Morals, Ethics, Law, Justice, Subjectivity, and Objectivity: Can You Reserve Judgment?
Unlike some people I know personally and professionally, who practice avoidance, I’ve paid close attention to reactions by people in relation to the case of Lindsay Clancy having killed her children. Specifically, I stated in Trials: Subjective and Objective Views of Justice and Injustice:
Regarding my subjective knowledge, neither the prosecution nor defense in the Clancy trial disputed the allegation that she killed (to deprive of life: cause the death of) her children. Yet, there remains doubt about murder (the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person).
As well, there’s the matter of manslaughter (the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice). Likewise, the jury likely considered an insanity plea (a plea in court of insanity as a reason or excuse for committing a crime). […]
Fascinatingly, I’ve observed the reactions of people who maintain starkly opposing views, as many individuals appear to be using a moral and ethical litmus test whereby they judge others—not merely beliefs or behavior, though globally evaluating people—which is an irrational act!
Favorably, I’m not persuaded by such nonsensical arguments. Moreover, their boos mean nothing, because I’ve seen what makes them cheer! Therefore, I plan on closely following the Clancy trial when it restarts, so that I may use Bayesian reasoning to then inform my view.
Even anticipating this event, I recognize that I’m not an unbiased observer; neither are you, and nor is anyone else—to include the judge, prosecution team, defense team, jurors, and so on and so forth. We’re all fallible humans, capable of committing heinous acts, and we retain bias!
Concerning that post, it may be helpful to now define some terms. Even though standard definitions may lengthen a blogpost, it’s useful to know what is and isn’t accurate.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), a moral is defined as “relating to the distinction between right and wrong behavior” and “describing a behavior that is considered ethical or proper, or a person or group who adheres to a moral code.”
Succinctly, the APA thusly defines morals as “the ethical values or principles that people use to guide their behavior.” Noteworthy, I stated in Objective Morality and Moral Absolutism:
Stated succinctly, one source posits, “Moral absolutism is a metaethical view that some or even all actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence.” I could agree with a “some” value in this regard [e.g., I maintain that sexually assaulting or raping children is morally wrong], though not the absolutistic “all” proposal [e.g., I propose that homicide which results from proper use of self-defense is morally right].
Thus, I reject the claim of moral absolutism. Of course, some elements of Stoicism – which is fundamentally intertwined with REBT [Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy] theory – tend to accept claims of objective morality and moral absolutism. For instance, authors of The Daily Stoic quote Seneca who stated (page 250):
This can be swiftly taught in very few words: virtue is the only good; there is no certain good without virtue; and virtue resides in our nobler part, which is the rational one. And what can this virtue be? True and steadfast judgment. For from this will arise every mental impulse, and by it every appearance that spurs our impulses will be rendered clear.
I reject Seneca’s objective moralist and moral absolutist claim. To his stance, I apply Hitchens’s razor—what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. As well, I apply the Sagan standard— extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Personally, there’s no credible evidence supporting objective morality or moral absolutism. Thus, the notion that virtue is “the only good,” and that “there is no certain good without virtue,” is dismissed without evidence, because such claims require extraordinary evidence.
Given that I reject the notion of objective morality, because fallible human beings maintain their own notions of what is morally good or bad, and right or wrong, it’s now worth describing the subjectivity of ethics. Accordingly, the APA thusly defines ethics:
1. the branch of philosophy that investigates both the content of moral judgments (i.e., what is right and what is wrong) and their nature (i.e., whether such judgments should be considered objective or subjective). The study of the first type of question is sometimes termed normative ethics and that of the second metaethics. Also called moral philosophy.
2. the principles of morally right conduct accepted by a person or a group or considered appropriate to a specific field. In psychological research, for example, proper ethics requires that participants be treated fairly and without harm and that investigators report results and findings honestly.
Whereas a life coach or psychotherapist may take a moral position regarding sexual activity with one’s coworkers, the ethical standards applying to the field of psychotherapy posits that it’s unethical to engage in sex with one’s clients. Basically, ethics are field-specific morals.
