Los Angeles Times
How Trump became the pro-life leader Republicans always needed
The Hill (blog)-4 hours ago
President Trump has transformed the Republican Party's long-standing opposition to abortion from a moral imperative into a political winner.
A morality play, featuring Trump, unfolds in the US. Will it end in ...
South China Morning Post-19 hours ago
A morality play, featuring Trump, unfolds in the US. ... Surprisingly, the financial markets are shrugging off all the nervous political energy, with ...
Hal Boyd: Is Donald Trump making America moral again?
Deseret News-Feb 11, 2017
In the age of Donald Trump such questions on moral relativism are ... Meanwhile, on both political poles, Donald Trump's performative persona ...
Then and now: Donald Trump's reversal on leaks
CNN-Feb 16, 2017
In the days before his election, Trump the candidate touted a damaging -- and false -- leak reported and subsequently retracted by Fox News.
Read the whole story
· ·
The Social Psychology of Morality: Live and Let Die
Science 2.0-Feb 15, 2017
There is no correct moral theory. All morality is politics. People do not act on the basis of morality. Everybody does everything they do for the ...
Who is Worthy to Lead: The Torah of Modern Politics
My Jewish Learning-Feb 16, 2017
When we do this, when we drive politics toward morality, we fulfill the promise of democracy and the highest calling of spiritual leadership.
France, Without a Struggle, Is at a Loss
New York Times-Feb 10, 2017
French voters would like morality and politics to converge, and are sensitive to the misdeeds of politicians on both the left and the right.
Protesting celebs aren't just idiots, they're fools!
Being Libertarian-4 hours ago
If you wouldn't trust fashion designer to repair your car, then why on Earth would you trust an actor to inform you about politics and morality?
Read the whole story
· ·
But the attempt to diagnose a condition in President Trump and declare him mentally unfit to serve is misguided for several reasons.
First, all experts have political beliefs that probably distort their psychiatric judgment. Consider what my mostly liberal profession said of Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in 1964, right before the election. Members of the American Psychiatric Association were surveyed about their assessment of Goldwater by the now-defunct Fact magazine. Many savaged him, calling him “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.” Some provided diagnoses, like schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.
They used their professional knowledge as a political weapon against a man they had never examined and who certainly would never have consented to their discussing his mental health in public.
Goldwater sued (successfully) and, as a result, in 1973 the A.P.A. developed the Goldwater Rule. It says that psychiatrists can discuss mental health issues with the news media, but that it is unethical for them to diagnose mental illnesses in people they have not examined and whose consent they have not received.
Contrary to what many believe, this rule does not mean that professionals must remain silent about public figures. In fact, the guidelines specifically state that mental health experts should share their knowledge to educate the public.
So while it would be unethical for a psychiatrist to say that President Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, he or she could discuss common narcissistic character traits, like grandiosity and intolerance of criticism, and how they might explain Mr. Trump’s behavior. In other words, psychiatrists can talk about the psychology and symptoms of narcissism in general, and the public is free to decide whether the information could apply to the individual.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn’t. Diagnosis requires a thorough examination of a patient, a detailed history and all relevant clinical data — none of which can be gathered from afar. Narcissism, for instance, isn’t the only explanation for impulsive, inattentive and grandiose behavior. Someone could be suffering instead from another clinical problem like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; the abuse of drugs, alcohol or stimulants; or a variant of bipolar disorder, to name just a few.
This is all to say that when mental health professionals label public figures with mental illnesses, it is not just unethical — it’s intellectually suspect. We don’t have the requisite clinical data to know what we are talking about.
Besides, even if you posit that a president has a mental disorder, that in itself may say little about his fitness to serve. After all, Lincoln had severe depression. Theodore Roosevelt was probably bipolar. Ulysses S. Grant was an alcoholic. According to a study based on biographical data, 18 of America’s first 37 presidents met criteria suggesting they suffered from a psychiatric disorder during their lifetime: 24 percent from depression, 8 percent from anxiety, 8 percent from bipolar disorder and 8 percent from alcohol abuse or dependence. And 10 of those presidents showed signs of mental illness while they were in office.
You can be psychiatrically ill and be perfectly competent, just as you can be mentally healthy but totally unfit. (Of course, certain mental states, like florid psychosis or dementia, would render a president unfit to serve.)
There is one last reason we should avoid psychiatrically labeling our leaders: It lets them off the moral hook. Not all misbehavior reflects psychopathology; the fact is that ordinary human meanness and incompetence are far more common than mental illness. We should not be in the business of medicalizing bad actors.
So the nation doesn’t need a shrink to help it to decide whether President Trump is fit to serve, mentally or otherwise. Presidents should be judged on the merits of their actions, statements and, I suppose, their tweets. No experts are needed for that — just common sense.
Continue reading the main story
Read the whole story
· · ·
There is, in fact, only one person who could conduct such a high-profile, politically sensitive investigation fairly and completely — a special prosecutor.
Some Republican senators have recognized the need for an investigation, and it would be right for the Senate to move ahead in its role as a check on the executive.
But the need for an independent actor who can both investigate and prosecute criminal wrongdoing in the executive branch is clear, because the attorney general and the Justice Department cannot be reliably impartial about their own bosses. Of course, what’s simple in theory has been politically fraught in practice. In scandals from Watergate to Iran-contra to Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, special prosecutors have butted heads with presidents and their staffs, sometimes with calamitous results.
A 1978 law, the Independent Counsel Act, created a mechanism for appointing special prosecutors who were empowered to investigate broadly and protected from presidential meddling. But the law expired in 1999 amid partisan dispute; today only the attorney general has the power to appoint a special prosecutor.
In this case, the need couldn’t be more obvious. For starters, did Mr. Trump order Mr. Flynn, directly or indirectly, to discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador? If not, why did he not fire Mr. Flynn weeks earlier, when he apparently first learned of his lies? Were Mr. Trump’s aides colluding with Russian agents during the campaign? Perhaps most important are Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which could tell us whether he is beholden to, and thus compromised by, the Russians? House Republicans, assuming their standard supine stance toward Mr. Trump, voted on Tuesday against requesting the returns from the Internal Revenue Service; a special prosecutor would not feel so politically constrained.
It’s never easy to conduct robust, independent investigations of the most powerful people in the world, but it is one of the foundations of a functioning democracy. The concern is particularly great in the case of the Trump administration, which seems uninterested in telling the truth in matters large and small.
Mr. Sessions must appoint a special prosecutor, and he knows why. As an article published on Fox News’s website days before the election said, “The appropriate response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly charged political atmosphere is for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship.”
The article, which called for an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and pay-to-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation, argued that Loretta Lynch, then the attorney general, could not serve as a neutral arbiter, given her impromptu meeting with Bill Clinton on her airplane earlier in the year. One of the article’s co-authors was Jeff Sessions.
Continue reading the main story
Read the whole story
· ·
<a href="http://NYTimes.com" rel="nofollow">NYTimes.com</a> no longer supports Internet Explorer 9 or earlier. Please upgrade your browser. LEARN MORE »
campaign: nyt2015_bundle_identifier_A -- 280424, creative: nyt2015_bundleA_identifier -- 408620, page: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/world/europe/russia-azerbaijan-general-dunford.html" rel="nofollow">www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/world/europe/russia-azerbaijan-general-dunford.html</a>, targetedPage: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/world/europe" rel="nofollow">www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/world/europe</a>, position: prop1
WASHINGTON -- The two top diplomats and top military officers from Russia and the United States are set to meet for the first time since the U.S. officials took office.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 16 in Bonn, Germany.
Their talks are the highest-level official meeting between U.S. and Russian officials since President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova didn't specify what Lavrov and Tillerson would discuss -- saying only that their talks would concern "bilateral relations that were driven into deadlock by the previous [U.S.] administration."
A U.S. State Department official told RFE/RL, "We don't have any meetings to preview at this time."
General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also plans to meet his counterpart, Russian General Valery Gerasimov, on February 16 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
A statement released by Dunford's office on February 15 said their agenda would focus on "the current state of U.S.-Russian military relations and the importance of consistent and clear military-to-military communication to prevent miscalculation and potential crises."
In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on February 15 that the Baku meeting between Dunford and Gerasimov was "important."
Stoltenberg said he welcomed attempts by "NATO allies on a bilateral basis" to "develop lines of communications and develop the dialogue with Russia."
Stoltenberg also noted that in the last two NATO-Russia Council meetings -- which were aimed at addressing "military transparency, risk reduction" and other military issues between NATO and Russia -- there had been "no direct contact" between Gerasimov and Czech General Petr Pavel, the chairman of NATO's Military Committee.
The Military Committee is the senior military authority in NATO and the primary source of military advice to NATO's civilian decision-making bodies -- the North Atlantic Council and the Nuclear Planning Group.
With reporting by Mike Eckel in Washington and Rikard Jozwiak in Brussels
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
Joint Chiefs Chairman to Meet With Russian Counterpart in Azerbaijan
New York Times-Feb 15, 2017
Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Pentagon last month. He will met with Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov on ...
Dunford Meets Russian Counterpart to Strengthen Mil-to-Mil Contacts
Department of Defense-Feb 16, 2017
Department of Defense-Feb 16, 2017
Chiefs of general staffs of US and Russia are meeting in Baku
Local Source-Azerbaijan Business Center-Feb 16, 2017
Local Source-Azerbaijan Business Center-Feb 16, 2017
Chairman of joint chiefs to meet his Russian counterpart today in first ...
In-Depth-Daily Mail-Feb 16, 2017
In-Depth-Daily Mail-Feb 16, 2017
US, Russian officials' Baku meeting - sign of trust to Azerbaijan
International-Trend News Agency-Feb 16, 2017
International-Trend News Agency-Feb 16, 2017
Putin says Russian, US intelligence agencies should restore ties
Reuters-Feb 16, 2017
"It's in everyone's interest to resume dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of NATO," Putin said, ...
Opinion: Putin may be watching his brilliant American plan go 'poof'
Opinion-MarketWatch-22 hours ago
Opinion-MarketWatch-22 hours ago
Trump's defense secretary James Mattis says the US military is not ...
In-Depth-Daily Mail-Feb 16, 2017
In-Depth-Daily Mail-Feb 16, 2017
Russia will never sabotage its alliance with Iran for Donald Trump
Blog-The Express Tribune (blog)-12 hours ago
Blog-The Express Tribune (blog)-12 hours ago
Russia carried out a comprehensive cyber campaign to sabotage the U.S. presidential election, an operation that was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and ultimately sought to help elect Donald Trump, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in a remarkably blunt assessment released Friday.
The report depicts Russian interference as unprecedented in scale, saying that Moscow’s role represented “a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort” beyond previous election-related espionage.
The campaign initially sought to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, “denigrate” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and damage her expected presidency. But in time, Russia “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” and repeatedly sought to artificially boost his election chances.
world
national-security
Dallas shooting updates
News and analysis on the deadliest day for police since 9/11.
post_newsletter353
follow-dallas
true
after3th
false
Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Please provide a valid email address.
The report released to the public is an abbreviated version of a highly classified multiagency assessment requested by President Obama. Even so, it amounts to an extraordinary postmortem of a Russian assault on a pillar of American democracy.
The 14-page document made public also serves as an explicit rebuttal to Trump’s repeated assertions that U.S. spy agencies cannot determine who was responsible for a hacking operation that extracted thousands of emails from Democratic Party computer networks and dumped them into public view via the WikiLeaks website.
(Video: Peter Stevenson: The Washington Post/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
U.S. intelligence agencies released a declassified version of their report on Russian intervention in the 2016 U.S. election on Jan. 6, just hours after President-elect Donald Trump was briefed by American officials. Report on Russian hacking released after Trump briefing (Video: Peter Stevenson: The Washington Post/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In the report, the CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded with “high confidence” that Russian intelligence services penetrated numerous computer systems tied to U.S. political parties and then “relayed” the email troves to WikiLeaks.
Trump emerged from a briefing by the nation’s top intelligence officials on the contents of the report acknowledging at least the possibility that Russia was behind election-related hacks. But he offered no indication that he was prepared to accept their conclusions that Moscow sought to help him win.
