This post is about two sociological phenomena commonly discussed in blogging, self-help, and therapeutic contexts. They are popular in lay discussions online as well as among experts, and they serve as the foundation of advice given by friends, therapists, and generally online. The situations in which advice based on these concepts is given can be high-stakes, dealing with some of the most important problems people may face in their relationships, like physical and emotional abuse. I argue that both have significant conceptual difficulties and that neither replace moral reasoning, although some of their proponents may desire that they do so. Despite these difficulties, there may be some instrumentally valid uses of these only-partially-true conceptual frameworks. 

Question for the reader: when you think that something is outrageously wrong, how do you usually get there? By doing math?

Actions become moral, under individual-focused, agency/consent-based morality, when they are desired and the harmful externalities fall under a threshold. But if our desires never come from within, if there is no authenticity, then no decision can be moral because the first requirement is never met.