Psychology and Moral Judgment

[Seeker]

How do you know when someone's voliton is impaired such that they are not responsible for their actions? I have in mind the example of an adult who throws a fit when verbally provoked, who is known to be on medication to treat depression and is getting psychological counseling, and is known to be sensitive and prone to violent emotional outbursts. In general, they have low self-esteem, their social skills seem to be at the level of a child, they tend towards pessimism and negativity, are generally difficult to deal with, and have a world view that entails not holding weak people responsible for their actions (for example they support socialism). In other words, their mind is a mess of negative premises and diagnosed disorders and it is not clear, in chicken-and-egg fashion, which is causing which. Compounding the problem, they don't care for themselves physically, don't sleep and exercise properly, and abuse alcohol. Not being privy to their full psychological diagnosis, we still must choose whether to apply moral judgment to their outbursts and other behavior. Complicating the matter is that holding them to account is precisely the sort of thing that provokes them to outburst.

In searching this forum, the answer I found is that such determinations are within the domain of psychology, a special science. But this is unsatisfactory. We are still responsible, as laypersons, for pronouncing moral judgment, but figuring out when someone should be held to account can be hard if we attempt our own psychologizing.

My initial answer is that they are responsible for their actions barring a wholesale declaration of insanity, i.e. the sort that would entail institutionalization. There is no getting off the hook. By choosing to participate in society, they consent to moral judgment, notwithstanding any psychological peculiarity or apparent weaknesses. But is this right? Thoughts?

[KevinDW78]

I would agree with your conclusion.

Edited August 8, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Zip]

I disagree. There is room for leeway in my opinion.

I, knowing that the person has psychological problems will behave rationally, by taking that diagnosis into account. I will most likely limit my dealings with the person to areas that do not trigger him/her for my own safety and the safety of others.

This does not mean that I will not defend myself or take other prudent action should the person loose it, but knowing the problem exists I have a responsibility to myself to take account of the facts of the situation.

You are correct that the person has chosen to live as part of society and therefore must take some responsibility for his/her action, but you, by freely associating with him/her and knowing the problem exists must also logically accept the possibility of an outburst in your presence. If you can't do that then you should steer clear.

[JMeganSnow]

I think it's interesting to note that in "The Psychology of Psychologizing" Ayn Rand made a point of saying that a neurosis is not the same as a psychosis.

A neurotic can still control their behavior. It may be more difficult for them in some respects because of the powerful (and perhaps to them, inexplicable) emotions they experience, however it is not impossible and they are as responsible for their behavior as anyone else. In fact, a neurotic who throws the weight of his neurosis on innocent bystanders has less of an excuse than a psychologically normal person who acts out of emotion--the neurotic knows that acting on his emotions is extremely dangerous for everyone involved.

The fact that you may have a heavier cross to bear than other people does not give you an excuse to use it for bashing their heads in.

Edit: I think that if you want to give leeway to someone with a neurosis, you should do it by giving them a *extra credit* for what they *have* accomplished, not by giving them allowances for the bad things they've done. So, when, say, they *do* control their temper, you should heap praise upon them as something they have *earned*. This may have the added benefit of making it easier for them to do battle with their neurosis. To paraphrase AS: in that way, the mistakes of the past become, not a funeral mount above you, but a mountain you have climbed to attain a wider field of vision.

P.S. There's no such thing as impaired volition, only impaired judgment. One is still responsible for judging the quality of one's judgment, however.

Edited August 8, 2008 by JMeganSnow

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think it's interesting to note that in "The Psychology of Psychologizing" Ayn Rand made a point of saying that a neurosis is not the same as a psychosis.

The DFW OPAR Study Group will be discussing "The Psychology of Psychologizing" in a few weeks to a month. That essays, in my opinion, is very dense and requires careful reading. I have come up with 27 questions breaking it down in steps that we will be the basis of our discussion. If you want to read the questions as a study guide yourself, they are available at the link below. Of course, if you want to get involved in the discussion, you can sign up to the group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/message/757

Basically, though, yes, a man is responsible for what he says and does, even while having psychological problems. He is also expected to be cognitive and to act accordingly and to retain control of his mind. This means he needs to act (including speaking) based on reason instead of his confused emotions -- since emotions are not tools of cognition.

However, in my personal opinion, it is good to vent out the conflicts, though one ought to be careful who one vents to and what one says and does while venting. I say this because it is not a good idea to either suppress or repress one's emotions while dealing with such conflicts, because if the conflict is that close to the surface it will become explicit in due order. Once it becomes explicit, it can be dealt with by the conscious mind and be resolved; but trying to keep the conflict down will make it worse.

Many people feel greatly embarrassed or guilty when they have a psychological problem, which is why some of them get angry at the suggestion that they ought to do something about it. One does not have direct volitional control over one's subconscious, and one may have tried to do something about it, but reached a stumbling block because one does not have control of this aspect of human consciousness. This can lead to a state of frustration and anger, with oneself and with others who are telling him he ought to do something about it. If he is in that state, then it is best to leave him alone, unless he is a very good friend and you know how to phrase it in such a way as to not augment his confusions.

