4 ms·

Why is it ethical to punish someone after they have committed a crime if they had little say in the matter? In both cases, some method should be used to ensure

• extension 16y ago
  There is a critical distinction to be made between mental defects that compromise one's ability to think rationally vs defects that simply overpower one's motivation to act in a rational way. If you can think straight and accurately perceive your environment, you are responsible for your actions. As a rational being, your plight is to see beyond all those powerful monkey emotions and do what you know is right. Welcome to humanity. If you really are out of your mind and your brain is just playing tricks on you, you're off the hook morally, though if it can't be fixed then ultimately you can't play in the human sandbox, sorry. Since none of us are even close to perfect rational-observation machines, we have to cut ourselves some slack. How much slack is an incredibly difficult decision, but that's the decision at the core of our practical ethics. Without making some distinction between motives and choices, our ethics are pretty meaningless.
• mquander 16y ago
  I still don't understand what you are trying to say. We already have laws dealing with mental illness. If a person is determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, we act proactively to treat them. I don't think that is particularly controversial, provided the assessment is competent, objective, and has a high standard. It's clear that few people fall into this category, since most people navigate life fine without being committed. "Having serial killer genes" does not and will never qualify.