4 ms·

> Why is it obviously immoral? Why is it immoral to lock away people against their will, people who have not committed a crime? Because freedom is a basic huma

> Why is it obviously immoral? Why is it immoral to lock away people against their will, people who have not committed a crime? Because freedom is a basic human right. The moral option is good street work, effective welfare programs and to give people housings rather than let them live in tent cities in filth and disease, something against which to which other poster has vigorously objected without providing any argument for his position other than falsely claiming that these people are all incurable schizophrenics. What's wrong with people in the US that this even has to be discussed?

macspoofing 8y ago
>Why is it immoral to lock away people against their will, people who have not committed a crime? That's unfair. It isn't right to talk about doing things against the will of an individual who isn't a free actor due to their condition. This is very well established notion legally, culturally and morally. For example, if a schizophrenic person commits murder, their condition is a mitigating factor in their sentencing and will prevent them from simply being locked up with the general population. Similarly, you're already treating them as individuals incapable living up to the responsibilities of living in society. All municipalities have zoning laws to control where citizens can live and laws against squatting in tent-cities or on a sidewalk and living in squalor and filth, without proper sanitation, and protection from elements - yet somehow you still argue that those laws should not apply those individuals. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. On one hand, you're saying forced institutionalization where care could be provided, is wrong because those individuals CHOOSE not to be institutionalized, and on the other hand, you're arguing they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities as other citizens because they can't help their situation. This position is arbitrary and incoherent. Finally. I disagree with your contention that institutionalizing people for the purpose of providing care (not locking them up - as you called it) who aren't capable of making their own decisions is immoral - and you haven't attempted to show why it is, you just assert it as a fact - which it isn't. >What's wrong with people in the US that this even has to be discussed I'm not American.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > I disagree with your contention that institutionalizing people for the purpose of providing care (not locking them up) Speaking about England: most of the people I talk to who've been detained under section of the mental health act (involuntarily committed to hospital) talk about it as being locked up, even if they're on an unlocked ward. There are strict legal protections in place to prevent abuse of powers, although these aren't always being followed. There has recently been a review of the English law to see if too many people are being detained. You should view this as more severe than a prison sentence, because that mindset allows you to put in place the protections of freedoms needed to guard against abuse.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Your arguments are based on various false dichotomies and false analogies. I have given a reason why incarcerating adults who have not committed a crime against their will is obviously immoral, namely because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. Of course, there can be reasons that might outweigh this right, for example when someone has committed a serious crime and there was a fair trial. Another reason would be the medical assessment that the person would likely severely harm himself or others. For the latter, the hurdles are extremely high. You can ask your lawmakers why they think they should be high. They will probably tell you that's because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. "Caring" for someone is traditionally not considered a sufficient reason. And that includes parents, who are definitely not allowed to lock away their children indefinitely (as a reply to the other poster, who seems to be even more confused than you). > you're arguing they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities as other citizens because they can't help their situation. I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >I have given a reason why incarcerating adults... You haven't actually answered the one objection I have, namely, why do you think it moral to let distressed individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor. Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. But let's leave it at that. I'll simply state that I disagree with your position. Moreso than that, I find that position highly immoral. >I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever. I didn't say you argued it, I asked what your position is on that. It is actually illegal to pitch a tent on a sidewalk and live there. It is illegal to setup a 'tent city' for purpose of long-term habitation. There are plethora of laws preventing that kind of behaviour. And I get it, you don't admit to the moral imperative of institutionalizing those individuals to provide care, but then are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals - because that isn't done either if you go to cities like San Fran and LA and enforcing those laws would lead to heavy fines or incarceration, if you treat those individuals as rational actors expected to live up to the responsibilities of living in a society.
sershe 8y ago
How about keeping 4-15 year olds locked away against their will, when they'd much rather run out into the street than be in the kindergarten or school? Or e.g. dragging them away from the candy aisle by force, or forcing them to go to bed when they'd rather watch TV at night? How about keeping 15-year-olds locked out of pubs and arbitrarily forbidding them to operate a vehicle (severely restricting their freedom of movement in much of the US) against their will? You can discuss the finer points of various restrictions, but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  That's a false analogy. You have to bear in mind that the diagnosis of mental diseases has a fairly high failure rate and many behaviour that used to be classified as a mental disease has turned out to be perfectly fine.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    That's your argument? That modern psychology and psychiatry is incapable of diagnosing debilitating conditions like schizophrenia in an individual living in a filthy tent-city - therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody?
    - jonathanstrange 8y ago
      Of course we should err on the side of caution when deciding whether to lock someone against his will for an indefinite time into a psychiatric facility. What else did you think? Do you have any idea about the guidelines for psychiatric evaluation of such cases and their judicial oversight? Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. Maybe you start by thinking about how you would like to be treated if you happen to start suffering from schizophrenia, and then read up a bit on freedom and other fundamental human rights. Then you could read up on actual laws and the guidelines for psychiatric evaluations. Then at least you would have something to say. > therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody? Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. There is also no need to use an ominous "we". There are psychiatrists who make the judgement call under judicial oversight and their main criterion is, of course, whether the patient poses any imminent danger to himself or others. This is regulated by existing laws and procedures. Anything beyond that is illegal and, as I have argued, also immoral. Overall, I have to say that some of the replies I've seen in this thread are far below the usual level of HN. It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia but nevertheless do not pose any danger to themselves or others - which was the premise of that discussion, mind you.

macspoofing 8y ago

>Why is it immoral to lock away people against their will, people who have not committed a crime? That's unfair. It isn't right to talk about doing things against the will of an individual who isn't a free actor due to their condition. This is very well established notion legally, culturally and morally. For example, if a schizophrenic person commits murder, their condition is a mitigating factor in their sentencing and will prevent them from simply being locked up with the general population. Similarly, you're already treating them as individuals incapable living up to the responsibilities of living in society. All municipalities have zoning laws to control where citizens can live and laws against squatting in tent-cities or on a sidewalk and living in squalor and filth, without proper sanitation, and protection from elements - yet somehow you still argue that those laws should not apply those individuals. So you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. On one hand, you're saying forced institutionalization where care could be provided, is wrong because those individuals CHOOSE not to be institutionalized, and on the other hand, you're arguing they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities as other citizens because they can't help their situation. This position is arbitrary and incoherent. Finally. I disagree with your contention that institutionalizing people for the purpose of providing care (not locking them up - as you called it) who aren't capable of making their own decisions is immoral - and you haven't attempted to show why it is, you just assert it as a fact - which it isn't. >What's wrong with people in the US that this even has to be discussed I'm not American.

DanBC 8y ago
> I disagree with your contention that institutionalizing people for the purpose of providing care (not locking them up) Speaking about England: most of the people I talk to who've been detained under section of the mental health act (involuntarily committed to hospital) talk about it as being locked up, even if they're on an unlocked ward. There are strict legal protections in place to prevent abuse of powers, although these aren't always being followed. There has recently been a review of the English law to see if too many people are being detained. You should view this as more severe than a prison sentence, because that mindset allows you to put in place the protections of freedoms needed to guard against abuse.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
Your arguments are based on various false dichotomies and false analogies. I have given a reason why incarcerating adults who have not committed a crime against their will is obviously immoral, namely because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. Of course, there can be reasons that might outweigh this right, for example when someone has committed a serious crime and there was a fair trial. Another reason would be the medical assessment that the person would likely severely harm himself or others. For the latter, the hurdles are extremely high. You can ask your lawmakers why they think they should be high. They will probably tell you that's because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. "Caring" for someone is traditionally not considered a sufficient reason. And that includes parents, who are definitely not allowed to lock away their children indefinitely (as a reply to the other poster, who seems to be even more confused than you). > you're arguing they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities as other citizens because they can't help their situation. I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >I have given a reason why incarcerating adults... You haven't actually answered the one objection I have, namely, why do you think it moral to let distressed individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor. Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. But let's leave it at that. I'll simply state that I disagree with your position. Moreso than that, I find that position highly immoral. >I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever. I didn't say you argued it, I asked what your position is on that. It is actually illegal to pitch a tent on a sidewalk and live there. It is illegal to setup a 'tent city' for purpose of long-term habitation. There are plethora of laws preventing that kind of behaviour. And I get it, you don't admit to the moral imperative of institutionalizing those individuals to provide care, but then are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals - because that isn't done either if you go to cities like San Fran and LA and enforcing those laws would lead to heavy fines or incarceration, if you treat those individuals as rational actors expected to live up to the responsibilities of living in a society.

sershe 8y ago

How about keeping 4-15 year olds locked away against their will, when they'd much rather run out into the street than be in the kindergarten or school? Or e.g. dragging them away from the candy aisle by force, or forcing them to go to bed when they'd rather watch TV at night? How about keeping 15-year-olds locked out of pubs and arbitrarily forbidding them to operate a vehicle (severely restricting their freedom of movement in much of the US) against their will? You can discuss the finer points of various restrictions, but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
That's a false analogy. You have to bear in mind that the diagnosis of mental diseases has a fairly high failure rate and many behaviour that used to be classified as a mental disease has turned out to be perfectly fine.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  That's your argument? That modern psychology and psychiatry is incapable of diagnosing debilitating conditions like schizophrenia in an individual living in a filthy tent-city - therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody?
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Of course we should err on the side of caution when deciding whether to lock someone against his will for an indefinite time into a psychiatric facility. What else did you think? Do you have any idea about the guidelines for psychiatric evaluation of such cases and their judicial oversight? Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. Maybe you start by thinking about how you would like to be treated if you happen to start suffering from schizophrenia, and then read up a bit on freedom and other fundamental human rights. Then you could read up on actual laws and the guidelines for psychiatric evaluations. Then at least you would have something to say. > therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody? Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. There is also no need to use an ominous "we". There are psychiatrists who make the judgement call under judicial oversight and their main criterion is, of course, whether the patient poses any imminent danger to himself or others. This is regulated by existing laws and procedures. Anything beyond that is illegal and, as I have argued, also immoral. Overall, I have to say that some of the replies I've seen in this thread are far below the usual level of HN. It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia but nevertheless do not pose any danger to themselves or others - which was the premise of that discussion, mind you.