• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

I lied to the police, had my wife arrested, saved my family. *Was I morally correct? *You judge

You didn't really answer the heart of what my post says.

You robbed someone of their free will and right to self determine on the grounds that you know what's best. How would you have felt had she or really ANYONE done that to you?

If she had hurt someone, or herself when being detained, could you have lived with that? Any spilled blood would have been on your hands, Harry.

Is a police officer going along with what you did REALLLLLLY a proper metric to judge the moral integrity of your decision?

Again I don't judge you for your decision and have more empathy for your situation than this post might imply to you, but nor will I make excuses for your decision. The 'right' thing would have been to respect your wife as her own person, a grown woman who can make her own decisions and and has her own free will. To have taken the kids and fought her for custody and then if you wanted, to then help her from afar.

Well, I think that the heart of the matter who do we allow to have free will? I took away the free will from an adult who was psychotic and off her meds. It sounds like you disagree with my decision. Fair enough. But what would you give free will to decide to a 6-year old who wants to sleep outside in the snow to wait for Santa? Would you give free will to an Alzheimer's patient who wishes to contribute his life savings to the Benny Himm fund to buy a new jet? Would you give free will to an intoxicated young woman to decide to have sex with 10 football players? These are not easy questions.

1. Children are not adults and shouldn't be treated as such

2. Absolutely. The issue isn't with the Alzheimer's patient doing what he/she wants. The issue is with Benny Himm taking people's money under the false pretense that it will somehow help them. And to be honest, is it really any worse than people setting up gofundme pages to buy new cars?

3. Absolutely. Free will means being responsible for yourself and your decisions. Being under-the-influence does not somehow relieve you of that responsibility. Any adult who tries to shift blame from themselves for what they do while drunk/high/whatever is being childish and needs to own up to themselves.
 
I'm glad you mentioned that your wife is in agreement. I wondered about that, but hesitated to ask.

The more agreement, the more morality. Morality is a social construct. If you have consensus, you have morality.
 
You didn't really answer the heart of what my post says.

You robbed someone of their free will and right to self determine on the grounds that you know what's best. How would you have felt had she or really ANYONE done that to you?

If she had hurt someone, or herself when being detained, could you have lived with that? Any spilled blood would have been on your hands, Harry.

Is a police officer going along with what you did REALLLLLLY a proper metric to judge the moral integrity of your decision?

Again I don't judge you for your decision and have more empathy for your situation than this post might imply to you, but nor will I make excuses for your decision. The 'right' thing would have been to respect your wife as her own person, a grown woman who can make her own decisions and and has her own free will. To have taken the kids and fought her for custody and then if you wanted, to then help her from afar.

Well, I think that the heart of the matter who do we allow to have free will? I took away the free will from an adult who was psychotic and off her meds. It sounds like you disagree with my decision. Fair enough. But what would you give free will to decide to a 6-year old who wants to sleep outside in the snow to wait for Santa? Would you give free will to an Alzheimer's patient who wishes to contribute his life savings to the Benny Himm fund to buy a new jet? Would you give free will to an intoxicated young woman to decide to have sex with 10 football players? These are not easy questions.

Psychosis and lack of meds took away the free will from your wife.

You did not take away her free will. Perhaps her freedom, temporarily. You had her committed to a facility where she can receive the treatment she needs in order to become herself again and regain her free will and sound mind.

This is not a thought experiment. It's a very sad, difficult reality. And one that most of the posters in this thread have not faced.
 
3. Absolutely. Free will means being responsible for yourself and your decisions. Being under-the-influence does not somehow relieve you of that responsibility. Any adult who tries to shift blame from themselves for what they do while drunk/high/whatever is being childish and needs to own up to themselves.

In this case, she is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs but under the influence of a sad, pernicious disease that is interfering with her ability to exercise her own sound judgement and decision making. It is robbing her or at a minimum, severely impairing her ability to exercise her free will.

It is a sad reality that she does not have the choice about whether or not to be affected by her disease. And also a sad reality that the disease process interferes with her ability to form and act on her best judgment. In her current, un-medicated state, she has no free will in any meaningful way.
 
While I certainly sympathize with Harry's situation - it was a tough decision to make - wouldn't have taking the kids, and leaving her homeless have accomplished the same thing? On the streets without meds or proper care, she would have eventually become a danger to herself, leading to institutionalization without needing to lie to the cops and the doctors?
 
Well, I think that the heart of the matter who do we allow to have free will? I took away the free will from an adult who was psychotic and off her meds. It sounds like you disagree with my decision. Fair enough. But what would you give free will to decide to a 6-year old who wants to sleep outside in the snow to wait for Santa? Would you give free will to an Alzheimer's patient who wishes to contribute his life savings to the Benny Himm fund to buy a new jet? Would you give free will to an intoxicated young woman to decide to have sex with 10 football players? These are not easy questions.

Psychosis and lack of meds took away the free will from your wife.

You did not take away her free will. Perhaps her freedom, temporarily. You had her committed to a facility where she can receive the treatment she needs in order to become herself again and regain her free will and sound mind.

This is not a thought experiment. It's a very sad, difficult reality. And one that most of the posters in this thread have not faced.
Pretty much right on the money for anyone who has experienced this situation in life. If the discussion is about free will that's the first thing you recognize in the person, that their ability to judge is gone. Their self awareness is gone. They are on this euphoric high, same as being on drugs. They don't sleep. They don't eat right. Their hygiene suffers. They become promiscuous. They start spending. They make extremely bad decisions whether its about business, or relationships. Their life tanks and they run wild unless someone grabs the reins. They alienate everyone with whom they spend any real time.

This is not about free will in the sense most people understand. If it's about free will then free will has become their enemy, it's enslaved them and shortened their lives no different than a destructive addiction. The best outcome in their life is to live under a bridge with other people like them. Anyone who thinks otherwise has watched too many Hallmark movies. Seriously, to not help a family member in this condition is big time selfish. It's not about respecting their "free will."
 
Well, I think that the heart of the matter who do we allow to have free will? I took away the free will from an adult who was psychotic and off her meds. It sounds like you disagree with my decision. Fair enough. But what would you give free will to decide to a 6-year old who wants to sleep outside in the snow to wait for Santa? Would you give free will to an Alzheimer's patient who wishes to contribute his life savings to the Benny Himm fund to buy a new jet? Would you give free will to an intoxicated young woman to decide to have sex with 10 football players? These are not easy questions.

Psychosis and lack of meds took away the free will from your wife.

You did not take away her free will. Perhaps her freedom, temporarily. You had her committed to a facility where she can receive the treatment she needs in order to become herself again and regain her free will and sound mind.

This is not a thought experiment. It's a very sad, difficult reality. And one that most of the posters in this thread have not faced.

Psychosis does not relieve you of free will. It impairs judgement and alters perspective.(Arguably)

- - - Updated - - -

3. Absolutely. Free will means being responsible for yourself and your decisions. Being under-the-influence does not somehow relieve you of that responsibility. Any adult who tries to shift blame from themselves for what they do while drunk/high/whatever is being childish and needs to own up to themselves.

In this case, she is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs but under the influence of a sad, pernicious disease that is interfering with her ability to exercise her own sound judgement and decision making. It is robbing her or at a minimum, severely impairing her ability to exercise her free will.

It is a sad reality that she does not have the choice about whether or not to be affected by her disease. And also a sad reality that the disease process interferes with her ability to form and act on her best judgment. In her current, un-medicated state, she has no free will in any meaningful way.

I mentioned this before in my burka thread, but it is not your responsibility to take on someone else's free will and "save them from themselves." From a certain perspective, I could compare this to vigilante justice. And why not? In either case you're circumventing the law and one person's rights/free will because "You know better." Because "You know what is more just or in someone else's best interest."
 
I mentioned this before in my burka thread, but it is not your responsibility to take on someone else's free will and "save them from themselves." From a certain perspective, I could compare this to vigilante justice. And why not? In either case you're circumventing the law and one person's rights/free will because "You know better." Because "You know what is more just or in someone else's best interest."
Maybe circumventing the letter of the law, but not its intent.

Can you point me to a law stating that there is no such thing as mental illness?
 
While I certainly sympathize with Harry's situation - it was a tough decision to make - wouldn't have taking the kids, and leaving her homeless have accomplished the same thing? On the streets without meds or proper care, she would have eventually become a danger to herself, leading to institutionalization without needing to lie to the cops and the doctors?

No. For one thing, it would have been traumatic for the children, plus the logistics would be a nightmare, with 3 school age children and I am assuming, not infinite resources.

In fact, she is NOT making a choice to behave like a psychotic person. She is in a state of psychosis which she is unable to control. It is not different than if someone is going into a diabetic coma and saying, well she should just give herself an insulin shot! As if either the person who is in such bad shape physically or mentally is able to simply make better decisions and act right. They can't. They flat out cannot.

Why not make the best effort to avoid the potential damage to all concerned: Harry, children, wife--and get the wife the treatment she needs and deserves. This is not the same thing as someone going on repeated alcoholic or drug fueled benders but even if it were, I would applaud the attempt at treatment/hospitalization first.