It is certainly possible to resolve the conflicts, but this might require professional help. But, if he is making a nuisance towards you with his problem, then you will have to decide if you will still remain friends or not. You can tell him politely what you think you need to tell him, but I have had friends who have had severe psychological problems, and in the long-run we became much better friends because I was not morally judgmental about their problems. In other words, having a psychological problem is not a moral fault because one does not have direct control over one's subconscious.

[Zip]

I think it's interesting to note that in "The Psychology of Psychologizing" Ayn Rand made a point of saying that a neurosis is not the same as a psychosis.

A neurotic can still control their behavior. It may be more difficult for them in some respects because of the powerful (and perhaps to them, inexplicable) emotions they experience, however it is not impossible and they are as responsible for their behavior as anyone else. In fact, a neurotic who throws the weight of his neurosis on innocent bystanders has less of an excuse than a psychologically normal person who acts out of emotion--the neurotic knows that acting on his emotions is extremely dangerous for everyone involved.

The fact that you may have a heavier cross to bear than other people does not give you an excuse to use it for bashing their heads in.

Edit: I think that if you want to give leeway to someone with a neurosis, you should do it by giving them a *extra credit* for what they *have* accomplished, not by giving them allowances for the bad things they've done. So, when, say, they *do* control their temper, you should heap praise upon them as something they have *earned*. This may have the added benefit of making it easier for them to do battle with their neurosis. To paraphrase AS: in that way, the mistakes of the past become, not a funeral mount above you, but a mountain you have climbed to attain a wider field of vision.

P.S. There's no such thing as impaired volition, only impaired judgment. One is still responsible for judging the quality of one's judgment, however.

Perhaps I'm too literal...

who is known to be on medication to treat depression and is getting psychological counselling

This is not a description of a neurosis but of clinical depression, a diagnosed medical condition.

The fact is that many people are not mentally strong enough to control their emotions. It may be a failure of their personal philosophy with contradictory impulses and messages from society but that does not necessarily mean that they can control it, and that means that in order to be rational I have to be aware of it and take it into account in my dealings with that person, should I choose to have them.

If a weak willed neurotic looses it what possible value will it be to then denounce, harangue or pass moral judgement on someone that is unable to control themselves? If I cared for the person I would probably talk to them about it later, but it would be as useful as talking to a brick wall to chastise them when the episode is ongoing or he is just beginning to calm himself.

[JMeganSnow]

The fact is that many people are not mentally strong enough to control their emotions.

No one's asking them to control their emotions, just to control their actions. I'm morbidly obese. I could go to the doctor and be diagnosed with a medical problem for which I could receive treatment. I don't hear the people lining up to say that I should be excused for being overweight because I'm "not mentally strong enough" to get off my fat butt.

Like I said, if you care about someone who has a mental illness, give them credit when they're strong. Don't be an enabler and make excuses for them when they are weak.

[Zip]

No one's asking them to control their emotions, just to control their actions. I'm morbidly obese. I could go to the doctor and be diagnosed with a medical problem for which I could receive treatment. I don't hear the people lining up to say that I should be excused for being overweight because I'm "not mentally strong enough" to get off my fat butt.

Like I said, if you care about someone who has a mental illness, give them credit when they're strong. Don't be an enabler and make excuses for them when they are weak.

Are you trying to say that the psychological has no bearing on the physical? Ever?

[Zip]

I have been thinking on this and thought of another question, so I reorganized these two paragraphs so that the questions could be asked in a less confusing manner.

Like I said, if you care about someone who has a mental illness, give them credit when they're strong. Don't be an enabler and make excuses for them when they are weak.

I do not see where I have inferred that these two actions are mutually exclusive.

Of course you praise someone who is able through hard work to overcome some great difficulty but that does not preclude you from acknowledging his/her weakness and accounting for it. For example, if I had a friend who was an alcoholic does it not make perfect sense to arrange to meet him socially in a coffee shop versus a nightclub?

No one's asking them to control their emotions, just to control their actions. I'm morbidly obese. I could go to the doctor and be diagnosed with a medical problem for which I could receive treatment. I don't hear the people lining up to say that I should be excused for being overweight because I'm "not mentally strong enough" to get off my fat butt.

But the point made in the first post was that the person was in treatment, not lazy, the person is trying, not avoiding the effort.

I have and do condemn my own wife for her smoking. I tell her that it is going to kill her, and if I cared for you I'd similarly tell you that being morbidly obese will kill you.

But when my wife tries to quit smoking I praise her every day that she goes without one and try to avoid places where she will be exposed to smoking, like her mothers house. Similarly I wouldn't invite you to an all you can eat buffet if you were on a diet and we were meeting socially.

Is my point clearer now?

[JMeganSnow]

There is a huge gulf between trying to help someone avoid unnecessary struggles and helping them avoid the *necessary* ones--and an even larger one between that and refusing to judge them as morally responsible. The original poster's question was regarding whether you should judge a mentally debilitated person as morally responsible for their actions, not whether you should *be considerate* of them.