4 ms·

> but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capa

by DanBC 8y ago

> but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity. You state this like it's obvious, but it really isn't that obvious and there are severe problems with detention of people who don't pose a risk of hamr to themselves or others. And there's even problems if they only pose a risk of harm to themselves. The UK sees people banged up for years becuase they pose a risk of harm to themselves, when what they really need is better community treatment.

macspoofing 8y ago
>You state this like it's obvious, But it is. We do that all the time like, for example, during criminal proceedings. We understand that an individual with particular mental handicaps may not be fully (or at all) capable of making rational decisions and therefore should not bear the full responsibility for their actions. >when what they really need is better community treatment. What do you think 'community treatment' means!?!?!? You let them live in a filthy tent, with no clean water, no sanitation, no protection from the elements, with an occasional visit from a social worker to make sure they don't have cholera and have a blanket so they don't die from exposure?? That's your definition of 'community treatment'???
sershe 8y ago
I'm pretty sure I would have been fine driving a car as soon as I could reach the pedals, and school was a waste of time after 5th grade; why did they restrict my freedom when in the latter case I'd at most harm myself? There were obvious and severe problems with that. Somehow we decided that after a certain age you can do whatever you want (more or less) and the constraints that arise from the fact that you are incapable, and dependent on care, stop applying. THAT is a completely arbitrary standard. The only argument I can think in favor of this is that arbitrary age-based standard is much harder to abuse. But that is a (valid) implementation problem, not a moral one.

by DanBC 8y ago

macspoofing 8y ago

>You state this like it's obvious, But it is. We do that all the time like, for example, during criminal proceedings. We understand that an individual with particular mental handicaps may not be fully (or at all) capable of making rational decisions and therefore should not bear the full responsibility for their actions. >when what they really need is better community treatment. What do you think 'community treatment' means!?!?!? You let them live in a filthy tent, with no clean water, no sanitation, no protection from the elements, with an occasional visit from a social worker to make sure they don't have cholera and have a blanket so they don't die from exposure?? That's your definition of 'community treatment'???

sershe 8y ago

I'm pretty sure I would have been fine driving a car as soon as I could reach the pedals, and school was a waste of time after 5th grade; why did they restrict my freedom when in the latter case I'd at most harm myself? There were obvious and severe problems with that. Somehow we decided that after a certain age you can do whatever you want (more or less) and the constraints that arise from the fact that you are incapable, and dependent on care, stop applying. THAT is a completely arbitrary standard. The only argument I can think in favor of this is that arbitrary age-based standard is much harder to abuse. But that is a (valid) implementation problem, not a moral one.