Leaving a person who is so mentally ill that they are not able to function in a home would also put the home itself at risk for serious damage, potentially. This would make a serious financial decision much, much worse. In addition, there is a very real possibility of self harm to the wife. Or just harm. Mentally ill people too often fall prey to those who are able to take advantage of them. Why risk the possible physical harm, the increased time in a psychotic state and potentially many legal repercussions by simply abandoning her? If there are other choices, those would be the best, most ethical choices to make. Sadly, we are all aware of too many cases when well meaning friends/family/neighbors call the police when someone who is mentally ill is behaving abnormally--not necessarily harming themselves or anyone else but obviously, someone in serious need of help. And the police are too often ill equipped to do the job of getting the person to the hospital and instead feel threatened by..what? a paper bag blowing across the street? A shadow? Police officers have shot and killed too many unarmed people who simply needed to be taken to the hospital. And we all know it. We've read the stories. We've talked about them here.

What Harry did is the best possible solution to a horrible problem. I hope very much that whatever it takes for his wife to become healthier and to completely accept the treatment necessary to maintain her mental health happens.
 
Psychosis and lack of meds took away the free will from your wife.

You did not take away her free will. Perhaps her freedom, temporarily. You had her committed to a facility where she can receive the treatment she needs in order to become herself again and regain her free will and sound mind.

This is not a thought experiment. It's a very sad, difficult reality. And one that most of the posters in this thread have not faced.

Psychosis does not relieve you of free will. It impairs judgement and alters perspective.(Arguably)

And thereby making it impossible to exercise free will in any meaningful way. When judgment is sufficiently impaired, it is impossible to talk meaningfully about exercise of free will. We do not allow people to marry, sign contracts or even drive automobiles when they are sufficiently impaired. In this case, the impairment is not coming from something that the wife has willingly imbibed but due to a flaw or series of flaws in her brain chemistry that she is not choosing. Which means that even more so than believing that a drunk cannot sign a contract, Harry's wife cannot make the best decisions for herself. It isn't as though she is able to weigh all the decisions and make ones that are sub optimal or that Harry disagrees with. She is flat out unable to reason sufficiently well to make meaningful decisions.

I mentioned this before in my burka thread, but it is not your responsibility to take on someone else's free will and "save them from themselves." From a certain perspective, I could compare this to vigilante justice. And why not? In either case you're circumventing the law and one person's rights/free will because "You know better." Because "You know what is more just or in someone else's best interest."

Harry isn't taking anyone's free will. Her mental illness has done that. He is substituting his judgment for hers in this matter and in this matter only. It is a temporary measure until she is able to recover sufficiently to exercise her own powers of reasoning and understanding.

This is vastly different than deciding to force her to wear a certain item of clothing or attend a certain school or quit attending a certain school, or pursue a certain career, etc.

It is even different than forcing her to go to the hospital to have a broken arm set and cast, assuming she's in her right mind. Because she's not able to make those decisions==to choose to go or not go. Mental health intact? It's her business if her broken arm is set properly. Mental health sufficiently impaired--it's not up to her any more until and unless her mental health is improved enough that she can make rational decisions. Not 'the only decision.' Or the one her husband and family want. But a rational decision to get help or not. Not to refuse help because the voices in her head tell her it's a bad thing to do.
 
And thereby making it impossible to exercise free will in any meaningful way. When judgment is sufficiently impaired, it is impossible to talk meaningfully about exercise of free will. We do not allow people to marry, sign contracts or even drive automobiles when they are sufficiently impaired. In this case, the impairment is not coming from something that the wife has willingly imbibed but due to a flaw or series of flaws in her brain chemistry that she is not choosing. Which means that even more so than believing that a drunk cannot sign a contract, Harry's wife cannot make the best decisions for herself. It isn't as though she is able to weigh all the decisions and make ones that are sub optimal or that Harry disagrees with. She is flat out unable to reason sufficiently well to make meaningful decisions.

That is neither yours nor his decision to make.

Harry isn't taking anyone's free will. Her mental illness has done that. He is substituting his judgment for hers in this matter and in this matter only. It is a temporary measure until she is able to recover sufficiently to exercise her own powers of reasoning and understanding.

This is vastly different than deciding to force her to wear a certain item of clothing or attend a certain school or quit attending a certain school, or pursue a certain career, etc.

It is even different than forcing her to go to the hospital to have a broken arm set and cast, assuming she's in her right mind. Because she's not able to make those decisions==to choose to go or not go. Mental health intact? It's her business if her broken arm is set properly. Mental health sufficiently impaired--it's not up to her any more until and unless her mental health is improved enough that she can make rational decisions. Not 'the only decision.' Or the one her husband and family want. But a rational decision to get help or not. Not to refuse help because the voices in her head tell her it's a bad thing to do.

Your mental illness is a part of you, it is not a foreign entity that controls you. You CANNOT take your own free will away from yourself, that is bullshit. Also I referenced the burka thread because certain individuals thought it was right to take away one's right to wear a burka in the interest of protecting them from their patriarchal families whom they chose to stay with.

