Thesis (D. Min.)--Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 188-192).

Past research has recommended that clinical mental health (CMHC) administrators employ a relational focus to their work, but little evidence exists that such a relational focus is actually being utilized. Guided by Rogers' principles of client-centered therapy, this study examined whether CMHC administrators possessed the knowledge and attitudes to utilize the recommendation of relational based therapy and whether implementation in the CMHC was feasible. A qualitative multiple case study design was utilized to collect personal interviews with 12 CMHC administrators who could discuss Norcross and Wampold's single recommendation about therapeutic relationships. Results were triangulated with the guide for CMHC financing, namely Rule 132, as provided by the administrators. Thematic content analysis of the data revealed that administrators were knowledgeable and in favor of the recommendation where funding could be provided. However, the administrators considered implementation unreasonable because of regulations, low financing of CMHC services primarily through Medicaid, burdensome paperwork requirements, and limited staff qualifications. Understanding these answers from CMHC administrators within the context and limitations of the CMHC should impress upon lawmakers the need for adequate financing of resources to implement the recommendation, which could result in promoting social change in the delivery of services for mental health.

Demandingness-based objections to utilitarianism and other consequentialist moral theories constitute the most important problem facing moral philosophers today. In this Thesis, I offer an explanation of what makes the demandingness objection compelling, namely, that utilitarianism alienates us from the projects and goals that define us as individual human beings (normally taken to be a separate objection). This suggests that solving the problems demandingness considerations present involves carving out a space for these projects and goals alongside the demands of a consequentialist morality; thus, we have two nearly independent sources of normative reasons, and the real question is how they interact. Various suggestions for answering this question are considered and rejected. I also discuss how Alastair Norcross’ scalar utilitarianism “solves” the demandingness problem, what the costs of this solution are, and how it might be integrated into a theory concerning the aforementioned interaction. / February 2008

Demandingness-based objections to utilitarianism and other consequentialist moral theories constitute the most important problem facing moral philosophers today. In this Thesis, I offer an explanation of what makes the demandingness objection compelling, namely, that utilitarianism alienates us from the projects and goals that define us as individual human beings (normally taken to be a separate objection). This suggests that solving the problems demandingness considerations present involves carving out a space for these projects and goals alongside the demands of a consequentialist morality; thus, we have two nearly independent sources of normative reasons, and the real question is how they interact. Various suggestions for answering this question are considered and rejected. I also discuss how Alastair Norcross’ scalar utilitarianism “solves” the demandingness problem, what the costs of this solution are, and how it might be integrated into a theory concerning the aforementioned interaction.

Demandingness-based objections to utilitarianism and other consequentialist moral theories constitute the most important problem facing moral philosophers today. In this Thesis, I offer an explanation of what makes the demandingness objection compelling, namely, that utilitarianism alienates us from the projects and goals that define us as individual human beings (normally taken to be a separate objection). This suggests that solving the problems demandingness considerations present involves carving out a space for these projects and goals alongside the demands of a consequentialist morality; thus, we have two nearly independent sources of normative reasons, and the real question is how they interact. Various suggestions for answering this question are considered and rejected. I also discuss how Alastair Norcross’ scalar utilitarianism “solves” the demandingness problem, what the costs of this solution are, and how it might be integrated into a theory concerning the aforementioned interaction.

The word revise means to reconsider or modify as with text. If we think of the suburban landscape as a text, the culture of each era left documentation of their values, policies and way of life in the form of transportation networks and other infrastructure, such as Main Streets, squares and public buildings. While evidence of most of the everyday life of individuals of every era gets erased by the following era, infrastructure investments of each era are adaptively reused and remain to tell the story. This thesis documents the adaptive reuse of these suburban frameworks and develops a proposition for the appropriate next layer to accommodate a new culture of inhabitants. Focusing on second generation suburbs, using Gwinnett County as a case study, this analysis identifies three problems of the current suburban situation: the problem of abandoned strips, a demographic shift, and the need for place. As new strip highways develop, old strips decline leaving abandoned shopping centers and declining property values. New development continues to move north and out of the county, and middle class residents, for which existing auto-oriented suburbs were created, move as well. A new, poorer, and more ethnically diverse population inherits the auto-oriented landscape left behind. This phenomenon is particularly concentrated along the southern portion of the Buford Highway corridor. Those with more money move closer to new development, while those with less money have less choice and are found near declining strips with fewer services, poorer quality housing and lower quality of life. Finally, county officials have expressed a desire for defining "the epicenter of Gwinnett." I believe that there is no one "center" of Gwinnett, but a series of places defined by memory, design or events. I propose to improve the situation of these three problems with a light rail line that connects existing places and creates new walkable, livable places to improve quality of life. This connective piece will serve as a social condenser in lieu of a center, provide links between polar populations, and reactivate declining strips while creating a sustainable infrastructural spine for future growth in the region.