Treating Yourself as an Object: Self-Objectification and the Ethical Dimensions of Antidepressant Use
- PDF / 234,522 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 547.087 x 737.008 pts Page_size
- 21 Downloads / 151 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Treating Yourself as an Object: Self-Objectification and the Ethical Dimensions of Antidepressant Use Ginger A. Hoffman
Received: 26 January 2012 / Accepted: 7 June 2012 / Published online: 26 July 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract In this paper, I offer one moral reason to eschew antidepressant medication in favor of cognitive therapy, all other things being equal: taking antidepressants can be a form of self-objectification. This means that, by taking antidepressants, one treats oneself, in some sense and some cases, like a mere object. I contend that, morally, this amounts to a specific form of devaluing oneself. I argue this as follows. First, I offer a detailed definition of “objectification” and argue for the possibility of self-objectification on this definition. I then explain why this form of self-objectification is morally problematic. (Morally problematic does not mean morally impermissible. It means, instead, that there is a moral reason opposing the activity in question). After, I describe how taking antidepressants can count as self-objectifying. Finally, I defend my thesis against a key objection offered by Levy. Thus, assuming that antidepressants and cognitive therapy are equally efficacious, and that all other things are equal, the self-objectifying character of antidepressants is
G. A. Hoffman (*) Department of Philosophy, Saint Joseph’s University, 5600 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA e-mail: [email protected]
a compelling reason to regard cognitive therapy as a firstchoice treatment for depression. Keywords Objectification . Antidepressant . Cognitive therapy . Prozac . Psychopharmacology . Self-objectification
Introduction Consider the following real-life scenario. Lucy is a college student who experiences intense feelings of rejection and sadness when she perceives her boyfriend as evasive. Peter Kramer (who treated Lucy and was the first to present her case) writes: She cannot bear it when her boyfriend looks away for a moment. If he turns his back on her to glance at the television screen, her heart sinks… If he says “I” instead of “we” in talking about something they have done together, or if he says goodbye in the wrong way, Lucy may experience pain for days… These moods are often deep and protracted. She is disorganized, paralyzed, hopelessly sad, overtaken by unfocused feelings of urgency. [1: 69]
166
Modern psychiatric practice provides Lucy with two main options for trying to change her painful reactions: 1) she can undergo talk therapy (for example, cognitive therapy (CT)),1 or 2) she can take an antidepressant medication.2 Assume that Lucy has never tried either option. And suppose that Lucy knows that either one carries an equal chance of working3: indeed, many studies have shown antidepressants and CT to be equally effective in treating depression, and this has become textbook knowledge [3–6]. The question is: are there any moral reasons for her to choose one over the other? This is the central question I will pose in thi
Data Loading...