Instead, Trump said in a statement that while Russia, China and other countries and groups may have sought to breach Democratic and Republican computer systems, “there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.”
The report did not address that issue. It was presented to Trump by officials including Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James B. Comey.
Trump also said that “there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.” That appeared to be consistent with the findings of the report, although it noted that Russia “obtained and maintained access” to numerous election systems that “were not involved in vote tallying.”
A footnote on the document said that the conclusions contained in the declassified draft were “identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.”
Obama commissioned the report shortly after the Nov. 8 election, and recently ordered a series of retaliatory measures including new economic sanctions, the expulsion of dozens of suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and the closure of two Russian-owned compounds in the country.
(Dalton Bennett/The Washington Post)
Washington Post reporter Adam Entous breaks down Friday’s intelligence report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Washington Post reporter Adam Entous breaks down Friday’s intelligence report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. (Dalton Bennett/The Washington Post)
The report was met with mixed reactions from senior lawmakers. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described the Russian activities cited in the report as “a troubling chapter in an ongoing story, and I expect that our nation’s leaders will counter these activities appropriately.”
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), used the report to criticize Obama, saying that the House Intelligence Committee “has been warning the Obama administration for years about the need for stronger measures against Russia . . . but our warnings largely fell on deaf ears.”
The public version of the report does not explicitly mention some of the most sensitive pieces of intelligence that helped analysts reach their conclusions. U.S. officials have said that spy agencies identified certain “actors” involved in the cyber offensive, believe Russia was far more focused on penetrating and exploiting Democratic systems, and intercepted communications making clear that top Russian officials congratulated themselves on Trump’s win.
One of the report’s key judgments is that “Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”
Moscow did so in part because it “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” who as a candidate repeatedly praised Putin and advocated policies in Syria and Europe strongly favored by the Kremlin.
But the report also attributed Russia’s efforts to Putin’s hostility toward Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state whom he blamed for inciting mass protests against his government in 2011 and 2012.
Overall, the report describes a multipronged campaign that involved not only hacking, but overt propaganda on Russian-controlled news platforms and the extensive use of social media and even “trolls” to amplify voter discord in the United States and encourage opposition to Clinton.
Despite those exertions, Russia appears to have concluded that a Clinton victory was inevitable right up until election night. As a result, Moscow focused on finding ways to undercut Clinton’s legitimacy if she won.
One of the more colorful notes in the report describes how “pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night,” then had to shelve it when Trump won.
The document traces interference efforts that began with inconspicuous probes of U.S. electoral systems in early 2014, carried through the election, and may still be underway.
Russian intelligence agencies first gained access to Democratic National Committee networks in July 2015, the report says. Russia’s miliary intelligence service, known as the GRU, “probably” expanded its efforts in March 2016, going after the email accounts of Democratic Party officials and other political figures.
By May, the GRU had stolen what the report describes as “large volumes of data from the DNC.” In the ensuing months, chunks of that trove began to appear on websites including WikiLeaks, generating a steady stream of headlines that embarrassed Democrats and kept voter attention on Clinton’s email controversy.
Putin has repeatedly denied that Russia was responsible for the hacked emails. In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, Trump called the sustained focus on the issue a “political witch hunt.”
The intelligence assessment also drew the most direct line to date between Putin’s desire to aid Trump’s campaign and Russia’s policies and objectives in Syria and Ukraine. In both cases, it said, Putin “indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what they saw as his Russia-friendly positions” in those two countries.
Putin is also eager for relief from economic sanctions imposed on Russia for its support of separatist forces in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea.
As recently as this week, Trump appeared to be siding with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — who has denied that his website got purloined emails from Russia — over the determinations of the CIA and FBI.
The report provides new details about U.S. intelligence agencies’ view of WikiLeaks and its relationship with Russia. “We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks,” the report said. “Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity.”
The report noted that none of the files passed to WikiLeaks contained “evident forgeries.”
