Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can/should the state encourage rationality?

Rate this topic


Old Geezer

Recommended Posts

The courts have recently ruled that to protect society, the court can force individuals into mental health treatment.

Anyone who has ever seen a schizophrenic on Haldol then off Haldol knows that medications can increase people's ability to think rationally, perceive reality accurately, and to adhere to important social norms (such as not acting aggressively)

Often on these boards it has been asserted that a society of rational individuals is in everyone's best interests. Further, we all seem to agree that initiation of force without a good reason is pretty destructive. These would seem to be reasons to encourage the state to protect its citizens by taking "pre emptive action" and forcing treatment.

Yet at the same time, it seems that the courts have extended the power of the state to act not only when a "clear danger to selves or others" exists, as was the case under Tarasoff, but now when patients erratic behavior is deemed to be enough to justify forced treatment. This would seem to offer the danger that the state might infring on peoples rights to be act in ways that dont harm others. Yet sometimes this erratic behavior is a precursor to extremely dangerous behavior.

What is the rights of the state under such conditions??? What are the Responsibilities of the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state has no rights apart from those of each individual within it.

The responsibilities of the state are to prevent certain actions from occurring, namely initiation of force and such. Not to ensure that every individual is rational: it has no responsibility to stop me from donating the multibillion-dollar businesses I own to a blind one-legged teenager, deaf in one ear, and who speaks only Akkadian. It has no responsibility to stop me from getting drunk every night. It has no responsibility to stop me from advocating socialism. It only has the responsibility to stop me from hurting others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The responsibilities of the state are to prevent certain actions from occurring, namely initiation of force and such. Not to ensure that every individual is rational:"

I guess I had already assumed aggreement on that... What I was getting at is what responsibilities the state has when peoples irrationality poses a potential threat of initiation of force, etc.

For instance, when a schizophrenic begins talking tangentially, demonstrating evidence of paranoid thought processes etc this is a sign that they are no longer on their medication.... and when they are no longer on their medication its sort of a craps shoot as to whether they will initiate force or not. more than half dont, but as the story I posted demonstrates thats a pretty dangerous gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts should only do this IF there has been an initiation of force, or the actual (not potential) threat of force. Just because someone has allowed themselves to become impared does not give another person the right to dictate their life. It is ONLY when someone ACTUAL does initiate force (or ACTUALLY threatens such force) can another man properly respond. A potential is not an actual - and cannot be treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts should only do this IF there has been an initiation of force, or the actual (not potential) threat of force
radcap

does this mean a past initiation of force, (such as what would have led to previous hospitalizations?)

Does this include presently ineffective initations of force? (as would be the case if someone was on the brink of a manic episode that may or may not escalate to an unacceptable level?)

"Just because someone has allowed themselves to become impared does not give another person the right to dictate their life"

I am assuming you mean formerly medicated people stopping medication???? In the case of a bipolar not taking lithium, I am inclined to agree, because that blood-level medication usually restores people to equilibrium. But what about the case of a paranoid schizophrenic whose medication regimine stabilizes aggression but is not as effective with paranoid thought processe?. If they believe that the pills are poison from the CIA, and refuse to take the pills, are they "allowing" their impairment, or is it the problems with dopamine transmission or their third ventricle?

What about as often happens with anti-psychotic medications, the impairment was the result of necessarry action by the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Additionally, forcing the populace to pay for the health care of the mentally sick would constitute an initiation of force"
GC

A)If the role of government is to protect individuals from physical force, doesnt protecting individuals from physical force from the mentally ill fall into that category?

B)since outpatient care is actually much cheaper than institutionalization, (which would be required for the state to stop the patients from initiating force in the absence of state managed medication management) doesnt health care of the mentally sick REDUCE the taxpayer burden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the role of government is to protect individuals from physical force, doesnt protecting individuals from physical force from the mentally ill fall into that category?

This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning similar to leftists who argue that we should pay extortion money to the poor so that they don’t steal from the rest of us. The purpose of the police and courts is to carry out justice, not to medicate or treat in any way someone who might potentially become dangerous, no matter how sick they are.

Debating just what kind of treatment the mentally ill will receive in a rational society is a pointless discussion, other to say that they will neither get treated at the taxpayer’s expense, nor will their rampages (if they go on any) be tolerated. I think a possible solution would be to have all prisons and mental institutions be private, profit-making entities that would pay the government to receive prisoners and receive bonuses for lower recidivism rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning similar to leftists who argue that we should pay extortion money to the poor so that they don’t steal from the rest of us'

False analogy...

A)Poor people choose to steal , crazy people dont choose to be crazy.

B) Poor people can be reasoned with... Crazy people by definition lack reason.

C) the credible threat of imprisonment can be a deterrent for poor people who can understand what imprisonment is. It cant for the mentallyu ill

D) Why not debate the actual line of reasoning instead of "similar" ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B) Poor people  can be reasoned with... Crazy people  by definition lack reason.

Presumably, a reasonable person wouldn't resort to extortion in the first place. B) Like all Marxist schemes, this one necessarily replaces reason and free will with class warfare.

In any case, this in no way answers the point I made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"OG, what are you trying to say? If the mentally ill truly are rational animals no longer, then they have no rights and we ought, or have no reason not, to shoot them on sight (if that's what we do with rabid tigers and such prowling through the city). "

Its not that clear cut because

A) some mentally ill have the potential to recover (for instance if an infection which affected their thought process clears up)

B) some mentally ill are rational when treated

c) presumably unlike tigers, peoples rationality exists on a continuum (objectivists are more reasonable than quasi secular christians are more reasonable than fundamentalist christians are more reasonable than small children are more reasonable than paranoid schizophrenic patients)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state ought not help Objectivists, quasi secular Christians, fundamentalist Christians, small children, or paranoid schizophrenic patients.

You cannot set a point on your continuum where it is reasonable for the state to help below but not above: that point would be arbitrary. Ie, one could argue, if the state helps paranoid schizophrenics, then why not let it help small children too?

In fact, the idea of a continuum is wrong - ie, one is either rational regarding acquiring a piece of knowledge or acting in a certain way, or he is irrational in regarding such -, but that is a topic for another time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot set a point on your continuum where it is reasonable for the state to help below but not above: that point would be arbitrary. Ie, one could argue, if the state helps paranoid schizophrenics, then why not let it help small children too?
If you were talking on a level of "what is" you might be correct, but we are talking about the legal world where establishing a set point is constantly necessarry

In fact, the idea of a continuum is wrong - ie, one is either rational regarding acquiring a piece of knowledge or acting in a certain way, or he is irrational in regarding such -, but that is a topic for another time.

I wasn't speaking of a continuum in terms of the specific rationality of a specific act/thought. Instead I was speaking of a continuum of how often and to what extent people are able to think/act rationally.

In any case, I dont see how you have addressed my other concerns (even if rationality isnt on a continnum, in some cases it can still appear in intervals and is not permanent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your question of ought is, go back to the principles. The ethical state may not initiate force against anybody, no matter how irrational or how paranoid schizophrenic; it may only counter the initiation of force. It may not arbitrarily prevent things at whim, as you would have it do. If a paranoid schizophrenic is off to kill somebody, the state should attempt to stop him, whereas if he were at home watching TV the state should not attempt to put him on a drug regimen. But the exact same thing applies to everybody else as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a paranoid schizophrenic is off to kill somebody, the state should attempt to stop him, whereas if he were at home watching TV the state should not attempt to put him on a drug regimen

and just how do you determine that since either way they will be talking/acting suspiciously? do you have to wait until they actually push someone in front of a subway, as in the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the state can provide evidence to a judge, or a police officer makes a snap judgment, that a paranoid schizophrenic or any person is off to kill somebody, the state or the police officer should stop him; if not, neither the state nor the police officer should initiate force. There is no difference here between a paranoid schizophrenic and any other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the state can provide evidence to a judge, or a police officer makes a snap judgment, that a paranoid schizophrenic or any person is off to kill somebody, the state or the police officer should stop him

The behavioral sciences not old enough to provide reliable evidence to predict how a schizophrenic might act. and as the story shows, even the "snap judgement" of the people at the subway were unable to predict the erratic behavior of a schizophrenic.

The diagnostic criteria for a paranoid schizophrenic include disorganized and unpredictable behavior.

Have you ever worked with them??? What do you know about them??

"There is no difference here between a paranoid schizophrenic and any other person. "

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldie,

What do you consider the principle that operates with respect to paranoid schizophrenics? Are they rational animals - ie, men, normal people? Are they irrational animals - ie, rabid unowned dogs one could shoot indiscriminately? Are they rational animals under guardianship - ie, like children, under the authority and protection of a normal person?

Is there a different category to which paranoid schizophrenics belong?

Government is charged with protecting men from other men; that is to include children and such under guardianship being protected and being protected from. Government has no call protecting or protecting from irrational animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you consider the principle that operates with respect to paranoid schizophrenics? Are they rational animals - ie, men, normal people? Are they irrational animals - ie, rabid unowned dogs one could shoot indiscriminately?

False Choice. Is h20 a liquid, a solid, or a gas???? (you would have to test it a particular moment in time to tell but that test would only remain valid for that instant)

Science has not advanced to the point where one can determine at any given instance whether a schizophrenic is volitional or rational. The most that we know is that a substantial amount of the time they are neither.

