Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Why Did We Call Prince Charles Foolish and Immoral? (Skeptical Inquirer)

#1
C C Offline
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_did_w...nd_immoral

EXCERPT: I was recently reported for calling Britain’s heir to the throne “foolish and immoral.” The quote happens to be correct; it comes from our new book titled More Good Than Harm? The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. In it, the ethicist Kevin Smith and I discuss the many ethical issues around alternative medicine and essentially conclude that it is not possible to practice alternative medicine ethically.

The exact quote from our book relates to Charles’s promotion in 2004 of something called the Gerson diet for cancer:

Despite the fact that they have attained their high positions merely through accidents of birth, monarchs undoubtedly have a good deal of influence over their “subjects.” It is therefore inescapable that many cancer patients will have been given false hope by the utterances of Prince Charles. Accordingly, we consider his public support for unproven cancer treatments to be both foolish and immoral.

Charles’s foolishness in respect to the promotion of quackery has, in my opinion, been demonstrated multiple times. His love affair with all things alternative started early in his life. As a teenager, Charles was taken by Laurence van der Post on a journey of “spiritual discovery” into the wilderness of northern Kenya. The fantasist van der Post wanted to attune Charles to the vitalistic ideas of Carl Jung, and it clearly is this belief in vitalism that provides the link to alternative medicine.

Throughout the 1980s, Charles lobbied for the statutory regulation of chiropractors and osteopaths in the United Kingdom. In 1993, this finally became reality....

MORE: https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_did_w...nd_immoral
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Yeah, they have free speech. Rolleyes
Reply
#3
Magical Realist Offline
I take issue with the claim that Carl Jung advanced some sort of vitalism. At least not in the sense defined here:

"Vitalists hold that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things. In its simplest form, vitalism holds that living entities contain some fluid, or a distinctive ‘spirit’. In more sophisticated forms, the vital spirit becomes a substance infusing bodies and giving life to them; or vitalism becomes the view that there is a distinctive organization among living things."--- https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/t...talism/v-1

Jung's approach was essentially a deep and guiding respect for the 6 million year old wisdom stored in our body's evolved biological systems. That the unconscious surfaces in our lives with naturalistic and symbolic images and forces that push us toward the goal of individual wholeness. He was basically applying the sense of biological determinism to the psychological model of Freud, with far less emphasis on the sexual and much more emphasis on the ancient and mythopoetic patterns that persist in our brain and our DNA.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Be skeptical of studies designed to scare you about CTE and sports C C 0 64 Sep 16, 2023 06:32 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article 4 reasons not teaching evolution in schools is immoral C C 1 90 Jul 4, 2023 09:17 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article Charles III might be king, but he’s still the Dunce of Wales to Miller C C 0 49 Apr 28, 2023 04:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  What findings do skeptical psychologists still believe in, after replication crisis? C C 0 241 Jun 3, 2019 05:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  Public skeptical of research if tied to a company + What is pseudoscience? C C 0 485 May 9, 2017 10:08 PM
Last Post: C C
  Orlando massacre prompts call to ease gay blood donor rules C C 1 394 Jun 15, 2016 04:27 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)