The document said that “Guccifer 2.0,” the online identity of a hacker purportedly involved in the campaign, “made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election.” It was the document’s clearest indication that U.S. spy agencies believe they have identified him.
In some ways, Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election is consistent with a long-standing pattern that traces back to the Soviet Union of espionage against prominent politicians and policymakers in the United States. U.S. spy agencies also devote significant resources to gathering intelligence on Putin and his subordinates.
The report suggests that beyond his animosity toward Clinton, Putin may also have been driven by his own conviction that Moscow has been repeatedly targeted with embarrassing leaks that he attributes to the United States, including the Panama Papers files that showed how wealthy individuals close to the Kremlin had hidden their fortunes, as well as material that helped expose the doping scandal among Russia’s Olympic athletes.
Putin’s success in using cyber capabilities and propaganda to disrupt a U.S. presidential race is likely to embolden him to mount similar operations against the United States and its allies in the future. “We assess Russian intelligence services will continue to develop capabilities to provide Putin with options to use against the United States,” the report said.
Karen DeYoung and Julie Tate contributed to this report.
For photos of Trump since the election, go to wapo.st/trumpgallery.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
Politics
Get short URL
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — He told the FSB Board "it is absolutely obvious that all responsible organizations and international associations should cooperate in the area of counterterrorism."
"Restoring dialogue with the intelligence services of the United States of America and other NATO member countries is in the common interests," Putin said.
© AP Photo/ Alexei Druzhinin/ Sputnik, Kremlin Pool
"Because even a simple exchange of information on the sources and channels of funding terrorists, on the people involved or suspected of involvement in terrorism, seriously increases the effectiveness of our joint efforts," Putin stated.
The Russian president has repeatedly called for uniting efforts to fight against terrorism. He voiced this call for the first time at the UN General Assembly in September 2015.
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[1][2][3] The US intelligence community has stated that "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[4] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." It further stated that these assessments were made with "high confidence."[5] The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.[6][7][8] In early January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified before a Senate committee that Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media.[9] The Russian government continually denied it had any involvement.[10] WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Russia was not involved in the leaks.[10][11][12]
U.S. intelligence agencies said that Russian President Vladimir Putin "personally directed" the operation.[13][14] Russia disputed Putin's involvement.[14] CIA Director John Brennan, FBI DirectorJames Comey and DNI James R. Clapper agreed on the "scope, nature and intent" of Russia's alleged interference to assist Trump.[15][16][17] Cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant and ThreatConnect stated that the cyberattacks were committed by Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.[18][19] In October 2016, President Barack Obama used the red phone line to directly contact Putin and warn him from cyber attacks.[20]
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia and the United States would benefit from restoring communications between their intelligence agencies to bolster the fight against terrorism.
"It's in everyone's interest to restore dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of NATO," Putin told Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), in televised remarks at a meeting of the service in Moscow on February 16.
"It's absolutely clear that in the area of counterterrorism all relevant governments and international groups should work together," he said.
Relations between the United States and Russia sunk to post-Cold War lows and many ties were broken after Russia's illegal annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and Moscow's ongoing support of separatist fighters in eastern Ukraine.
The Russian leader also said the number of cyberattacks against Russia tripled last year compared to 2015, and urged better protection against such attacks.
Putin also told the FSB, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and the Foreign Ministry, to take additional security measures at Russian missions in foreign countries following the assassination of Andrei Karlov, Russia's ambassador to Turkey, at a photo exhibition in Ankara on December 19.
Based on reporting by Reuters, AFP, and Interfax
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was in the interests of both Russia and the United States to restore communications between their respective intelligence agencies.
MANILA (Reuters) - Russia's top security official on Thursday offered the Philippines access to an intelligence database to help it fight crime and militancy, and training for the elite forces assigned to protect President Rodrigo Duterte.
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey has increased scrutiny of Russian-speaking Muslim communities in the past few months following a series of attacks blamed on Islamic State, a concrete example of the renewed relationship between the two countries.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As he stood on the podium next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump said he was open to new ideas that would bring Middle East peace. With that, he opened the door to a whole new maze of complexity and risk.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
BONN, Germany (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Thursday he did not suggest to French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that Washington planned to scrap the Iranian nuclear agreement.
BONN, Germany (Reuters) - France considers the U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "confused and worrying", its foreign minister said on Thursday, reacting to U.S. President Trump's dropping of the America's commitment to a two-state solution.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday said reports in the U.S. media about his administration's relationship with Russia may make it difficult for him to strike a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow.
Mental health is a level of psychological well-being, or an absence of mental illness. It is the "psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment".[1] From the perspective of positive psychology or holism, mental health may include an individual's ability to enjoy life, and create a balance between life activities and efforts to achieve psychological resilience.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health includes "subjective well-being, perceived self-efficacy, autonomy, competence, inter-generational dependence, and self-actualization of one's intellectual and emotional potential, among others."[2] The WHO further states that the well-being of an individual is encompassed in the realization of their abilities, coping with normal stresses of life, productive work and contribution to their community.[3] Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how "mental health" is defined.[2] A widely accepted definition of health by mental health specialists is psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud's definition: the capacity "to work and to love".[4]
Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[1] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind.[2] Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.[3][4]
Mental health - Wikipedia
Jump to Spiritual counseling - Spiritual counselors meet with people in need to offer comfort and support and to help them gain a better understanding of ...
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
Moral health is a person's sense of right and wrong and their ability to behave in a moral manner. Not everyone would agree on what moral behavior is, so what one considers morally healthy, another may not. Spiritual health means different things to different people.
""moral-spiritual health" Moral health... - Kyazain Devilla Real | Facebook
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/Jhayren.lobks.u/posts/316145111806618" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/Jhayren.lobks.u/posts/316145111806618</a>
People also ask
2 Moral Health - Oxford Scholarship Online
<a href="http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/.../acprof-9780195304718-chapter-2" rel="nofollow">www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/.../acprof-9780195304718-chapter-2</a>
This chapter continues the discussion began in Chapter 1 on the ways moral values are embedded in conceptions of mental disorders and positive health, focusing on when mental health is defined positively, as psychological well-being. Positive conceptions of health invariably embody or presuppose moral values.Inside the debate therapists like me are having over Donald Trump's ...
Vox-Feb 13, 2017
Inside the debate therapists like me are having over Donald Trump's mental health .... Why not do a petition demanding a licensed professional examine him ... Democratic Congress member Ted Lieu is introducing legislation ...
Temperament Tantrum
U.S. News & World Report-Jan 27, 2017
"Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally ... Trump's personality disorder (which includes hypomania) is also ... opinion of a public figure without examining that person and gaining ... Instead, Trump complained that Democratic leaders wrongly .... I want him there," Nadler says.
Sen. Franken says Trump's mental health is questioned by GOP ...
Turn to 10-Feb 12, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic senator claims that "a few" of his Republican colleagues have expressed concern to him about President ...
After Flynn resigns, Dems ask what did Trump know and when ...
WKOW-Feb 14, 2017
... fired after only a few months on the job because of the state of his mental health. .... bipartisan panel to examine possible links between the Trump administration and ... This latest push builds on an earlier call by Democrats for an ... C., said he wants to know if Flynn initiated the conversations with Kislyak ...
Democrats demand independent Russia probe after Flynn quits ...
<a href="http://WXOW.com" rel="nofollow">WXOW.com</a>-Feb 14, 2017
<a href="http://WXOW.com" rel="nofollow">WXOW.com</a>-Feb 14, 2017
Read the whole story
· ·
Relax, Trump is stone cold sane | Fox News
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/15/" rel="nofollow">www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/15/</a>relax-trump-is-stone-cold-sane.html
2 days ago - Relax, Trump is stone cold sane. Keith Ablow. By Dr. Keith ... Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.ABLOW SAY RELAX: Trump Is 'Stone Cold Sane ... - Daily Kos
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/.../-" rel="nofollow">www.dailykos.com/.../-</a>ABLOW-SAY-RELAX-Trump-Is-Stone-Cold-Sane-According...
1 day ago - In recent weeks there have been several reports characterizing the mental stability of President Donald Trump. Some of these have been ...
No comments:
Post a Comment