Gabriel Andrade

This chapter begins an exploration of the history of New Thought, tracing its origins to Antiquity and its evolution into Christian Science. It begins with Gnosticism, which emphasized personal spiritual experience for salvation, and examines how the fusion of Gnostic and Eastern mystical ideas influenced Emanuel Swedenborg, who highlighted the material world’s inherent goodness and the role of inner divine sparks in spiritual growth. Alongside the musings of Franz Anton Mesmer, who introduced “animal magnetism” and the mind-body connection, these ideas led to interest in psychological aspects of health and paved the way for practices like hypnosis and psychotherapy. Mesmer’s popularity in America, aided by Charles Poyen’s demonstrations, inspired Phineas Parkhurst Quimby to focus on healing, emphasizing that illnesses stem from false beliefs, which in turn influenced Mary Baker Eddy’s founding of Christian Science and the positive thinking movement shaping contemporary views on health.

Despite significant medical advances over the past two centuries, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed systemic vulnerabilities in healthcare systems, prompting individuals to seek holistic and personalized health approaches. This shift renewed interest in New Thought principles that emphasize the mind’s role in health and self-healing. However, while offering valuable insights, this perspective can oversimplify health issues, leading to self-blame and neglect of essential medical care. This book explores the New Thought movement’s history and its implications in healthcare, detailing its origins from Gnostic ideas to the influence of Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret. Subsequent chapters assess both the beneficial applications, like the placebo effect and positive psychology, and the detrimental aspects, including victim-blaming and the rationalization of systemic injustices.

This chapter explores the plausible applications of New Thought principles in healthcare, beginning with an examination of the placebo effect, which illustrates how positive expectations can lead to genuine health improvements, even with inert treatments. It highlights Norman Cousins’ remarkable recovery from a debilitating disease through humor, a case that garnered credibility in the medical community and spurred interest in psychoneuroimmunology, the study of the mind’s influence on immune function. Additionally, the chapter discusses Martin Seligman’s contributions to positive psychology, emphasizing that his work illustrates how individuals can orient their lives toward self-fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness. Finally, it considers the possibility that some degree of magical thinking might help in coping with uncertainty.

This chapter continues the history of the New Thought movement. Prominent philosophers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James emphasized the importance of positive thinking and self-belief for personal growth and empowerment. As the New Thought movement gained momentum into the twentieth century, it evolved from healing to promote a holistic lifestyle that encouraged rejecting negativity and fostering affirmations, while also adapting to America’s industrial and capitalist ethos by linking positive mindset to financial success. Norman Vincent Peale further revitalized the movement with his book The Power of Positive Thinking, which merged motivational concepts with Christian teachings, but attracted criticism for oversimplifying spirituality and fostering materialistic views, a narrative that continued to evolve in the late twentieth century with the rise of self-help literature like Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, which popularized the “law of attraction” despite scrutiny for pseudoscientific claims.

This section lays out some of the book’s conclusions. The New Thought movement, originally a source of empowerment and hope in the nineteenth century, has transformed into a framework that can inadvertently reinforce oppressive structures, particularly in matters of health and well-being. To achieve a balanced approach, we must apply Aristotle’s principle of the just middle, recognizing the benefits of positive thinking while remaining grounded in reality, ensuring that optimism does not overshadow rational decision-making and practical problem-solving in the face of life’s challenges.

This chapter critically examines the detrimental effects of New Thought principles in healthcare. It highlights how these beliefs can lead to victim-blaming and stigmatization of patients whose conditions worsen despite maintaining a positive mindset, with a specific focus on cancer patients who face emotional distress exacerbated by military metaphors equating illness to a battle. While some level of optimism may be beneficial, the chapter argues that excessive positivity can distort individuals’ perceptions, leading to overconfidence and poor decision-making, ultimately affecting health outcomes. The New Thought ideology implies that success stems solely from individual willpower, neglecting the influence of systemic inequalities and social determinants on health. To address these issues, a more nuanced perspective is necessary—one that balances personal agency with a recognition of external factors and advocates for structural changes to rectify health disparities rather than imposing undue blame on individuals for their circumstances.

This book delves into the evolution of the New Thought Movement and its pervasive influence on modern healthcare. The book begins by tracing the roots of the New Thought Movement, originating in the 19th century, emphasizing the power of the mind in healing and personal development. Over time, this philosophy morphed into the contemporary positive thinking industry, becoming a significant component of Western self-help culture. The book explores how these ideas have become a contentious point in today's culture wars, polarized between supporters who credit it for personal empowerment and critics who highlight its limitations and potential harm. Central to the discussion is an in-depth analysis of the New Thought philosophy's impact on the healthcare industry. While acknowledging the potential benefits, such as motivating patients to adopt healthier lifestyles and fostering a sense of personal agency, the book critically examines how this philosophy's emphasis on mental positivity can lead to victim-blaming. It argues that oversimplifying health issues by attributing them solely to personal mindset obscures the multifaceted reality of health, particularly the significant role of social determinants of health and systemic inequities. This critique underscores how attributing illness to insufficient positive thinking can perpetuate stigma and neglect the socio-economic and environmental factors critical for understanding and addressing health challenges. By offering a nuanced perspective, the book aims to catalyze discussions on integrating mindful optimism with a holistic acknowledgment of the complexities inherent in healthcare, striving for a more balanced and equitable approach. Gabriel Andrade is an Assistant Professor at Ajman University, United Arab Emirates.

This chapter delves into the life story of Mary Mallon—aka Typhoid Mary—in order to discuss the complexities of medical decisions in the context of pandemics and the realm of public health at large. Some trolley dilemmas are presented to examine Michael Walzer’s concept of “dirty hands”—i.e., the prospect of doing intrinsically immoral things so as to ultimately achieve favorable outcomes in situations of extreme emergency. Further trolley scenarios are discussed so as to assess whether numerical considerations are relevant in moral decision-making in the first place. Similarly, this chapter presents a series of trolley dilemmas that prompt reflection on the consideration of future generations and animals in moral decision-making. This discussion delves into the realms of population ethics and animal rights, exploring how these factors impact biomedical research and resource distribution in healthcare.

This chapter introduces the history of the Roe v Wade decision and its aftermath, so as to discuss the ethics of abortion. One particularly disturbing phenomenon in recent years has been the bombing of abortion clinics, yet through the use of a trolley scenario, I posit that it is not coherent to consider abortion a form of murder and at the same time condemn the bombing of abortion clinics. Furthermore, by considering various trolley scenarios—and other thought experiments—originally formulated by Judith Jarvis Thomson, I discuss the extent to which abortion may be considered a legitimate form of self-defense. While these arguments do not necessarily hinge upon the personhood status of fetuses, this chapter also discusses some of the arguments for and against the idea that embryos and fetuses can be considered persons with moral rights.

This chapter approaches Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s legacy in the culture wars, by way of introduction to the moral complexities of euthanasia. In the outlook of most codes of medical ethics, euthanasia is morally acceptable, provided it is only done passively (i.e., solely withdrawing treatment). This stance is grounded in the moral difference between killing and letting die. Philipa Foot’s original consideration of trolley scenarios was intended to support this distinction. However, a thought experiment by James Rachels challenges that distinction. Furthermore, a variation of the trolley scenario by Judith Jarvis Thomson suggests that, in some circumstances, killing one may be even preferable to letting five die. Despite these nuances, the distinction between doing and allowing harm may still be relevant, although that does not imply that euthanasia is morally unacceptable in every case. Ultimately, notions of compassion and autonomy do warrant the moral acceptability of euthanasia, albeit such decisions must be handled with care and on a case-by-case basis.

This book provides an overview of how the intricacies of the Trolley Problem shed light on various aspects of medical ethics. It shows how trolley dilemmas have become useful to ethicists to the extent that they activate intuitions and provide guidance about what the relevant moral principle ought to be in judging specific actions. Issues are covered at length such as euthanasia, where it is important to determine a relevant difference between killing and letting die; and abortion, where it is necessary to establish if harms can be used as a means to an end. While specialists in medical ethics have argued about these topics at length, few have established connections with the complexities of trolley cases. The Trolley Problem has now become a staple of pop culture and yet, outside philosophy, few people understand its implications. Consequently, this book is of interest to those with a general interest in philosophy, students, researchers as well as those in the healthcare industry where many of the difficult moral decisions encountered are better informed by framing them around the intricacies of the Trolley Problem.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly transformed many people's lives, ChatGPT being a clear example, whose capabilities have substantially influenced the automation of tasks such as writing texts and providing information sources for researchers. This review article aims to understand the impact of AI on academic writing and why its use can be considered plagiarism. The Prism method was used to analyze the studies, which initially totaled 824, and after excluding them for duplicity and by title, a total of 137 were left, of which we proceeded to review those that were open access and those that were related to the study, obtaining a total of 54 manuscripts closely related to the research topic; the results were then segmented into three questions, What are the text-matching tools that help to identify the use of AI in article writing?, What strategies are used to regulate the use of AI in writing scientific articles? and What techniques are used to detect AI-generated text?, which were key to comparing the results of the review with the findings of the authors belonging to the literature review. The results showed that, from 2022 onwards, AI became a recurring topic among researchers in China and the United States, allowing the emergence of popular techniques and software such as Turnitin or GPTZero to identify when these linguistic models were used in writing tasks, as well as strategies to regulate their use in controlled environments. In the end, it was concluded that there is a fine line between ethics and abuse of AI capabilities, and further research and study of different techniques is recommended to recognize when these tools are blatantly used.

The Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in the United States in 2022. This implies that while abortion remains legal in most jurisdictions, it is no longer a constitutional right, thus paving the way for making it illegal. Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, there have been bombings and other violent attacks against abortion providers and abortion clinics, claiming some fatal victims. The overwhelming majority of anti-abortion activists condemn such violence. At the same time, most anti-abortion activists consider the fetus a person, and ultimately believe that abortion is a form of murder. In this article, I argue that if abortion is murder, then anti-abortion violent activists have moral license to bomb abortion clinics. To do so, I rely on the principles of Just War theory. Ultimately, I rely on a modus tollens argument to prove that abortion is not murder: if abortion is murder, then activists have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; activists do not have moral justification in bombing abortion clinics; therefore, abortion is not murder. Apart from attempting to prove that abortion is not murder, I also attempt to show the incoherence of the anti-abortion view.

Bien que les théories de la conspiration médicale existent depuis au moins deux siècles, elles sont devenues plus populaires et plus persistantes ces derniers temps. C’est devenu un problème urgent pour la pratique médicale, car ces croyances irrationnelles peuvent constituer un obstacle à des procédures médicales importantes, telles que la vaccination. Si les spécialistes s’accordent à dire que le problème des théories de la conspiration médicale doit être abordé, il n’y a pas de consensus sur la meilleure approche à adopter. Dans cet article, nous évaluons quelques stratégies. Malgré les risques encourus, il est important de s’intéresser aux théories de la conspiration médicale et de les réfuter. Toutefois, la proposition de le faire dans le cadre d’une “infiltration cognitive” est trop risquée. Les médias ont un rôle majeur à jouer dans la réfutation des théories de la conspiration médicale, mais il est important que les journalistes ne politisent pas cette tâche. Deux autres stratégies à long terme sont également nécessaires: la stimulation de la pensée critique dans l’enseignement et l’autonomisation des groupes traditionnellement marginalisés.

Contrario a las corrientes "políticamente correctas" de la academia latinoamericana, este ensayo sostiene que la globalización no es un fenómeno que debamos lamentar enteramente. El discurso anti-globalización se ha convertido en una suerte de moda intelectual, cuestión aprovechada por muchos demagogos para ganar audiencia. Tomando en consideración la obra de Karl Jaspers, el ensayo propone que la globalización es una continuación del "tiempo-eje", una transformación de la cual sería una hipocresía lamentarse.

Este artículo es un estudio comparativo de la manera en que Aristóteles y Alexis de Tocqueville conciben a la familia dentro del contexto de la democracia antigua y moderna, respectivamente. Se elabora un recorrido por la institución de la familia y el matrimonio en Grecia y Roma, y sus vinculaciones con las ideas políticas de esas civilizaciones. Igualmente, se contrasta el entendimiento antiguo de la democracia con el de Tocqueville, y se analiza la vinculación que éste estableció entre el hogar y la esfera pública en las democracias modernas

En este artículo se presentan dos perspectivas sobre uno de los más antiguos problemas planteados en la filosofía de la religión: si Dios es bueno y omnipotente, ¿cómo puede existir el mal? El filósofo alemán del siglo XVII, Gottfried Leibniz, ofreció una respuesta a este problema en su obra cumbre, Teodicea, argumentando que vivimos en el mejor de los mundos posibles. Un siglo después, Voltaire protestó contra la respuesta ofrecida por Leibniz, y la ridiculizó en su famosa novela, Cándido. Al final, las críticas de Voltaire han sido lo suficientemente contundentes como para que justifiquemos que, antes de preguntarnos por qué Dios permite el mal, nos preguntemos qué podemos hacer nosotros para aliviar el mal.

Este ensayo critica la postura del multiculturalismo, movimiento filosóficopolítico en boga que defiende la igualdad de las culturas, pero ésta no está implicada en la igualdad natural de los hombres, y el relativismo, que defiende la igualdad de las culturas, es problemático desde un punto de vista lógico. La noción misma de igualdad llevaría a la conclusión paradójica de que las sociedades igualitarias son superiores a las sociedades jerárquicas. Igualmente, amerita destacar la singularidad de Occidente respecto a otras culturas. Pero el rechazo a la igualdad de las culturas, no excluye una forma limitada de multiculturalismo posible aún.

El siguiente artículo tiene como objetivo establecer una comparación entre las reflexiones sobre los indígenas en la obra de Diego de Avendaño y Bernardino de Sahagún. Partiendo de las concepciones de la antropología posmoderna, se considera que el interés por y la reconstrucción del Otro tienen prioridad en la época poscolonial. En este sentido, Avendaño es categorizado como un autor que, si bien emprender una defensa de los indígenas, mantiene poco interés por ellos, mientras que Sahagún, con su disposición etnológica, revitaliza el encuentro con los nativos.

El problema de la teodicea ha sido una de las grandes preocupaciones del pensamiento religioso en Occidente: si Dios es absolutamente bueno y omnipotente, ¿cómo puede existir el mal en el mundo?, y ¿por qué sufren los virtuosos y gozan los impíos? En la Antigüedad, el Libro de Job intentó ofrecer una respuesta que perduró hasta tiempos modernos. En el siglo XVII, Leibniz ofreció una respuesta mucho más racionalizada, propia de los tiempos modernos. Joseph de Maistre, un contrarrevolucionario del siglo XIX, hizo de la teodicea uno de sus temas centrales. El siguiente artículo es un estudio de la forma en que De Maistre aborda este tema.

Michael Walzer’s article ‘Political action: the problem of dirty hands’ initiated a new wave of discussion over a persistent problem in moral philosophy: are there situations in which ethical rules must be relaxed so as to bring about a greater good? In this article, we consider whether this ‘dirty hands’ approach may be applied to our current climate crisis. One proposed solution to the problem of global warming is the administration of moral enhancements to the population. Assuming that the administration of moral enhancements is a necessary condition in the prevention of a climate crisis, Parker Crutchfield argues that this procedure ought to be covert. This implies lying to the public, and such dishonesty amounts to immoral behavior. We conclude that despite the severity of global warming, there is no justification for a dirty hands approach. Lying to the public in order to save the planet would probably create bigger problems, and it would ultimately be very counterproductive in trying to save the planet.

While some countries are moving toward legalization, euthanasia is still criticized on various fronts. Most importantly, it is considered a violation of the medical ethics principle of non-maleficence, because it actively seeks a patient’s death. But, medical ethicists should consider an ethical alternative to euthanasia. In this article, we defend cryocide as one such alternative. Under this procedure, with the consent of terminally-ill patients, their clinical death is induced, in order to prevent the further advance of their brain’s deterioration. Their body is then cryogenically preserved, in the hope that in the future, there will be a technology to reanimate it. This prospect is ethically distinct from euthanasia if a different criterion of death is assumed. In the information-theoretic criterion of death, a person is not considered dead when brain and cardiopulmonary functions cease, but rather, when information constituting psychology and memory is lost.

Xenotransplantation has great potential as an alternative to alleviate the shortage of organs for donation. However, given that the animal most suited for xenotransplantation is the pig, there are concerns that people in Muslim countries may be more hesitant to morally approve of these procedures. In this study, the moral approval of xenotransplantation was assessed in a group of 895 participants in Egypt. The results showed that religiosity itself does not predict moral approval of xenotransplantation, but religious identity does, as Muslims are less likely to approve of xenotransplantation than Christians. However, the strongest predictor of moral approval of xenotransplantation was gender, with women displaying less approval. A partial mediating factor in this association was concern for animal welfare. Based on these results, some implications for public policy are discussed.

Despite progress, discrimination in public health remains a problem. A significant aspect of this problem relates to how medical resources are allocated. The paradigm of quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) dictates that medical resources should be allocated on the basis of units measured as length of life and quality of life that are expected after the implementation of a treatment. In this article, I discuss some of the ethical shortcomings of QALY, by focusing on some of its flawed moral aspects, as well as the way it relates to discrimination on the basis of age, race, and disability status. I argue that while this approach seeks to maximize efficiency, it does not place sufficient value on the preservation of life itself. Even more concerning is the fact that the use of QALY disproportionately harms minorities. While QALY is a well-intentioned approach to the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, new alternatives must be sought.

Bullfighting debates in Spain are increasingly intense. Defenders of bullfighting as sport and as art, typically argue that many of the country’s most esteemed intellectual and artistic figures were bullfight enthusiasts. This is admittedly true, but by the same token Spain has a long tradition of anti-bullfighting thought. One prominent critic of bullfighting in the eighteenth century was Gaspar Melchor Jovellanos. Often considered the best representative of the Spanish Enlightenment, Jovellanos did not address bullfighting as a central concern. But, in some writings, he did level important criticisms against this sort of spectacle. Defenders of bullfighting frequently argue that Jovellanos’ critique of bullfighting relies mostly on economic arguments. While it is true that Jovellanos offered economic reasons to oppose bullfighting, a closer reading of his works reveals that he had a larger concern with the violent nature of bullfighting, which cohered with his Enlightenment philosophy.

Many dubious disciplines have been removed from academic institutions, but theology is not one of them, as it is still taught in respectable universities. This article argues that theology does not deserve that special treatment. Theology has long pretended to be a science, but it can never be, because ultimately, theology is grounded on faith and authority, two tenets that run counter to the scientific method. Natural theology appeals to evidence and reason, but it also fails in its endeavor. More recent theologians admit that their discipline is not science per se, but still consider it legitimate in its quest for meaning. There are also reasons to doubt this claim, as there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to find meaning.