So, I thought I would use this space to try to hash out some... categories that are interesting me.
AUTONOMY AND IDENTITY in mental disorders. There is one view that the depressed or anorexic person, for example, may not have the capacity to make informed decisions because she is in the grip of an illness with disordered thinking. But what if she identifies with those beliefs? That thinness is good, that her life is pointless. Who can say that these are wrong? They are VALUES not FACTS. If they affect her decision-making, then so does holding a value like 'being moral is good' or 'anger is pointless' - and who would say that a person who held those evaluations was crazy? I think about this with relation too to AUTHENTICITY. When I am in certain moods, and believe I am useless and unloved, the authentic me is the me in that mood. I mean, I believe in the neuroscientific hypothesis that the self is created moment by moment. Now, one could say that where one self-creation is not consistent with another two months ago that such a lack of consistency reflects that one self is 'wrong' but I think it just shows that it is different. I think there is something deeply questionable about insisting that values not held by the majority are therefore the 'wrong' ones. Or about privileging the authenticity of one creation of self over another. Say I became enlightened, and believed that love was what mattered instead, as I may have thought before, that conflict was the name of the game. Few would insist I go back to a prior state. the state of SOMEONE ELSE that is judged authentic seems to be the one that conforms best with what others think. That just seems wrong.
STIGMA around mental illness. Disproportionately little public money is invested in mental health compared to other diseases that have lesser prevalence and cause less suffering and economic hardship. But politicians are disinclined to change the balance because voters have the impression that mental illness is the victim's fault in some way (a sign of weak will or vice) and because voters have less empathy for the mad than the sick. Welfarists think that can be changed by moving the focus away from health care as cures/therapeutics and toward maximising individual flourishing... so the argument goes, we all have certain psychological disadvantages depending on our particular capacities and the situation we are in (dyslexia doesn't matter so much to an artist while OCD may be advantageous to a surgeon or researcher). But I really don't think that will change the way depressed or delusional people are viewed nor make anyone more willing to spend more money on them by essentially rebranding mental illness with psychological disadvantage. The relatively well rich and powerful just get extra opportunities to claim that they too, boo hoo, are suffering.
COMMUNITY - if Oliver Scott Curry is right and morality arises from the need to cooperate in a community then we need to see animals and the environment as part of the community. I think ancient peoples did - hence river spirits and the need to appease or thank animals that had been killed. But also if community is what is the evolutionary basis for our moral intuitions then no surprise that the sad, mad, bad and different, the old, forgetful and disabled, are exploited - they are not seen as valid community members any more. They are invaders or free-riders. It's not JUST a matter or tribalism but more about contract and companionship.
Damn... more on identity... thinking of Agnes Callard... aspiring to have a 'different' identity. And Lori Paul... transformational experiences... it's not rational to make decisions for a self you do not know... so what does that mean for advance directives?
Well, I'm sure there is more but at least I have got this much written somewhere!
留言