Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rights of severely mentally ill

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

My question is do mentally ill people who are conscious but have no conceptual capacity and no chance of improving have at the very least the right to life. If so, what is the source of those rights? I am looking for the Objectivist answer of course.

Edited by softwareNerd
per OP's request
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This topic was brought up on Objectivist Answers, which you might want to take a look at:

http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/6968/do-mentally-handicapped-humans-have-rights

One poster says :

"A mentally impaired human who cannot take care of himself would need to rely on the voluntary charity of others."

Just like anyone who isn't retarded or handicapped, and can't take care of themselves financially and so forth, would rely on charity.

I would add:

Now in the case of children, the young, minors, that are retarded or whatnot, I would say parents would still be responsible for them like they are for normal minors. But when that ends legally, you are not responsible for them at all.

Oh and in this Peikoff podcast, they are human:

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/05/31/if-man-is-a-rational-being-are-severely-retarded-humans-men/

And here is Ayn Rand for what it's worth:

Question from audience:

[muffled audio which sounds like:] "...why is this culture..."

[loud noise which sounds as if it represents a point where the tape has been edited]

Rand: [mid-sentence] "...for healthy children to use handicapped materials. I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing — the whole progression of everything they're doing — to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to."

- Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981

I found that on this site:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/03/ayn-rand-quote-of-week-12308.html

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason why they would not have the same rights as anyone else.

As for brain dead, or vegetative state, depends if they have Advance Health Care Directive (a living will), family,etc. It's more of a medical/legal issue to largely be dealt with by the philosophy of law.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being severely mentally ill does not mean that you are brain dead. Brain death and severe mental illness are two completely separate things. Brain death means complete end of brain activity, meaning no consciousness, no potential for consciousness and therefore plain death. The only reason a brain dead person's body would be kept alive is to make sure that they are dead or to preserve their organs for donation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there has been a few earlier threads that discussed this, but I'm unable to find a good, well-focused one.

Here are some links though: this one, and this, and some dicussion in a "babies-rights" topic. Finally, there was also a "broken units" topic, discussing whether severely mentally-ill people are "human", but that was more about epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a good post from the last topic you cited and it was from you:

After reading the opening post I was not sure if you were trying to explore the notion of "broken unit", using retarded humans as an example, or if you were primarily trying to answer the question about retarded humans. I see that it is the latter.

Your latest post makes the issue very clear: of course retarded humans -- particularly as badly off as your example depicts -- cannot have all the rights of a normal human being.

First, A is A's two counter examples do not work; nevertheless, his examples are the right type of focus on reality that one needs to derive the proper principle (rather than trying to figure out "is this a 'man'? ").. If we're comparing against a person who was once alive, then we are respecting the rights that flow from that life. So, that's a different example, and does not help. If we're talking about a person who is sleeping, or under anesthesia, or in a coma from which they may emerge, we are once again dealing with a very different situation. The example you're presenting is of someone who never was and -- in the view of contemporary science -- never will be able to live like a regular human being.

You're right that emotions cannot be used as an argument (i.e. your point about not using "horror"), nor can any feeling of empathy for a being that is so much like us (your "sacredness" example). I'd quibble with the terms, but your main point is right: emotions cannot stand in for argument.

Anyhow, back to the central issue...

Clearly, retarded people cannot have all the rights of regular folk, signing contracts, etc. I'm pretty sure you agree with this. So, the question becomes: should they at least have some rights: like the right against physical violence.

I don't remember Rand addressing it formally. So, it is safe to say that Objectivism does not have a clearly enunciated position on this. However, she was asked about it in a Q&A, and she gave a brief answer. (Q&A answers cannot be given the same weight as published work or a planned speech. So, take this with that caveat.) She said that they are like perpetual children. She offered two reasons for allowing them some limited rights: one, that they might improve; second, as "a courtesy extended to them for being human". [see "Ayn Rand Answers", Ch-1, page 4] So, no, they could not have full human rights.

I'm wary of the reasoning you put forward to make the case for some rights. It is an extremely tempting argument, because it gets to the desired end and is able to justify it by reference to the rights of folks like us, for whom rights are not open to debate. However, I think it takes one down a slippery slope to judging someone on the basis of a link that is nebulous. The drunk driver is actually a different example. His is a case of someone taking an action that could actually endanger people (even if luck saw nobody hurt). The animal-hurter did not take any action that could endanger people. So, one is trying to look into his mind and extrapolate his future behavior. In this case, I don't think the extrapolation is justified.

In addition to all of the above, I am personally wary of the law deeming a person insane. I know it has to be done, to protect the insane. As long as the procedures are tight, I'm fine with it being done to protect the insane. If it is also done to declare the insane void of protection, I think that's one less guard against corrupt abuse. (There is a link to my own rights in this argument.)

