Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Victor Rosen agreed with Dr. Hartmann that psychoanalysis cannot be a basis of a system of moral values, but this is different from keeping a moral system out of the analytic situation. To clarify the problem, he suggested that the subject might be divided into three categories: 1, the universal imperatives directed against murder and incest; 2, the value systems without which neither ego nor superego can function; 3, the moral structures which produce conflict and tension and represent the area in which the analyst must remain the objective observer.

After commenting on the scope of the panel discussion, Dr. Edward Harkavy told of treating an intentionally obnoxious Communist provocateur for a fracture of the leg; he wished to heal the man but also to knock him down. Dr. Atkin's solution for such a conflict is the religious attitude. The comments of Dr. Brenner and Dr. Beres suffer from being restricted to a narrow aspect of Western civilization. In his historical review, Dr. Beres limits himself to the Greek and Judeo-Christian views. Dr. Jan Frank also commented on the quasireligious view discussed by Dr. Atkin. He emphasized the implicit value judgment in the devotion to truth, as well as in the value we place on delay and discharge control.

Dr. Max Schur stressed the distinction between psychoanalysis as a science, in which we can study only the vicissitudes of moral systems, and psychoanalytic technique, in which moral values of necessity must operate. Since an ego function, such as thinking as a substitute for action, is based on delay, it must imply a moral value. The imposition of frustration, the demand that we tell our patients the truth, and that they should deal with us in a similar manner, are further illustrations of this point. Dr. Schur felt there was some contradiction in Dr. Beres' statement that the ego establishes the judgment of ethical values, and the superego creates the tension when these ethical values are not follo