--- Martin Kessler <titaniummdk@...> wrote:

>> Likewise, it may be the case that a person with bad thoughts has a
>> different pattern of links between neurons or that the neurons fire
>> differently or whatever.
>
> What do we mean by "bad thoughts"? Are these thoughts self conversation
> that others disapprove of? If that is the case, it's nothing more than a

> moral judgement, and as we know attitudes and morality change with
> fashion and culture.

Moral judgements made by people change with morality and culture. However,
the only people who think that morality itself changes from one culture to
another are moral relativists. And if you are a moral relatvist presumably
your disapproval of involuntary commitment is solely a matter of fashion or
culture and so by your own admission there is no reason why psychiatrists
should not continue to imprison and torture people without trial. I tend
to think that there are good arguments against involuntary commitment and
treatment.

> To say that "bad thoughts" are the result of neurons is what Szasz finds
> repugnant - it dehumanizes human thought and action. A person has "bad
> thoughts" or good thoughts (whatever they are) not brains or neurons.

That is certainly your position and it may also be Szasz's position but I
think it is wrong. Why do you think that thoughts being the result of
firing patterns of neurons is dehumanising?

I think that involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment are wrong and
ought to be illegal. I think that depriving a citizen of a free society of
his liberty without trial is wrong. A person can learn better ideas if he
lives in a free society because he is free to propose and criticise ideas.
Sometimes people do bad things like commit crimes like rape, murder, theft
and so on that infringe on another person's rights to use his property, his
body and so on for his own purposes and so damage that person's ability to
live according to the best ideas he can find and to promote them if he so
chooses. This is bad even if a person appears to be bad or stupid because
the emergence of better ideas and ways of living and so on is an inherently
unpredictable process, which might come about partly as a result of
mistakes and bad deeds. Besides, every good idea starts out as an idea held
by a minority of people who will appear stupid or bad to others and so if
we commit crimes against people who appear bad or stupid to most people we
risk hurting people who have good ideas. Crimes that violate a person's
rights to control his own property and person are wrong even if they are
committed by doctors or state officials, as is the case in involuntary
commitment or involuntary treatment. I don't see that the fact that ideas,
thoughts, feelings and so on happen to be instantiated in the brain
invalidates this argument.

Alan



___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard
protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html