I don't expect any of this would have convinced you that the retarded must have rights. In other words, I want to make it clear I regard these arguments to be rather weak. If you can come up with a really good argument for such protection, that'll be great. Meanwhile, the law already seems pretty good on this score. If anything, it might go too much in the other direction.

That argument, however, I agree is weak. It doesn't fall in line with the objectivist position on rights. But it does address my question.

I agree that mentally ill people have rights limited to their conceptual capacity - similar to children. However, do the severely mentally ill (with no functional rational faculty) have any rights at all? At least the right to life? And what is the source of those rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I still can't see why they wouldn't have the same inalienable rights. Both children and adults have them, you acquire them upon birth. But a limiting of certain rights adults have than minors or those with psychological issues, or medical like dementia, Alzheimer's, mental retardation to varying degrees, is largely for more specialized areas of philosophy of law.

To me, say, if your child was born retarded or became that way because of an accident, violence, etc. I don't see you being obligated to care for them after say 18 or whatever the set age would be. Then, one could say, "Get out you regard!" And if they couldn't physically get out, wheel them out in a wheelchair off your property, or get them removed from your property somehow if you don't want them there, because of property rights. Same with those that become regard or whatnot even after 18, too. You can pay for them to be taken care of in a home, maybe if you have them on health insurance, etc. But it would have to be done voluntary, I would think for those over a certain age.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon birth, one has those rights, simply because you are a human being. Rights, inalienable rights, in Objectivism, come from Objectivist ethics. Are you familiar with Objectivist ethics and politics?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_writings

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon birth, one has those rights, simply because you are a human being. Rights, inalienable rights, in Objectivism, come from Objectivist ethics. Are you familiar with Objectivist ethics and politics?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_writings

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Actually that is not the Objectivist position and that is why I posed this question. Even the links you cited state that is not the Objectivist position.

This is from the second link:

Second, “natural rights” theory holds that rights are “inherent” in man’s nature—meaning, “inborn” and a part of man by virtue of the fact that he is man. But rights are not inherent or inborn46—which is why (a) there is no evidence to suggest that they are, and (B) belief that they are is mocked as “one with belief in witches and unicorns.”

Rand’s theory holds not that rights are “inherent,” but that they are objective—not that they are “inborn,” but that they are conceptual identifications of the factual requirements of human life in a social context.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unborn do not have rights. A fetus does not have rights, only when it's BORN does it have rights, because it's an actual human being then and not just a potential. You have not shown how I was wrong in what I have said in that being the Objectivist position.

Here is what I said, here is Ayn Rand saying it:

" An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

So, when a human being is born, only then does it acquire any rights.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unborn do not have rights. A fetus does not have rights, only when it's BORN does it have rights, because it's an actual human being then and not just a potential. You have not shown how I was wrong in what I have said in that being the Objectivist position.

Here is what I said, here is Ayn Rand saying it:

" An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

So, when a human being is born, only then does it acquire any rights.

That is not what you said. You said:

Upon birth, one has those rights, simply because you are a human being.

And that is not the Objectivist position. The source of rights isn't "simply because you are human".

But anyway, this topic isn't about fetus vs born human rights, though it may be loosely related, so your last post is a bit distracting. Please stay on topic.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain this monstrous AR snippet? By monstrous, I mean crazy harsh and unjustified.

 

"I think it's a monstrous thing — the whole progression of everything
they're doing — to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the
retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and
all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded
should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children.
Children cannot deal, and
should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped
human being.
" -AR

 

And this..

 

"She said that they are like perpetual children. She offered two reasons
for allowing them some limited rights: one, that they might improve;
second, as "a courtesy extended to them for being human".
[see "Ayn Rand
Answers", Ch-1, page 4] So, no, they could not have full human rights." -snerd

 

Doesn't this contradict AR in 'man's rights'?

 

"The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which
means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the
property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that
the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual
rights."

 

Ok- all individuals have rights, as long as they abstain from violating others' rights. Why wouldn't this apply to the mentally ill, disabled, and handicapped?

 

To me, say, if your child was born retarded or became that way because of an accident, violence, etc. I don't see you being obligated to care for them after say 18 or whatever the set age would be. Then, one could say, "Get out you regard!" And if they couldn't physically get out, wheel them out in a wheelchair off your property, or get them removed from your property somehow if you don't want them there, because of property rights. Same with those that become regard or whatnot even after 18, too. You can pay for them to be taken care of in a home, maybe if you have them on health insurance, etc. But it would have to be done voluntary, I would think for those over a certain age.

 

What?? There is something seriously wrong with this. A parent is a parent is a parent, even after their children turn 18. A parent is responsible until and unless he or his child makes other arrangements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

]I am a bit confused on the reasoning behind the rights of the severely mentally ill with no conceptual capacity (I.e brain dead).



Which do you want to talk about - severely mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, or people with literally no conceptual faculty? All of these affect how to answer your question. Mentally handicapped could be low functioning autism. Mentally ill could be schizophrenia. No conceptual faculty is different than both of those as it would be a vegetative state at least. Or do you want an answer about all of these? You're generalization so far is sweeping and too wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since inalienable means can't be given away, I think one does not enjoy those rights( in the full)unless one has sufficient mental capacity. This is obviously a vague criteria and probably speaks more to the philosophy of law argument, certainly a border line case type of reasoning. But in a short answer I would say no, mentally incapacitated individuals do not enjoy rights in the same manner as those without such limiting factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdeggs As to the snippet , I am not sure where that particular quote comes from, but while being interviewed on Donahue, Rand spoke about public education and how its spending relates to what should be priorities. I won't provide a link to youtube , cause I don't think I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which do you want to talk about - severely mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, or people with literally no conceptual faculty? All of these affect how to answer your question. Mentally handicapped could be low functioning autism. Mentally ill could be schizophrenia. No conceptual faculty is different than both of those as it would be a vegetative state at least. Or do you want an answer about all of these? You're generalization so far is sweeping and too wide.

Sorry this is my question:

My question is do mentally ill people who are conscious but have no conceptual capacity and no chance of improving have at the very least the right to life. If so, what is the source of those rights? I am looking for the Objectivist answer of course.

Can an administrator please edit the original post in this topic to say that - thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thenellie 01:

I still do not see what I said was wrong.

Rand: " Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another."

Peikoff said retards are human. Rights comes from the law of identity. If you are human, you have rights.

But rights like voting, owning a fire arm, etc can vary between children and adults. Psychologically ill, mentally ill, rights can vary, be limited. Again, that is largely philosophy of law issue. But I gather they all have inalienable human rights because they are man, as in human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thenellie 01:

I still do not see what I said was wrong.

Rand: " Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another."

Peikoff said retards are human. Rights comes from the law of identity. If you are human, you have rights.

But rights like voting, owning a fire arm, etc can vary between children and adults. Psychologically ill, mentally ill, rights can vary, be limited. Again, that is largely philosophy of law issue. But I gather they all have inalienable human rights because they are man, as in human.

 

The quotes you are referring to lack context and necessary explanation. Retarded individuals are humans but lack the intellectual capacity of "ordinary" humans. Man's rights naturally derive from his nature, especially his nature as a rational being who survives. Given that retarded individuals lack full reasoning capactities, their rights are curbed or even non-existent in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thenellie 01:

I still do not see what I said was wrong.

Rand: " Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another."

Quotes are taken way out of context.

All men have rights (meaning, it isn't something where white men have rights and the black man doesn't, or he has rights but he doesn't), but they don't have rights simply because they are man, as you said. That is the argument that the religionists and natural rights' theorists put forth for the source of rights. That it is inherent due to God or simply because they are man.

The Objectivist position is that rights are conceptual identifications of the factual requirements of human life in a social context.

However, for the severely mentally ill man - one that is conscious but has no conceptual capacity and no hope of improving - this does not apply. My question is do they have the right to life and what is the source of that right?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way:

if you stab one repeatedly with a knife and they die, you violated their right to life. If you steal money out of a retards wallet/purse, you violated their property rights. How can they pursue happiness when dead? Or have had their money just taken?

I see that those inalienable individual rights, can be violated in such individuals, so they must have those rights then, correct?

Edit to add: for cases of brain dead, look at what we can do now to them now if they don't have living wills, or next of kin, etc. The decision can't be made by them, it can be made for them.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or look at cases of the comatose, where the decision can be made for them.

Mdegges upon further thinking, if they are treated like "perpetual children", yeah, you might have to be legal guardian of them even after 18 or 21 in LFC (thereby it's like what Rand said, a courtesy extended to them). You can place them in a facility, or get someone else to become power of attorney/legal guardian of them or whatnot I would imagine. I am not sure what objective laws would say on the matter, but it might be along those lines. What do we do with them now?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retarded individuals are humans but lack the intellectual capacity of "ordinary" humans. Man's rights naturally derive from his nature, especially his nature as a rational being who survives. Given that retarded individuals lack full reasoning capactities, their rights are curbed or even non-existent in some cases.

 

There's many people who lack 'full reasoning capacities' that are not mentally ill. Should their rights be written away, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...