Aside from one’s professional field are the moral prescriptions which govern a society. Thus, the APA defines law as “a formally established rule regulating the conduct of people within a particular jurisdiction that must be obeyed to avoid legal [of or relating to law] sanctions.”
As an example, Texas may have different laws than does Massachusetts—where the Clancy case was litigated. Therefore, people who aren’t within Clancy’s legal jurisdiction may be subject to, and hold differing law-based views, regarding her case. Thus, law isn’t universally objective.
This brings me to the matter of justice. Notably, the APA defines justice as “the impartial and fair settlement of conflict and differences, typically by legal process and the imposition of proportionate punishment.” Perhaps controversially, I believe that there’s no impartiality in law.
Allow me to expound. I view many events through the proverbial lens of REBT, as I’ll now provide a psychoeducational lesson that involves thinking and believing which is rational (in accordance with both logic and reason), or not (i.e., irrational), as it regards REBT herein.
Here, logic is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and reason is a statement offered in explanation or justification. For instance, a modus ponens syllogism uses the following logical form: If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Before I provide an example, it may be useful to know that one source states, “A theory is, in general, any hypothesis or set of ideas about something, formed in any number of ways through any sort of reasoning for any sort of reason.” Colloquially, a theory alludes to a mere belief.
If every theory in which I believe possibly could be true or real (p), then every theory in which I believe empirically must be true or real (q). Every theory in which I believe possibly could be true or real (p). Therefore, every theory in which I believe empirically must be true or real (q).
This proposition follows logical form; yet I argue that it isn’t reasonable, because what could be isn’t necessarily what is. Thus, I consider this syllogistic belief as that relating to irrationality. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that at least one person on this planet disagrees with my outlook.
Noteworthy, my worldview is subjective (characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind). Thus, not everyone agrees with what everybody else deems as rational or not. Irrespective of advocacy for equality, not everyone maintains the same views.
For clarity, the APA defines subjective as “taking place or existing only within the mind,” and defines objective as “having verifiable existence in the external world, independently of any opinion or judgment.”
Also, a rational perspective for one person may not be considered rational by members of a group. For example, people dedicating themselves to the practice of science may fervently disagree with referring to a mere belief as a “theory.” I agree! Yet, this is my subjective view.
Of subjectivity (the quality, state, or nature of being subjective) and objectivity (the quality or character of being objective: lack of favoritism toward one side or another: freedom from bias), I now turn to the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, which the APA thusly defines:
[T]he standard of proof required in a criminal trial. To convict a defendant, a jury must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” meaning there is no justifiable, rational cause for jury members to doubt the defendant’s guilt. This standard is considered to be equivalent to a moral certainty but is less than an absolute certainty.
Thus far, I’ve painstakingly outlined concepts regarding morals, ethics, law, justice, subjectivity, objectivity, and even my stance on moral absolutism. Perhaps disputably, I believe that there’s no impartiality in law, because fallible humans judge legal cases using subjective morals.
For context, the APA defines judgment as “the capacity to recognize relationships, draw conclusions from evidence, and make critical evaluations of events and people.” Now, consider that one source thusly states:
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court’s explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
Per one source, “The holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three children in 2023, admitted during deliberations ‘that he had reasonable doubt,’ but refused to conclude she was not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury’s foreperson has said.”
For clarity, the APA defines an insanity defense as “in criminal law, the defense plea that an individual lacks criminal responsibility for their conduct. See also diminished responsibility.” As I understand, Clancy’s defense regards bipolar disorder, psychosis, and psychopharmacotherapy.
Although I have no access to the inner-workings of his mind, I imagine that the holdout juror in the Clancy case either couldn’t (i.e., an ability issue) or wouldn’t (i.e., a willful issue) overcome his subjective moral views, rather than deferring to objective legal standards.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose that person X sat on the jury for Clancy’s case. This imagined individual ostensibly believed, “No matter what – irrespective of a mood disorder, hallucinations or delusions, or iatrogenic effects of medication – killing kids is morally wrong!”
