Personality Disorders and Personal Responsibility

[Cartesian Theater]

Alex ( [MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION] ) got me thinking that perhaps people who aren't being treated should be the ones responsible for their actions. Like having to sign a waiver when you leave the hospital before the doctor releases you after surgery. "You should be going to therapy once a week and have treatment for your illness. If you are not then you are responsible for your actions." Since most people with mental illness probably have been to a dr or institutionalized at some point. My friend was institutionalized as a late teen and actually blames some of her problems being institutionalized since she thinks she was more normal than the people with her.

My friend is actually an artistic, interesting, intelligent person but she is stuck between a rock and a hard place with meds vs. keeping creative vs. feeling not herself vs. going on a roller coaster ride. :/ I still feel she is somewhat responsible for her own actions, even if it's her brain making her that way.

They actually do that lol. I went to the hospital for suicidal depression and I had to sign a document with the number for my therapist and psychiatrist before they'd let me leave, and agree that I would continue to get help. For people who don't have a therapist already, the state provides one for them. Some of the more severe cases (people who have attacked others or have schizophrenia or any dangerous disorder) are given mandatory meetings with a social worker for a minimum of two months.

I don't think most people with mental disorders are institutionalized at some point, but some people with severe enough ones are. I know a hell of a lot of people who are worse off than I am and never end up getting help. The issue is that even when the state mandates things for these people... you can't possibly provide lifelong intensive babysitting for every nutty person in the country. Regardless of how fair it is or how much it helps/hinders them, everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions. If you kill someone, they're still dead, even if you have multiple personality disorder and were raped and have daddy issues. If a grown person doesn't want to take their medication, and nobody is there to force them, ain't nothin the state can do either. All they can do is wait until the person either breaks the law or hurts themselves bad enough to wind up in the hospital again.

 

[Lark]

an idea just popped into my head while reading the OP:

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] - the problem you are describing here is on an ethical level of punishment, but let's be clear about the actual point of punishment - scaring the crap out of people. and for most people prison does a good job of that, except one group of people in particular - those who have actually being to prison, because let's face it - they go back a lot.

not only does it currently suck as far as any utopian dreams of rehabilitation, but it actually makes those who've being through it less afraid of going back.

now, i see the problem of people seen it as a form of "lighter punishments" - but what if we can actually use a hierarchy of environments to make the system better? basically have a leveling system of sorts where each you get a much harsher environment, so instead of going back to the old familiar prison experience you have gotten used too, you will have a whole new level to be terrified of and even better reasons to stay out of the prison system.

The sort of staggered arrangement you're talking about is in existence in the UK, it is resource intensive though and they would like to do away with it on the grounds of costs.

The two things you mention deterence/scaring people and rehabilitation are two of I think about six different objectives of imprisonment which I remember a liberal judge teaching criminology at my first university describing to us, I dont remember them all but I was interested that the idea of satisfaction/revenge is not entirely discounted as a factor in criminal justice, the welfare of the offender itself is upheld as a legitimate concern and they may need to be protected from retaliation or violence as a consequence of their behaviour. That was a bit of a surprise but they explained it on the basis of spirals of violence and actually used the tit for tat killing cycles in northern ireland as a case example of what is being aimed at being avoided.

 

[Lark]

Terror really isn't an effective method of rehabilitating people, though it can keep average or "normal" people out of prison in most cases.

Do you know anything about Norway's prisons? I think it's probably wise to look into alternative systems which are working instead of suggesting that sending people to worse and worse levels of hell, which just does more psychological damage, particularly when prisons are overcrowded, or the person has an existing mental illness.

Well, I think that makes sense. Although it is not so much about deterence, the countries in which those sorts of punitive, "give them hell" prison regimes are popular are actually pretty expensive and therefore have to be popular to be paid for, its in congruence with the cultural expectations.

 

[Lark]

Unless a person is institutionalized then they are responsible for their own actions.
Life is about CHOICES and ACCOUNTABILITY.
Yes, some people have more difficult circumstances to deal with in navigating the vast landscape of thoughts and deeds that fill their consciousness each day.
But at the most basic level, if they understand right from wrong, then they are accountable for their actions.
Some people need some OR EVEN alot of medication to stabilize their neural activity to such a degree that they are deemed able to live without being a threat to themselves or others. Hopefully more people have the choice to seek those options, as well as counseling, or both than not. But I know that is not the case. And I also know that many who do have those options choose not to utilize them.

So, in short, I am not for sliding scale "personal accountability waivers" for people of any personality disorders.
First, because many are arbitrarily created by a committee of professionals trying to ensure they have future clients (Have you ever noticed that the number of personality disorders and the number of medications formulatd to treat them goes up year after year? What a big surprise!)

If these things are ever instituted, I want a 100% waiver of personal accountability for being afflicted with "Can't Stand Bullshit Syndrome" - and whenever I am exposed to "bullshit" (as defined by me) then I am not liable for my reaction to its proximity to me.



-Alex

I tend to err on the side or responsibility and accountability on this topic, even if personality types, traits or disorders were totally objective I believe it would be on a par with height, weight, eye colour or ethnicity and no one would today really consider those traits as effecting responsibility and accountability, they may or may not mean that some adaptation is demanded but that's fine.

I'm really interested in this topic, particularly whether or not the suffering of a disorder individual vs. the suffering of others has different moral weight and whether or not if society is injured or harmed by disordered individuals that society is morally culpable in the first place for creating the conditions under which disorders develop and go unchecked.