"Snap Judgement" would be hampered in three ways; 1. the nature of the disorder is such that affect does not match thoughts, and words do not match behavior 2. Most law enforcement officers either do not have the time or the training to determine the intent, volition, or rationality of a PS behavior... the only way in which this level of supervision could be done is institutionalization which was much more expensive 3. Unless they were "going with their gut" the judgement would have to stem from what we know about schizophrenia, which is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who is right now a paranoid schizophrenic - is he man or animal? Does he have the ability to think in concepts as opposed to being able merely to perceive at this moment or not? Rational vs irrational (ie existence qua rational animal) at a particular moment is not a false dichotomy.

Your claim, sometimes they belong to the category of rational, sometimes to that of irrational. When they are irrational, government has no call protecting them from themselves. And, government has no call protecting others from them.

But, you think government ought to protect others from them. They belong fully to the category of the rational, therefore; government has no call interfereing unless there is an actual violation or threat of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person who is right now a paranoid schizophrenic - is he man or animal?"
A) a person is at this point in time considered "always a schizophrenic" it is only a question of whether it is presented as currently "in remission" or not.

b)That would very much depend on whether or not he fits the definition at the moment, wouldnt it? I cant very well make a general statement about all PS at this moment in time... when the particular manifestation of their disease differs person to person

"Does he have the ability to think in concepts as opposed to being able merely to perceive at this moment or not?"

There is not wide enough agreement about operationalizing this "test" on schizophrenics to know with a reasonable degree of certainty at a particular instance. The best we can assume is that they are human so they probably have some moments of lucidity and concept formation.

"Your claim, sometimes they belong to the category of rational, sometimes to that of irrational"

out of curiosity, can you accept that claim?

"When they are irrational, government has no call protecting them from themselves."

that was never my claim. My claim is that when most of their actions are erratic/irrational they are in a state where they might to hurt people (perhaps in a moment of rationality perhaps nott)

"But, you think government ought to protect others from them. They belong fully to the category of the rational"

my argument is not that they belong fully to the rational, but rather that any agent in the government is unable to accurately assess their rationality at any given time and thus it must go on the "best knowledge available"

a)PS are humans, thus it is a safer assumption that they are rational at times.

B) when Schizophrenia goes ""into long term remission" (which it often does in later life or upon medication) we can assess their rationality

"an actual violation or threat of such. "

if they are constantly making threats which dont make sense, how can we tell when they are serious or not???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked at the moment: A is, at this moment, a ps. Is A, at this moment, man or not - rational concept-thinking animal or not?

I can not accept the claim that their biological ability to abstract from range-of-the-moment perception to concepts dissapears and reappears every two minutes. The fundamental nature of those with ps is either one thing or the other.

It is my contention that the purpose of government is to protect men from other men: not men from animals, nor animals from men; not animals from other animals, but only men from other men.

Depending on your classification, you want government to protect animals from themselves or men from themselves. Either way, do you go all the way: does government protect all animals from themselves, allowing them no freedom of movement whatsoever without its permission based on years of extensive analysis of what is in the animal's best interest? Does government protect all men from themselves, banning all manner of thing with the slightest risk - no more McDonald's, no more streets, no more mechanical/motor transportation beyond what the legs are able to do, and again men being allowed things in a similar fashion to the above?

Or is there an arbitrary line you draw somewhere?

I am always in a state where I might hurt people. What ought the government do with me? Might is not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not accept the claim that their biological ability to abstract from range-of-the-moment perception to concepts dissapears and reappears every two minutes. The fundamental nature of those with ps is either one thing or the other.
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Having worked with Szhizophrenics and having read about research on schizophrenics. I can tell you that sometimes they are able to perceive/ abstract and sometimes they are not. (Once medicated they are much more likely to do both much more frequently.) I have come to different conclusions than you have about whether this is possible or not. (I am curious as to how you came to believe this)

It is my contention that the purpose of government is to protect men from other men: not men from animals, nor animals from men; not animals from other animals, but only men from other men.

I have not disagreed with this.

"I am always in a state where I might hurt people. What ought the government do with me? Might is not do. "

A) Might does not equal likely to.

B ) They ought to rely on Judgement. (Judgement which has not been as of yet adequately developed for PS)

But are you in a state where you are likely to hurt people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue here is of Justice, which in this case takes an almost cruel form (if it is really true that schizophrenics are sometimes volitional and sometimes not).

Justice should be done to the man who rights have been violated by a schizophrenic. If murder is excused, in a court of law, under the excuse of schizophrenia, it won't be long before a host of other criminals, including inethical businessmen, will be citing schizophrenia to get lighter sentences or fines. Debate, discussion, expert-opinion as to whether one is a schizophrenic or not, is again futile. The issue, reiterating, is of Justice.

An eye for an eye and ear for an ear. :dough:

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...