Photo credit, Designed by Magnific, fair use
Subjectively, I suspect that not one juror would argue with person X’s belief about the moral reprehensibility of killing kids. Yet, as I understand it, the relevant matter in the Clancy case is whether or not she was able to distinguish between right and wrong when she killed her kids.
Therefore, person X’s subjective or objective morality isn’t in question. Rather, extenuating (tending to lessen the real or apparent seriousness of something, such as a crime, offense, or fault: providing a partial justification or excuse for something) factors are relevant.
When viewed according to the legal principles governing Massachusetts law, such relevant factors would regard mitigating (to cause to become less harsh or hostile) circumstances, thus affording proper consideration of a diminished responsibility or insanity plea.
Noteworthy, throughout my blog, I advocate use of personal responsibility and accountability (collectively “ownership”), as I maintain that people have personal agency regarding their decisions. Nevertheless, I don’t rigidly maintain that this absolutely must be true in all cases.
There are legitimate extenuating and mitigating factors concerning the unique circumstances people experience. For instance, the apparent mood disorder, hallucinations or delusions, or iatrogenic effects of medication regarding Lindsay Clancy’s case actually matter.
I express this as one who maintains that in most, though not absolutely all, cases it’s morally wrong to kill children. Even with this sensitive topic, I believe that if a 16-year-old breaks into my home at night, to harm me, and I don’t know the age of the assailant, that kid’s getting shot!
You may view my proposition as morally repugnant, and that’s understandable. Aside from justifiable fear for my life, I’ve been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, and traumatic brain injury.
Like Clancy’s legal defense, I’d likely have extenuating and mitigating factors in my case. Now, suppose that you have a different subjective moral standard. You’re then assigned to my jury. Can you reserve judgement, from a moral stance, and instead rely on objective judgement?
Many people can’t or won’t. This reflects hypothetical person X, as well as what nominally occurred with the holdout juror in the Clancy case. Therefore, morals, ethics, law, justice, subjectivity, and objectivity are worth comprehending, as your life could one day be on the line.
Depending on the United States (U.S.) jurisdiction in which you live, an obstinate juror who inflexibly clings to subjective morality, rather than following presumably objective instructions of the Court, could declare your legal guilt. This may then result in capital punishment.
Perhaps Clancy is somewhat fortunate, even regarding her unfortunate circumstances. Although a hypothetical scenario is unfalsifiable, regarding a what-if example about her prosecution in Texas, I offer that my state doesn’t have a morally good legal record. Per one source:
On May 14, 2026, Edward Busby became the 600th person executed in Texas in the last 50 years. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had temporarily stayed his execution, but the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay, allowing the execution to proceed. Mr. Busby is a person whom all experts agree has intellectual disability [formerly “mental retardation”], and he should therefore have been legally ineligible for execution.
For context, one source states, “Busby’s IQ scores, according to the records, have fallen within the range of 65 and 75,” though another source states that “his score of 77 placed Busby in approximately the bottom sixth percentile […and] that Busby was not intellectually disabled.”
Of intellectual disability, the American Psychiatric Association reports, “A full scale IQ score of around 70 to 75 indicates a significant limitation in intellectual functioning. However, the IQ score must be considered in relation to the bigger picture of the person’s general mental abilities.”
Apparently, there are people who won’t even grant extenuating and mitigating circumstances regarding people with intellectual disabilities. Ostensibly, they maintain that it’s morally right to execute people who may not have the ability to use sound logic and reason. Yet, I digress.
I invite you to exercise sound logic and reason, given the matters I’ve addressed herein. Considering the subjectivity of morals and ethics, and supposed objectivity of law and justice, can you reserve judgement by instead using rational thinking and beliefs? If so, then good!
