consultation, holding at least a master’s degree in philosophy, address specific problems without diagnosing or treating mental disorders. Certified Logic-Based Therapists, yet, are also licensed mental health practitioners capable of both diagnosis and treatment.
Cohen suggests that the implications of this research extend beyond individual therapy. He points to the potential for self-defeating thought patterns to impair judgment in high-stakes situations, citing the example of a politician with a “world-revolves-around-me” tendency potentially making flawed utilitarian calculations about national or global interests.