Disqualifying ignorance for the presidency

[Flitzerbiest]

Unfortunately, there is no such thing. Nevertheless, if there ever is, this might be one such example:

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RICK_PERRY_CALIFORNIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[stevec]

I wonder if conversion therapy is covered under TX health plans?

[showmedot]

Hardly surprising. The man IS the Guv of freakin' Texas. You know, that state that once elected some guy named Bush?

Besides, "everybody knows" that alcoholism and active homosexuality are merely evidence of a lack of both self-discipline and just plain ol' gumption.

Y'all ain't from these here parts, is ya?

[Flitzerbiest]

Here--I'll make it simple.

Alcoholism:

1. A disease.
2. While it certainly requires discipline to manage the disease, dividing those who manage well and those who don't into categories of moral heroes and moral failures is convenient fiction for those who misunderstand #1.

Homosexuality:

1. A normal variant of human sexuality.
2. Not a disease, and therefore not subject to cure.

[Jim]

Jun 13, 2014 11:24:06 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Here--I'll make it simple.

Alcoholism:

1. A disease.
2. While it certainly requires discipline to manage the disease, dividing those who manage well and those who don't into categories of moral heroes and moral failures is convenient fiction for those who misunderstand #1.

Homosexuality:

1. A normal variant of human sexuality.
2. Not a disease, and therefore not subject to cure.

Hi FB:

We agree 100% concerning Homosexuality.  We might subtly disagree regarding Alcoholism, but I'm not really sure.  I've not been personally impacted (close family-wise) by alcoholism, which is weird - I am/was close to several people who have beaten or died from cancer for example...

Anyway, I understand that alcoholism and other addictions must be treated as diseases.  I understand that many diseases do not have an outside pathogen component (mental illness and heart diseases for example).  I understand that assigning blame is counter-productive.   Still, I'm not sure that I give an alcoholic, particularly one who relapses or never tries to recover, a complete and absolute moral free pass.  I'm not saying that we should identify moral heroes and moral failures, but still...

Let me personalize this a bit to illustrate my point.  My paternal grandfather died in his early 50s from heart disease.  My grandmother (now deceased) and dad both say that I look just like him - though not as fat.  Still, in the back of my mind, I know that if I smoked and quit exercising altogether, quit getting my BP checked (it's OK) and generally lived my grandfather's life I'd probably blimp up and follow him into the grave in short order.  I'd definitely blimp up since I've always been stout even with a better than average exercise/lifestyle routine.  Anyway, if I said, "what the hell everyone has to die sometime..." and put on 30 more pounds and gave up on cardio sports activities and then I inevitably died early of heart disease, I would call that a moral failure on my part since I would be leaving behind a wife and kids who did not want to see me go.

Of course I want to keep hiking, biking and skiing, (and living) so this analogy falls a bit flat.  Nonetheless, I sort of feel that diseases which can be prevented or cured by behavior modifications that involve personal will do have a moral component.  

Please feel free to tell me that I am full of it, because I really do not have any basis for the above opinion other than personal feelings...

Jim

[Jim]

Jun 13, 2014 13:36:47 GMT -6 Jim said:

Jun 13, 2014 11:24:06 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Here--I'll make it simple.

Alcoholism:

1. A disease.
2. While it certainly requires discipline to manage the disease, dividing those who manage well and those who don't into categories of moral heroes and moral failures is convenient fiction for those who misunderstand #1.

Homosexuality:

1. A normal variant of human sexuality.
2. Not a disease, and therefore not subject to cure.

Hi FB:

We agree 100% concerning Homosexuality.  We might subtly disagree regarding Alcoholism, but I'm not really sure.  I've not been personally impacted (close family-wise) by alcoholism, which is weird - I am/was close to several people who have beaten or died from cancer for example...

Anyway, I understand that alcoholism and other addictions must be treated as diseases.  I understand that many diseases do not have an outside pathogen component (mental illness and heart diseases for example).  I understand that assigning blame is counter-productive.   Still, I'm not sure that I give an alcoholic, particularly one who relapses or never tries to recover, a complete and absolute moral free pass.  I'm not saying that we should identify moral heroes and moral failures, but still...