I do think that there's reasons to be hesitant as you say, there are from certain economic or critical/rational stand points reasons to be concerned about perverse incentives to supply diagnostic labels or treatments for profit, there's also politics involved about the individual vs. the social too. Although I wouldnt dismiss the idea of evidence based thinking altogether.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I tend to err on the side or responsibility and accountability on this topic, even if personality types, traits or disorders were totally objective I believe it would be on a par with height, weight, eye colour or ethnicity and no one would today really consider those traits as effecting responsibility and accountability, they may or may not mean that some adaptation is demanded but that's fine.

I'm really interested in this topic, particularly whether or not the suffering of a disorder individual vs. the suffering of others has different moral weight and whether or not if society is injured or harmed by disordered individuals that society is morally culpable in the first place for creating the conditions under which disorders develop and go unchecked.

I do think that there's reasons to be hesitant as you say, there are from certain economic or critical/rational stand points reasons to be concerned about perverse incentives to supply diagnostic labels or treatments for profit, there's also politics involved about the individual vs. the social too. Although I wouldnt dismiss the idea of evidence based thinking altogether.

I disagree. I think demographic factors while not deterministic of personal choice do influence it statistically. I think if you think of level of responsibility as a trait that can be increased of decreased with certain factors a lot of the dimorphisms you observe can be understood as part of larger "moral" processes. The task then becomes much different.

 

[Lark]

I disagree. I think demographic factors while not deterministic of personal choice do influence it statistically. I think if you think of level of responsibility as a trait that can be increased of decreased with certain factors a lot of the dimorphisms you observe can be understood as part of larger "moral" processes. The task then becomes much different.

Tell me more. What is your disagreement premised upon? Are the demographics so deterministic as to negate any personal responsibility? If that is the case then you are disagreeing not just with me but the whole of the present criminal justice system, well, in so far as it is premised upon consequences and satisfaction rather than a treament model.

What are the dimorphisms? That is a word I am unfamiliar with, what is the larger moral process?

I am also interested in the idea that if there is suffering arising from personality disorders which in turn arise as a result of a particular social stratification or social order what of the individuals involved? If there is evidence to show that determinism is conditioning the individuals involved does it shape one person as a victim and one person as a perpetrator and how can this be changed so individuals are not taking up either of those roles with their consequences in avoidable suffering.

 

[Ginkgo]

We can try to rationalize it by determinism, but that rationale will eventually dissipate; accountability is about the choice an individual makes at a particular moment. If we are to be truly deterministic, we may as well blame the whole of reality. If one is completely and totally out of their mind, then I think they are no longer responsible. However, even in extremely violent fits, an individual makes dimly conscious choices to carry out actions upon nearly overwhelming urges. Usually, we act irresponsibly only as much as we think we can lie to ourselves and/or get away with our deeds. "Irresponsibly", in this case, is at least a subjective sense of responsibility. "Get away", in this case, refers to getting away from a higher order. I've heard that those who are successful in the military are those who believe they are agents serving an indominable cause, be it God, the military itself, their nation, or world affairs.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Tell me more. What is your disagreement premised upon? Are the demographics so deterministic as to negate any personal responsibility? If that is the case then you are disagreeing not just with me but the whole of the present criminal justice system, well, in so far as it is premised upon consequences and satisfaction rather than a treament model.

What are the dimorphisms? That is a word I am unfamiliar with, what is the larger moral process?

I am also interested in the idea that if there is suffering arising from personality disorders which in turn arise as a result of a particular social stratification or social order what of the individuals involved? If there is evidence to show that determinism is conditioning the individuals involved does it shape one person as a victim and one person as a perpetrator and how can this be changed so individuals are not taking up either of those roles with their consequences in avoidable suffering.

I believe that free will and determinism are compatible. I believe that being is diffracted. Selves are groups of sensors with recursive action loops. To me reality is a dynamic process with evolving rules that "emerge" spontaneously at different levels of complexity.

Determinism is useful for seeing how we are affected by circumstances both internal and outside forces which often can be outside of conscious control.

Free will allows us to view self as independent autonomous agent able to shape their own reality.

The truth is perhaps that people have free will within probabalistic ranges. Persons can "decide" outcomes for themselves that if not in congruence with larger processes outside the self are unsustainable. Societies can create whatever rules for individuals it may wish, but if it does not take into account their basic probabalistic ranges and the basic resources required to sustain the process it is unsustainable.

Greater morality is all acting in unison toward a common goal. Reality is a multilinear process that contravenes itself to optimize different subprocesses for their "opposing" tasks. These are the variances in morphology. Often in life different ratios of various characteristics can be equally sustainable. Greater morality encourages these variances to
exist because it allows for more variance in being which mutualistically benefits individuals and groups simultaneously. It is simply the recognition that reality is a Gestalt and that with a few variances you could easily be a part of any of those processes that "you" so choose. (I say "you" because of course agency doesn't exist solely on the level of human consciousness).

To end victimization it is necessary to ...? I feel compelled to respond on the individual level. To accept responsibility NOT blame. To end perpitration of abuse.. it is necessary to delve within the self and grieve through emotional experience of loss. IMO it is beneficial to maximize probabalistic range through technology.

 

[Lark]

Wait a minute, I think I know who you are now, I was thrown by the change of avatar but your writing style is still the same.

 

[Ginkgo]

Wait a minute, I think I know who you are now, I was thrown by the change of avatar but your writing style is still the same.

The change of avatar threw me on.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Wait a minute, I think I know who you are now, I was thrown by the change of avatar but your writing style is still the same.

Lol... do tell.

 

[Lark]

Lol... do tell.

No, I'm not imagining that you're anyone other than uniquemixture, I just didnt recognise you because of the avatar change. It happens.

 

[Cellmold]

Regardless of what I suffer from, ive always felt responsible for my actions and I dislike palming them off with an excuse designed to ignore my very real choices.

However this is just me and my own problems are very minor and insignificant compared to others. I suppose it is a matter of spectrums.