Is Rehab for quitters?

[Fishteacher73]

This is a tangent that started on another thread, so we figured we would move it to a new thread to not dilute either thread. A question brought up by Irisheyes:

 

What does this say about people being 'rehabilitated'? Does rehabilitation count as removing the choice? If a person is medicated, or surgically altered, to control their urges, is this humane? Or is it taking away their choice to make their own decisions? And do we, as a society, have the right to do this (rehabilitate) to people?

[alxian]

If a person is medicated, or surgically altered, to control their urges, is this humane?

 

i read this question as, is this altered person still 'human'?

 

yes of course.

 

** this goes doubly for 'does society have the right to forcibly rehabilitate people' who aren't 'good' for society.**

 

if you want to live in society you must conform to it in every aspect. i'm dismayed that this is even questioned.

 

so

 

people who are 'bad' should be rehabilitated. which i think means they can be reprogrammed since rehabilitation takes years and accomplishes nothing.

[Fishteacher73]

This sprouted from a comment about Burgess's A Clockwork Orange and if a person was medically unable to choose betwen good and evil, does that make it still a valid choice. Does this nullify the human experience to be forced into a specific ideal w/ no ablity to alter this course, ie a clockwork orange; a synthetic organism that looks like the original, but is no longer able to perform as it does in the natural state.

[alxian]

humans in their natural state.. barbaric and such.. thank god for civilization.

[nemo]

To which civilization do you refer? If humans, as a species, generally progress toward gathering in larger and larger groups that conform (for the most part) to majority rule - isn't a form of civilization the natural human state?

[Fishteacher73]

I suppose "natural state" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "autonomous" would be more apt. I am speaking of our modern culture/society.

 

 

Does the inability to do wrong make one good, or just not bad? And does it matter?

[nemo]

The difference between addressing the problem and addressing the symptoms of that problem... Interesting thought; with regard to medicinal / surgical 'rehabilitation'. Otherwise, we are already doing this - prisons don't address the problem (i.e. homicidal tendancies) for the most part, they simply address the symptoms by separating the violent from both society as a whole and anything sharper than a tablespoon.

[IrishEyes]

Does the inability to do wrong make one good, or just not bad? And does it matter?

Ok, I see the difference. Being neither good nor bad is not good or bad. It just *is* (or means you're sleeping :cup: ). Does that seem dumb?

 

If you are incapable of doing wrong, then you are just not bad. Just like not doing good doesn't make you bad... it just makes you not good. Does that make sense?

 

And yes, of course it matters. Doesn't it?

[Fishteacher73]

I'm not speaking of a neutral state. Much like Alex in Clockwork Orange was unable to do bad things, so he had to choose to either do nothing or to do good. So does removing the converse of "good" render "good" meaningless.

Kind of like having your secretary buy flowers for you wife. Is that a reasonable present, even though the boss A) Did not remember; and :cup: Someone else actualy did the act?

[pgrmdave]

I depends. With regard to society, removing undesirable tendancies is good, and would make a person good. However, from a moral standpoint, "goodness" must come from choice. We cannot say that a tree is good or bad because we recognize that it cannot choose. So, for a culture, the idea would be good, but morally, I think that it is wrong.

[motherengine]

humans in their natural state.. barbaric and such.. thank god for civilization.

 

actually i think the more humans have become 'civilized' the more 'barbaric' their action have become.

[motherengine]

i think forced contrition negates the illusion of freewill as burgess was suggesting. in the book the choice alex made was not to 'be a better person' but to get out of prision so any subsequent act (after the treatment) is irrelevant as far as him actually choosing to be and do 'good'. but from a philosophical perspective the answer to the title question is yes. one would be quitting the natural struggle to transcend abberant behavior and giving in to a quick fix solution. as far as the psychological ramifications, only applied science and willing participants can bear that out.

[Gulielmus]

This is a tangent that started on another thread, so we figured we would move it to a new thread to not dilute either thread. A question brought up by Irisheyes:

If people make a choice to “rehabilitate” then there is no question about it being inhumane. People always find ways to get around rules though, so they might make it look to the person that going on medication or removing apart of their body was the best (or safest) idea. Rules can be manipulated just like people and their views.

What every you do bad stuff will happen, but tring to make it better isn't usless so keep on going.