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Expert Q&A: Intellectual disability. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/intellectual-disability/expert-q-and-a
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/attention-deficithyperactivity-disorder
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Beyond reasonable doubt. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/beyond-reasonable-doubt
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Bipolar disorder. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/bipolar-disorder
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Conflict. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/conflict
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Criminal responsibility. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/criminal-responsibility
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Delusion. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/delusion
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Diminished responsibility. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/diminished-responsibility
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Ethics. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/ethics
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Fairness. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/fairness
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Hallucination. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/hallucination
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Iatrogenic. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/iatrogenic
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Insanity defense. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/insanity-defense
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Intellectual disability. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/intellectual-disability
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). IQ. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/iq
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Judgment. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/judgment
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Justice. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/justice
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Law. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/law
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Liability. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/liability
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Major depressive disorder. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/major-depressive-disorder
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Mental retardation (MR). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/mental-retardation
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Mood disorder. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/mood-disorder
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Moral. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/moral
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Moral code. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/moral-code
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Morals. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/morals
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Objective. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/objective
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/posttraumatic-stress-disorder
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Proof. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/proof
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Psychopharmacological drug. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/psychopharmacological-drug
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Psychopharmacotherapy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/psychopharmacotherapy
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Psychosis. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/psychosis
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Subjective. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/subjective
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Traumatic brain injury (TBI). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/traumatic-brain-injury
Ckybe. (n.d.). A bunch of adorable students posing for the camera while on a school bus. Magnific. Retrieved from https://www.magnific.com/premium-ai-image/bunch-adorable-students-posing-camera-while-school-bus_170614824.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=20&uuid=cbd00fcb-ef9b-4e03-abf9-2a8280b5348c&track=ais_hybrid&query=children
FindLaw. (n.d.). Busby v. Davis (2019), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/1998823.html
Hill, J. (2026, September 8). Holdout in Lindsay Clancy trial said he had reasonable doubt but still wouldn’t acquit, juror says. The Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-trial-holdout-juror-999539982691ae345cadb90321243f96
Holiday, R. and Hanselman, S. (2016). The daily stoic: 366 meditations on wisdom, perseverance, and the art of living. Penguin Random House LLC. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-daily-stoic-366-meditations-on-wisdom-perseverance-and-the-art-of-living-d61378067.html
Hollings, D. (2025, December 1). A diagnosis is a form of hypothesis. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-diagnosis-is-a-form-of-hypothesis
Hollings, D. (2026, June 16). A fountain of goodness: Subjective and objective views. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-fountain-of-goodness-subjective-and-objective-views
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2026, February 8). Adaptive and maladaptive emotions and behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adaptive-and-maladaptive-emotions-and-behavior
Hollings, D. (2026, February 10). Are you outsourcing your ability to think critically? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/are-you-outsourcing-your-ability-to-think-critically
Hollings, D. (2025, September 13). Are your actions ruled by reason? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/are-your-actions-ruled-by-reason
Hollings, D. (2025, March 8). As it could be. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/as-it-could-be
Hollings, D. (2026, September 8). Attention: Changing the way you respond to a situation makes a difference. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/attention-changing-the-way-you-respond-to-a-situation-makes-a-difference
Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Automatic thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/automatic-thoughts-and-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2025, February 12). Bayesian inference. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/bayesian-inference
Hollings, D. (2026, March 9). Bloodlust: Homicidal ideation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/bloodlust-homicidal-ideation
