Szasz would agree with many of your premises. Whether I am a moral
relativist or not has nothing to do with whether I approve of involuntary
commitment. I don't.
Neurons firing and thoughts. I don't believe by studying the molecular
structure of a human being, you are going to find say their religious
beliefs any more than studying the molecular structure of a wedding band and
discovering that it was used as a symbol of marriage.


>From: Alan Forrester <alan_forrester2@...>
>Reply-To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
>To: thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Thinking changes the brain structure?
>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:46:42 +0000 (GMT)
>
>--- 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

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine\
-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline