4 ms·

>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 agai

>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.
  - 8y ago

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.
- 8y ago