Let me personalize this a bit to illustrate my point.  My paternal grandfather died in his early 50s from heart disease.  My grandmother (now deceased) and dad both say that I look just like him - though not as fat.  Still, in the back of my mind, I know that if I smoked and quit exercising altogether, quit getting my BP checked (it's OK) and generally lived my grandfather's life I'd probably blimp up and follow him into the grave in short order.  I'd definitely blimp up since I've always been stout even with a better than average exercise/lifestyle routine.  Anyway, if I said, "what the hell everyone has to die sometime..." and put on 30 more pounds and gave up on cardio sports activities and then I inevitably died early of heart disease, I would call that a moral failure on my part since I would be leaving behind a wife and kids who did not want to see me go.

Of course I want to keep hiking, biking and skiing, (and living) so this analogy falls a bit flat.  Nonetheless, I sort of feel that diseases which can be prevented or cured by behavior modifications that involve personal will do have a moral component.  

Please feel free to tell me that I am full of it, because I really do not have any basis for the above opinion other than personal feelings...

Jim

The plot thickens. Apparently, pedophilia is also a mental illness. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448575/pedophilia

As a society we assign huge moral implications to this particular illness. I don't think it is controversial to say that pedophiles who lack the will to overcome their disease are generally considered to be moral failures. Other than the huge and obvious matter of degree, how is this analysis inapplicable to alcoholism?

Jim

[Flitzerbiest]

To paraphrase Trout (from the circumcision thread, IIRC), sometimes the degree is the whole story.

Honestly, the epidemiological approach to social ills (gangs, drugs, etc) traditionally seen as immoral/criminal has proven to show good results. Not everyone can handle this shift in thinking, but I'm willing to go there, even with pedophilia, if it stops the abuse.

[showmedot]

How far do we go with that thinking? Serial killers are theorized to be genetically flawed, sometimes referred to colloquially as lacking a conscience. Should they be considered diseased rather than deliberately evil, too?

Where is the line drawn? Or should there be one when we're finding that various mental disorders may have a strong genetic component?

[Flitzerbiest]

Jun 14, 2014 4:15:39 GMT -6 showmedot said:

How far do we go with that thinking? Serial killers are theorized to be genetically flawed, sometimes referred to colloquially as lacking a conscience. Should they be considered diseased rather than deliberately evil, too?

Where is the line drawn? Or should there be one when we're finding that various mental disorders may have a strong genetic component?

Using the concept of disease to address a problem is not equivalent to saying that there is a genetic basis. Genetic factors are only one category of potential contributors to a disease state. The problem is that the constructs of crime/punishment haven't led to good sociological results. True, they are consonant with our ways of thinking, but our ways of thinking are largely shaped by our culture. It is worth asking if there are better ways of addressing societal ills (sic) and questioning ineffective retributive attitudes. This is starting to happen.

[showmedot]

I realize that.

I was thinking more along the lines of how considering to be diseases conditions once thought to be merely a lack of character or discipline alters attitudes about morality. It hasn't been all that long ago that alcoholics or the obese were regarded as merely weak-willed and sinners.

So, my questions hinged upon wondering if there is such a thing as being evil or could we be conflating a person with a diseased mind with the "evil" acts resulting from that condition.

[Flitzerbiest]

Jun 15, 2014 9:17:21 GMT -6 showmedot said:

I realize that.

I was thinking more along the lines of how considering to be diseases conditions once thought to be merely a lack of character or discipline alters attitudes about morality. It hasn't been all that long ago that alcoholics or the obese were regarded as merely weak-willed and sinners.

So, my questions hinged upon wondering if there is such a thing as being evil or could we be conflating a person with a diseased mind with the "evil" acts resulting from that condition.

I think we'll end up with a both/and sort of answer. Increasingly, disordered behavior will be associated with disordered genes, development, environment etc, but we will never (IMO) reach the point where we don't hold people accountable for what they do. The dichotomy between the moralists, who insist on the existence of free will, and the materials, who insist on determinism is as false as most metaphysical dichotomies.

In my opinion, the reality is that our will is "free-ish". We have a much narrower range of choice than we think we do--sometimes very little choice at all--but we perceive that we are free. It is a useful fiction, and one that probably needs to be modified rather than jettisoned.