Does it ever cross your mind all the myriad ways this could have gone horribly horribly wrong? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Harry is very lucky this ended well, because it could have just as easily not, and all because some people just decide that "They know better."

When you relegate the mentally ill to the status of children who can have their own determination super-ceded in their best interest by another party, you dis-empower those people and strip them of their rights. You call that 'moral'?
 
I mentioned this before in my burka thread, but it is not your responsibility to take on someone else's free will and "save them from themselves." From a certain perspective, I could compare this to vigilante justice. And why not? In either case you're circumventing the law and one person's rights/free will because "You know better." Because "You know what is more just or in someone else's best interest."
Maybe circumventing the letter of the law, but not its intent.

Can you point me to a law stating that there is no such thing as mental illness?

It most certainly is circumventing the intent. You do not have the right to strip me of mine and impose your judgement above mine. Me having a mental illness does not give you that right and for good reason too!
 
While I certainly sympathize with Harry's situation - it was a tough decision to make - wouldn't have taking the kids, and leaving her homeless have accomplished the same thing? On the streets without meds or proper care, she would have eventually become a danger to herself, leading to institutionalization without needing to lie to the cops and the doctors?

As I see it she would have been a danger to herself immediately if she were on the streets.

Furthermore, as I see it she's a lot better off this way than if he simply took the kids and left.
 
Maybe circumventing the letter of the law, but not its intent.

Can you point me to a law stating that there is no such thing as mental illness?

It most certainly is circumventing the intent. You do not have the right to strip me of mine and impose your judgement above mine. Me having a mental illness does not give you that right and for good reason too!

The restrictions were put in place to avoid commitment of those people simply wanted out of the way or to harm. Neither of those applies in a case like this. Thus the intent of the law was not circumvented.
 
Maybe circumventing the letter of the law, but not its intent.

Can you point me to a law stating that there is no such thing as mental illness?

It most certainly is circumventing the intent. You do not have the right to strip me of mine and impose your judgement above mine. Me having a mental illness does not give you that right and for good reason too!
Morally, ethically, legally, your right to mental illness stops where someone's nose begins. That's how it works.
 
It most certainly is circumventing the intent. You do not have the right to strip me of mine and impose your judgement above mine. Me having a mental illness does not give you that right and for good reason too!
Morally, ethically, legally, your right to mental illness stops where someone's nose begins. That's how it works.

There is no 'right to mental illness' There's a right to not be imprisoned by others just because they have determined that I am mentally ill though.
 
It most certainly is circumventing the intent. You do not have the right to strip me of mine and impose your judgement above mine. Me having a mental illness does not give you that right and for good reason too!

The restrictions were put in place to avoid commitment of those people simply wanted out of the way or to harm. Neither of those applies in a case like this. Thus the intent of the law was not circumvented.

They absolutely do. Worst case scenario, Harry could have continued to support her after the fact despite being separated. But that would have been too hard I guess. Harry lied and had her committed, maybe because he thought it was 'the right thing to do' but also because it was the easiest and most convenient solution for him and his.
 
Harry you mentioned a nanny and stuff. I assume money isn't a huge problem for you.

I used to "move into" a new apartment with a chick I wanted to drop. Then slowly remove my things as the weeks dragged on. Then one day just stop going over there. Or move in a friend I hope will seduce her, removing all blame from me. So many crafty ways to drop a crazy chick, without committing an actual crime, Harry. It all becomes very sad when you consider the kids involved, so this terrible kind of talking sounds bad I'm sure. But this is life.

She just going to go crazy again, Harry. Make your life hell. Fuck up your kids. Cry all time. Refuse to bathe. All that and worse. And it will always feel like it is your fault, somehow.

I offer you a solution. Have a crib waiting when she gets out. Six month lease or whatever. That way she isn't homeless, and she can work on finding someone else to suck blood from. If she has retained her looks, six months is all she'll need.

it was the easiest and most convenient solution for him and his.

LordKiran... this isn't convenient for Harry. I'm sure Harry didn't want his kids to spend Christmas without their Mom. Harry thought fast on his feet. Good job harry.
 
Morally, ethically, legally, your right to mental illness stops where someone's nose begins. That's how it works.

There is no 'right to mental illness' There's a right to not be imprisoned by others just because they have determined that I am mentally ill though.

She was confined to hospital until she was medically stable. My wife wasn't an alcoholic cruelly deprived of a drink. She was desperately sick. This is a medical condition. It's no different than a person confining an Alzheimer's patient to a hospital when they are beyond reason and not functioning.

alzheimer
 
Harry you still haven't mentioned her diagnoses or behaviors. I'm let to think the worst. I've seen the worst so I understand no matter what but yeah maybe you could go ionto some detail. It has gone this far so why not. Save it for tomnorrow actually because today is a special day for etc and good foods.
 
Back
Top Bottom