Hollings, D. (2026, March 3). Blowback and knock-on effects: Subjectivity of beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/blowback-and-knock-on-effects-subjectivity-of-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2025, October 23). Bringing together sound teaching with sound conduct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/bringing-together-sound-teaching-with-sound-conduct
Hollings, D. (2026, July 9). Common sense: Does the proposition use sound judgment? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/common-sense-does-the-proposition-use-sound-judgment
Hollings, D. (2026, July 29). Comprehension: Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/comprehension-to-you-understand-the-words-that-are-coming-out-of-my-mouth
Hollings, D. (2026, February 19). Conclusions in search of rationale. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conclusions-in-search-of-rationale
Hollings, D. (2023, August 28). Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/confirmation-bias-and-cognitive-dissonance
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2025, August 19). Doing right or wrong, as they see it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/doing-right-or-wrong-as-they-see-it
Hollings, D. (2025, May 16). Eff the logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/eff-the-logic
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, August 1). Equal rights, equal fights. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/equal-rights-equal-fights
Hollings, D. (2025, December 5). Evaluations and appraisals: Men are gross, trash, and pigs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/evaluations-and-appraisals-men-are-gross-trash-and-pigs
Hollings, D. (2026, April 12). Excuses, explanations, and justifications. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/excuses-explanations-and-justifications
Hollings, D. (2025, December 13). Explanation and justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/explanation-and-justification
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2026, September 2). Harm: Negative, though healthy or unhealthy disgust. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/harm-negative-though-healthy-or-unhealthy-disgust
Hollings, D. (2026, June 6). High and dry: Steering a proverbial ship around unhelpful assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/high-and-dry-steering-a-proverbial-ship-around-unhelpful-assumptions
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2026, March 16). Hopeful anticipation vs. disturbing expectation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hopeful-anticipation-vs-disturbing-expectation
Hollings, D. (2026, June 12). Human nature: How you live makes a difference. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-nature-how-you-live-makes-a-difference
Hollings, D. (2024, February 20). I have a theory about that. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/i-have-a-theory-about-that
Hollings, D. (2026, July 1). If your reaction isn’t disturbed, then why is it disturbed-coded? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/if-your-reactions-isn-t-disturbed-then-why-is-it-disturbed-coded
Hollings, D. (2022, November 8). Information overload. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/information-overload
Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Integrity and honesty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/integrity-and-honesty
Hollings, D. (2025, April 23). Judgment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/judgment
Hollings, D. (2026, March 11). Just the facts. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/just-the-facts
Hollings, D. (2026, April 3). Kno one: A negative evaluation – People aren’t their behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/kno-one-a-negative-evaluation-people-aren-t-their-behavior
Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding
Hollings, D. (2025, May 18). Learning to understand, attentively and deeply. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/learning-to-understand-attentively-and-deeply
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2026, May 17). Listening to reason through argument: Is the rhetoric of whataboutism persuasive? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/listening-to-reason-through-argument-is-the-rhetoric-of-whataboutism-persuasive
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2025, November 28). Making decisions with jumbled judgment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/making-decisions-with-jumbled-judgment
Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Moral and ethical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-and-ethical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2026, February 16). Moral panic: The irrationality of slogans such as “believe women” and “believe victims”. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-panic-the-irrationality-of-slogans-such-as-believe-women-and-believe-victims
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2026, July 13). Nonconscious distress and a centipede. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonconscious-distress-and-a-centipede
Hollings, D. (2026, June 9). Nonsense: It’s plainly pride. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonsense-it-s-plainly-pride
Hollings, D. (2024, March 13). Objective morality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality
Hollings, D. (2026, March 18). Objective morality and moral absolutism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality-and-moral-absolutism
Hollings, D. (2026, April 4). Objective reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-reality
Hollings, D. (2025, September 26). Observing eye and perceiving eye. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/observing-eye-and-perceiving-eye
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, June 16). On virtue. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-virtue
Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions
Hollings, D. (2026, July 9). Outlook: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/outlook-the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same
Hollings, D. (2025, April 9). Perception, action, and will. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-action-and-will
Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). Personal agency. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-agency
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
Hollings, D. (2025, September 9). Personal responsibility and accountability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-responsibility-and-accountability
Hollings, D. (2024, July 20). Perspective shift. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perspective-shift
Hollings, D. (2026, April 13). PLUR: Addressing sexual assault and rape. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/plur-addressing-sexual-assault-and-rape
Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2026, March 18). Prejudice vs. discernment: Bias. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/prejudice-vs-discernment-bias
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2025, June 14). Pulled like a puppet by every impulse. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/pulled-like-a-puppet-by-every-impulse
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Rational vs. irrational. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-vs-irrational
Hollings, D. (2024, December 5). Reasoning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reasoning
Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). Reasoning with the unreasonable. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reasoning-with-the-unreasonable
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Recommendatory should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/recommendatory-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2026, March 5). Rules-based order: Rules will vary. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rules-based-order-rules-will-vary
Hollings, D. (2025, December 31). Sanctum: A focus on irrationality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sanctum-a-focus-on-irrationality
Hollings, D. (2026, February 24). Skepticism: I doubt it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/skepticism-i-doubt-it
Hollings, D. (2025, December 24). Some people advocate walking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/some-people-advocate-walking
Hollings, D. (2026, May 31). Standards and principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/standards-and-principles
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoicism
Hollings, D. (2024, January 25). Subjectivity of consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/subjectivity-of-consequences
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct
Hollings, D. (2025, February 4). The definition of insanity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-definition-of-insanity
Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2024, May 27). The process is the punishment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-process-is-the-punishment
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2025, November 6). The senses and self-defense. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-senses-and-self-defense
Hollings, D. (2026, April 23). The three traditionally identified components of the mind: Affect, cognition, and conation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-three-traditionally-identified-components-of-the-mind-affect-cognition-and-conation
Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends
Hollings, D. (2026, May 15). The speed of thoughts and beliefs: Flipping the bird. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-speed-of-thoughts-and-beliefs-flipping-the-bird
Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal
Hollings, D. (2026, September 5). Trials: Subjective and objective views of justice and injustice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/trials-subjective-and-objective-views-of-justice-and-injustice
Hollings, D. (2026, February 17). Unexpected strings: Escapism and avoidance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unexpected-strings-escapism-and-avoidance
Hollings, D. (2023, October 22). Unfalsifiability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unfalsifiability
Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Value. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/value
Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Values. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/values
Hollings, D. (2026, May 26). We aren’t all the same. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-aren-t-all-the-same
Hollings, D. (2024, July 3). What equality? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-equality
Hollings, D. (2023, October 10). When others don’t share your worldview. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/when-others-don-t-share-your-worldview
Hollings, D. (2026, April 30). Willfully stuck: I’m stuck in my ways. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/willfully-stuck-i-m-stuck-in-my-ways
Hollings, D. (2025, October 20). Would there be enough evidence to convict you? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/would-there-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-you
Hollings, D. (2026, March 8). You are not your beliefs or ideas. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/you-are-not-your-beliefs-or-ideas
Hollings, D. (2025, June 12). Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/your-boos-mean-nothing-i-ve-seen-what-makes-you-cheer
Holsinger, A. (2026, May 12). A man with intellectual disability was the 600th person executed in Texas. Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/will-a-person-with-intellectual-disability-become-texas-600th-execution-in-the-modern-era
Landers, J. (2026, May 14). Hours before his Texas execution, Edward Busby’s fate rests with the courts. Yahoo! News. Retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hours-texas-execution-edward-busby-100000422.html
NBC10 Boston. (2026, September 8). Lindsay Clancy trial | 3 jurors talk about deadlocked deliberations in exclusive interview [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/GK8QP-gOjDI?si=tC8UQa-cnIZlfUPg
Walsh, A. (2026, September 9). Holdout juror in Clancy case admitted ‘reasonable doubt,’ foreperson says. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/09/lindsay-clancy-case-holdout-juror-had-reasonable-doubt-foreperson-says/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Capital punishment. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Capital punishment in Texas. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Court order. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_order
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Guilt (law). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hitchens’s razor. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Impartiality. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impartiality
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Judgment (law). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Killing of the Clancy children. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_the_Clancy_children
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Litmus test (politics). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_test_(politics)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Moral absolutism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Sagan standard. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Seneca the Younger. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Theory. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Wikipedia. (n.d.). United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit
