There is no way to define mental health from a philosophical perspective. Health is holistic and simply the ability to physically persist and is it's necessarily different for each individual.

However, the legal system does have its subjective guidelines that are used to determine the mental health of individuals and this changes by judge and jurisdiction.

There is no way to define mental health from a philosophical perspective. — Rich

Aristotle thought differently. He describes attaining a state of eudaimonia, which would seem to be a state of clear and sound mind.

There are countless other philosophies and religions that have their own way of achieving peace and tranquility. Perhaps, truth is a pathless land or one can achieve happiness through being ethical or moral?

People are just living their lives. Some fit in better than others.

People are just living their lives. Some fit in better than others. — Rich

Yeah, well people are becoming more prone to poor mental health due to various factors that living in modern day society entails. So, perhaps if there is a benefit in treating or preventing mental health issues would be to behave morally or with ethics in mind.

Hmm, guess no takers then. I thought it was an edifying thought that what is ethical can be thought to be conducive to a sound and healthy mind?

Yeah, well people are becoming more prone to poor mental health due to various factors that living in modern day society entails. So, perhaps if there is a benefit in treating or preventing mental health issues would be to behave morally or with ethics in mind. — Posty McPostface

Well, prime certainly are taking more drugs as every behavior is now considered and abnormal for marketing reasons. Somehow there is a direct correlation between pharmaceutical profits and the number if new diseases that the industry creates. Maybe it is the drugs that are affecting behavior?

Hmm, guess no takers then. I thought it was an edifying thought that what is ethical can be thought to be conducive to a sound and healthy mind? — Posty McPostface

I gather from a few mocking birds that people have a hard time even figuring out what the golden rule is supposed to be about. How on earth is anyone expected to know what is wrong and what right if we adults don’t first have a cognitively present, perfectly justified, absolute truth about what ethics are? I say adults because most all kids have such knowledge; but kids don’t count because they don’t think about their thoughts as we adults do … at least they don't count according to a bunch of learned adults that can’t settle on what the golden rule is.

Skipping some potentially important step in argumentation, in short, I find a lot of truth in the OP’s basic assertion. So, more seriously, I second that there ought to be some established clinical diagnosis for cruelty, for instance. Problem is it’s so rampant among mankind that you’d have a hard time finding someone devoid of this mental disorder to write it up as a mental disorder in the first place—and even if you did, then the majority of others would ensure that this denotation of mental insanity never makes it to the light of day.

My occasionally present dark and obtuse sense of humor, I guess. But the point to this post I think still holds.

Well, prime certainly are taking more drugs as every behavior is now considered and abnormal for marketing reasons. — Rich

That's an interesting point. I think there is certainly a tendency to overprescribe medications like SSRI's ADHD stimulant medication and even antipsychotics like Abilify as an augmenter to depression and antidepressant medication. The downside of this is that you have more people who are exposed to the side effects of antidepressants and other medications. In some cases, this leads to suicide.

However, the flipside is that we have fewer people being institutionalized and requiring hospitalizations or costly public upkeep of facilities for those suffering from various mental disorders.

The downside of all this is that you have the few who are pigeonholed, others who just need talk therapy rather than medication, which I talked about in another thread about the unfortunate rift between psychology and psychiatry.

Going a little deeper, most of the medications don't even work as compared to the placebo effect. Something that still boggles my mind, as you would think depression or schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are resistant to 'wishful thinking', yet that is not the case. Most of the new drugs aren't even superior to some 20 or 30-year-old Prozac or Clozapine.

Maybe it is the drugs that are affecting behavior? — Rich

Well, we have no way of knowing whether a person will respond or how they will respond to medication. So, I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to address.

w on earth is anyone expected to know what is wrong and what right if we adults don’t first have a cognitively present, perfectly justified, absolute truth about what ethics are? — javra

Part of what my first post is implying is that there need not be a 'perfectly justified' or 'absolute truth' in practicing ethics. There can be different paths. However, eventually, some norms are established, like not killing another human being, etc.

Rather, it is the process of being ethical, or observing morals, that brings about the change in character or the mind which leads to happiness.

I would like to point out that most of the predominant Western ethical schools of thought originated after Socrates's death and with Aristotle's virtue ethics.

Despite saying that Socrates might have been a gadfly to be around with, we are reminded of how many schools of thought were inspired by Socrates death. Thus, it must mean something to act ethically or hold morals dear to oneself if so many people were inspired by Socrates life.

What does this say about a sound and healthy mind? It would seem to imply that having a sound mind goes along with having a sound moral system to abide by, and with that creating a character admired by many?

How about "Mental health is present when individuals are satisfied by their functioning within broadly defined intellectual and emotional standards"?

So two things need to be present: Actual functioning needs to be approximately, roughly, normal, and individuals need to feel satisfied that their functioning is normal. They don't have to be happy, they don't have to be highly ethical or moral.

So, if a person is experiencing depressed mental functioning, finds that memory, concentration, appetite, and libido are greatly reduced, and recognizes this as a problem...; if an individual is experiencing hallucinations (auditory or visual), intense fear, agitation, and whose sensory input seems o be quite distorted, we would also say the individual was mentally ill.

There are a batch of mental illnesses that present definite symptoms that can be identified readily.

Morality and ethics are a concern in mental health when the individual abruptly abandon an ethical or moral standard that they used to follow. So, if someone whose behavior was scrupulously honest begins to lie, cheat, and steal, it might signal a disorder which wasn't previously present. On the other hand, if lying, cheating, and stealing were always part of the individual's modus operandi, their poor moral behavior might signal nothing amiss intellectually or emotionally. People who are engaged in career criminal behavior can be mentally healthy. Tony Soprano's fellow crooks appeared to have normal mental health functioning.

I hold that people can choose to be dishonest (lie, cheat, steal) and be mentally healthy. What they can't do is be moral or ethical while they are lying, cheating, or stealing.

Conflating immoral and unethical behavior with mental illness would seem to undermine the concept of responsibility. SOMETIMES people behave badly because they are mentally ill, but usually people of sound mind decide to behave badly, and are responsible for their misdeeds.

For instance, someone who handles a lot of cash may decide to divert some of it into their own pocket simply because at the time of collection there were no receipts. For instance, the amount of cash in a collection plate at a meeting or political rally isn't known until it is counted. If one person counts it out of sight of other people, it is quite easy to "under-count" and pocket the difference, without arousing suspicion. That's why there are controls in place when cash is counted -- two unrelated people are present, for instance, to do the counting.

Most of the new drugs aren't even superior to some 20 or 30-year-old Prozac or Clozapine. — Posty McPostface

That seems to be the case. Perhaps the basic mechanism of affecting mental performance with drugs was present in the first generation of psychoactive meds (like tri-cyclic anti-depressants) and hasn't really been improved upon, except for reducing some side effects.

Hmm, guess no takers then. — Posty McPostface

So, postface, where are you??? Have you abandoned your computer to deal with wild fires, or something? The least you could do is respond to my penetrating thoughts before you rush away to save your hide.

I'm here. Let me meditate on what you said and see if I can muster anything up.

I hold that people can choose to be dishonest (lie, cheat, steal) and be mentally healthy. What they can't do is be moral or ethical while they are lying, cheating, or stealing. — Bitter Crank

Surely, crime, murder, and other such acts are a sickness of the society in which one resides. Eric Fromm wrote about this in great detail. I really should read more of his books, I only skimmed his, The Sane Society. In general, I think that the term 'mental disorder or illness' is detrimental to the prognosis of the patient. It labels them as dysfunctional and incapable of performing mundane activities (coming from someone on disability and wondering if I can at least work part-time on my disability type because they vary).

But, wouldn't it be a good society if its participants were equally good, and concerned with the examined life?

Conflating immoral and unethical behavior with mental illness would seem to undermine the concept of responsibility. SOMETIMES people behave badly because they are mentally ill, but usually people of sound mind decide to behave badly, and are responsible for their misdeeds. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I agree that conflating the two isn't wise. Perhaps, it can be argued that immoral and unethical behavior goes against what our conscience would have us do best, and that in itself is a manifestation of some disquietude in the mind of the person? Mind you, I don't have petty theft on my mind, more like murder or such acts of brutality.

I would think that an unempathetic, psychopathic, and remorseless criminal should be considered a 'mental illness' or at least some illness of some sort, one so dire and socially unacceptable that would require society to designate special housing areas (prisons) to hold such people there(?)

That seems to be the case. Perhaps the basic mechanism of affecting mental performance with drugs was present in the first generation of psychoactive meds (like tri-cyclic anti-depressants) and hasn't really been improved upon, except for reducing some side effects. — Bitter Crank

I know of many drugs and have researched their efficacy. They don't hold up to some older medications, like Nardil (Penelzine) or Parnate (Tranylcypromine). If you read the piles on online reports on those drugs for depression, they are considered the gold standard for social anxiety with depression.

However, there is an issue that I haven't mentioned about antidepressant medications, they tend to poop out with time. In my experience, after a while the antidepressant effects subside and your left with feeling apathetic or unmotivated.

And, motivation is an important thing, don't you think? I would say that motivation or the desire to get better is the best prognosis for remission from depression. What these drugs do is make you content with everything (mostly the SSRI's), and leave you or me, from personal experience, apathetic and unmotivated. That's a hole many people get stuck in. Doing some armchair psychology, I suppose that the best time to address depression is when you first get into it, then the cause of it is easier to discern, I think.

Anyway, I went on a tangent there, but take it for what it is, some armchair psychology.

But, wouldn't it be a good society if its participants were equally good, and concerned with the examined life? — Posty McPostface

Sure, but remember: we're talking about human society here, not a society of saints and angels.

I think that the term 'mental disorder or illness' is detrimental to the prognosis of the patient. It labels them as dysfunctional and incapable of performing mundane activities — Posty McPostface

Well, people with significant illnesses are dysfunctional. If one has a severe case of tuberculosis, for instance, one is pretty much dysfunctional, whether one likes it or not. People who are paralyzed by infections, injuries, or strokes are dysfunctional. They can't function.

Mental illnesses sometimes make people dysfunctional and able to perform ONLY mundane activities, like self care. More severe mental illnesses may make it impossible for the person to even take care of their own bodily needs. But such severe consequences aren't usually long lasting. Someone who is in stark-raving-mad-psychosis will eventually calm down (especially with major tranquilizers) and then function much better. Even return to mental health.

What severe mental illness especially interferes with is higher, more complex tasks, like manipulating data, complex design work, difficult memory and learning tasks, and so on.

I would think that an unempathetic, psychopathic, and remorseless criminal should be considered a 'mental illness' or at least some illness of some sort, one so dire and socially unacceptable that would require society to designate special housing areas (prisons) to hold such people there(?) — Posty McPostface

Well, Posty, psychopathic and remorselessly criminal behavior is considered a severe mental illness. People found to act out psychopathic murderous thoughts usually end up on death row, life in prison without parole, or in a high security psychiatric facility for life.

Some people contemplate and carry out arson, rape, and bloody murder, but most people are content to defraud, lie, cheat, steal, rob, embezzle, rip off, remove for personal use, waste, defraud, abuse, and so on -- criminal behavior for sure, but not society shattering, as long as it is kept to a minimum. All these crimes against property can wreck society if it gets out of hand. One wants a drink of water, "but the pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handle", as Bob Dylan sang.

Someone who is in stark-raving-mad-psychosis will eventually calm down (especially with major tranquilizers) and then function much better. Even return to mental health. — Bitter Crank

How does one 'return' to mental health? It seems like a statement worth exploring in how it derives its meaning.

Perhaps I should amend what I have stated in the OP.

Namely, that being concerned with ethics is indicative of sound mental health; but, not a causal factor in facilitating it. Sounds kinda strange now that I re-read it.

Well, Posty, psychopathic and remorselessly criminal behavior is considered a severe mental illness. People found to act out psychopathic murderous thoughts usually end up on death row, life in prison without parole, or in a high security psychiatric facility for life. — Bitter Crank

Yes, although I haven't done research, I would think a form of therapy for them would be in the art of ethics? Perhaps I see myself working with inmates teaching them philosophy or ethics to reduce recidivism.

One can dream.

However, there is an issue that I haven't mentioned about antidepressant medications, they tend to poop out with time. In my experience, after a while the antidepressant effects subside and your left with feeling apathetic or unmotivated. — Posty McPostface

In my long history of taking antidepressants and anti anxiety drugs, I certainly found that to be true. If they work, which they don't always do for a given individual, they eventually fail--usually. I'd say benzodiazapine drugs like Xanax or Ativan fail predictably, or in susceptible persons, become an addiction issue.

And, motivation is an important thing, don't you think? I would say that motivation or the desire to get better is the best prognosis for remission from depression. What these drugs do is make you content with everything (mostly the SSRI's), and leave you or me, from personal experience, apathetic and unmotivated. That's a hole many people get stuck in. Doing some armchair psychology, I suppose that the best time to address depression is when you first get into it, then the cause of it is easier to discern, I think. — Posty McPostface

The Radical Therapist magazine (long since defunct) had for a slogan "Therapy means change, not adjustment" and illustrated their motto with a chick hatched out of its shell (change). I think that is very true, but... Most people can not simply change their circumstances and environment, however. We have roles which we want to fulfill, and are expected or needed by others to fulfill, and just up and leaving job, home, husband, wife, children, dog, and/or cat behind is not something most people want or are willing to do, and for very good reason.

But sometimes it has to be done, at least in part. Usually the job is the first to go. Maybe one goes on disability, and being relieved of the stress, sturm, and drang of the job makes for a huge improvement. Maybe the difficulties of a very stressful relationship are relieved by a separation, separate housing, or divorce. Sometimes extremely difficult situations are made better by the unfortunate death of a partner (like where there is chronic debilitating illness, old age, etc.)

These drastic changes can lead in time to a genuine recovery from depression, anxiety, and dysfunction, if the individual is able to make good on the opportunity presented.

Except that it isn't a lack of ethical knowledge that causes people to behave psychopathically. It's a developmental flaw in the structure of the brain. Normally, there is a strong connection between the pre-frontal cerebral cortex and the limbic system. This connection (a literal circuit of neurons) causes children to fear punishment for naughty behavior, and leads them to seek parental approval for good behavior. In psychopaths (it is thought) this circuit does not function, and psychopathic children don't make a punishment fear connection, or a reward-good behavior connection, either.

Psychopaths don't fear punishment, and they don't develop normal relationships or human ties to place and people, either. Most psychopaths are not motivated to commit murder, but some are. In cases where people with psychopathic tendencies become business managers, they are able to carry out decisions that normal people would find quite painful -- like laying off 15,000 workers to improve profitability. The boss with psychopathic tendencies won't lose any sleep over it. A touch of psychopathy can be mighty useful in various positions--just so long as it's just a smidgeon and not a whole lot.

So teaching ethics won't help them. I don't think there is any established therapy, however. Maybe you could find one that would address their brain problems.

In my long history of taking antidepressants and anti anxiety drugs, I certainly found that to be true. If they work, which they don't always do for a given individual, they eventually fail--usually. I'd say benzodiazapine drugs like Xanax or Ativan fail predictably, or in susceptible persons, become an addiction issue. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, can't beat homeostasis... However, there just might be the need to cycle medications over time. In my case, the Zyprexa was working too well, so I asked my p-doc to switch me to a more activating mood stabilizer, Abilify. I'm also on Zoloft, so the two are working pretty well for my needs. Eventually, once the depression goes down in magnitude, I hope to add Strattera for having inattentive ADD.

The Radical Therapist magazine (long since defunct) had for a slogan "Therapy means change, not adjustment" and illustrated their motto with a chick hatched out of its shell (change). I think that is very true, but... Most people can not simply change their circumstances and environment, however. We have roles which we want to fulfill, and are expected or needed by others to fulfill, and just up and leaving job, home, husband, wife, children, dog, and/or cat behind is not something most people want or are willing to do, and for very good reason. — Bitter Crank

Dang, sounds like a nice magazine. Would have paid to read it. I bet the pharmaceutical industry would have destroyed it had it been around nowadays. Yeah, life isn't getting easier for the middle class and lower class people. Fortunately, the U.S. has a very progressive tax system, and the lower class often get paid for being poor, how awkward?

However, there is an issue that I haven't mentioned about antidepressant medications, they tend to poop out with time. In my experience, after a while the antidepressant effects subside and your left with feeling apathetic or unmotivated.

And, motivation is an important thing, don't you think? I would say that motivation or the desire to get better is the best prognosis for remission from depression. What these drugs do is make you content with everything (mostly the SSRI's), and leave you or me, from personal experience, apathetic and unmotivated. That's a hole many people get stuck in. Doing some armchair psychology, I suppose that the best time to address depression is when you first get into it, then the cause of it is easier to discern, I think. — Posty McPostface

I happen to think that "armchair psychology" is an inexpensive way of keeping one hand on the pole while you try to deal with what life is throwing at you. So I for one, am glad that you continue to share your ideas with us because you are not alone in this ride of absurdity called life.

I can relate to being on SSRI's and Benzos for almost 30 years now and I can tell you that the reason I was put on the medications is not the same reason I am still on them today. I am on them today because as you might know, once you start on them there is really no way off. I mean sure you could stop taking them but those around you, many who have only known you on these meds, do have a bit of a say in how they are or are not affecting you. Same with the discontinuation of any med and how it affects you. When I share with the Doctor that I don't think (Insert SSRI name here for the list is long) is working anymore they either have started me on another SSRI or one even gave a secondary med to improve the impact of the SSRI. In doing so there is absolutely no way to know if you are stable without meds and when you go off the medication, how do we know if we are stable if it has taken a medication to achieve stability for over a decade? There really is no way to find the 'real you' which was a slice in time before the addition of meds because while on the meds, time has passed, anxieties have changed focus and we have grown.

I have been told that people who are manic or people who ruminate have learned to enjoy the unmedicated high and who wouldn't? I know that I still cycle on medication, I just am more apathetic so it takes a LOT to get me riled but when it does, oooo just be careful you are not in my line of fire.

Genetically and being from Chicago, I have a decent 'fight' factor in my makeup which rarely overrides my filters of logic and grace, I mean rarely, like once or twice a year but it's there. Last week it happened when the Dentist called regarding oral surgery I was scheduled to have yesterday (and did) just to give me a "little update from the surgeon" which was to say that the Doctor thinks it would be easier on me and faster for him, to sedate me via IV, as opposed to taking the time to work on me with only Nitrous. I will save you the pages of how that impacted me and cut to the chase in that I had the surgery done, on time and done right with another dentist.

There are some times when it is perfectly okay with being not okay and don't let any one person tell you different. But for me? By the time a third person says something to me about my emotions not being in line with what is 'normal', I actively work at calming to the same level as those around me.

Namely, that being concerned with ethics is indicative of sound mental health; but, not a causal factor in facilitating it. Sounds kinda strange now that I re-read it. — Posty McPostface

Why isn't it? You can be the most moral person in the world, but if you don't realize what good you do do, then your mental health won't be any good. However, if one does realize that they're doing good, that they're kind, helpful, thoughtful, etc., then I very much think that one's conscience will impact their mental health for the better.

I can relate to being on SSRI's and Benzos for almost 30 years now and I can tell you that the reason I was put on the medications is not the same reason I am still on them today. I am on them today because as you might know, once you start on them there is really no way off. I mean sure you could stop taking them but those around you, many who have only known you on these meds, do have a bit of a say in how they are or are not affecting you. Same with the discontinuation of any med and how it affects you. When I share with the Doctor that I don't think (Insert SSRI name here for the list is long) is working anymore they either have started me on another SSRI or one even gave a secondary med to improve the impact of the SSRI. In doing so there is absolutely no way to know if you are stable without meds and when you go off the medication, how do we know if we are stable if it has taken a medication to achieve stability for over a decade? There really is no way to find the 'real you' which was a slice in time before the addition of meds because while on the meds, time has passed, anxieties have changed focus and we have grown. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I can relate. I have no idea how I would be like without my meds. It's an appealing thought to get off the meds and live about without them; but, getting off some of my meds might cause a rebound effect. Anyway, it seems like it would be best to not fantasize too much about 'what if's' of 'maybe's'.

I have been told that people who are manic or people who ruminate have learned to enjoy the unmedicated high and who wouldn't? I know that I still cycle on medication, I just am more apathetic so it takes a LOT to get me riled but when it does, oooo just be careful you are not in my line of fire. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, some people don't take the consequences of their disorder under serious consideration and go through life unmedicated. Sure, that's possible; but, if you want to have a family or maintain a stable job or have friends, then what's wrong with taking a small pill once a day(?) Then there's the issue of people self-medicating. Better to do it under the supervision of a doctor than yourself, methinks.

You can be the most moral person in the world, but if you don't realize what good you do do, then your mental health won't be any good. However, if one does realize that they're doing good, that they're kind, helpful, thoughtful, etc., then I very much think that one's conscience will impact their mental health for the better. — Buxtebuddha

So, it might be that having a sound mental health goes together with being ethical.

I don't know of any person who wasn't sane and concerned with ethics or practicing good moral standing.

However, eventually, some norms are established, like not killing another human being, etc.

Rather, it is the process of being ethical, or observing morals, that brings about the change in character or the mind which leads to happiness. — Posty McPostface

Again, I’m in overall agreement with the sentiment the OP proposes, but I don’t yet see this sentiment being in any way applicable in today’s world--in terms of concrete results. The DSM could easily incorporate among its metal-disorder indicators something about unethical behavior—regardless of type or degree. One might be surprised at how trite some of the there listed mental disorders are. Yet there are complications:

You mention murder as an example. In war, there can be both killing of humans as well as murder, the later often entwined with extreme cruelty. Skipping the examples, in today’s world would there be any interest to then have those who engage in the latter diagnosed as insane?

Ask most any young enough child if cruelty—toward other humans, toward animals, or in any other form—is good and they will answer, “no”. Us adults, having a history in which we’ve all more or less had instances of being cruel toward some other at some point in our lives (even if indirectly, such as in our eating of veal knowing the cruelly required for its production), will then justify such instances of not being saints or angels as often excusable, if not utterly normal and necessary. Or worse, we go about pretending that we actually are saints or angels, somehow separated from the swine, because this is less painful than being honest about our own faults. Regardless, we all nevertheless know that cruelty is wrong. Yet to make the case for this to be an un-health of mind would then affect all of us adults in manners that most of us would not like. And so, we adults are generally ambivalent in terming cruelty a wrong. It all depends, we most often say.

Don’t want to draw this out in other directions in relation to ethics. I simply believe that generally, insanity will be minimally contingent on the given behaviors standing out from the norm. There’s this modified quote I picked up on that I like, “When the lunatics take over the asylum their beliefs become the dogma of the sane.”

I very much agree with the original argument that being aligned to a moral compass can only make a mind healthier. Yet if one become too moral one deviates from the norm—at a certain juncture can even become harmful to the norm (such as by exposing too many deceptions, etc.). And this generally does not lead to good results for a social individual. I could fathom that some wise individual might be able to hold onto both an integral moral compass and a general accord to the practices of the norm, but I don’t yet understand how the tension would not yet remain … it would not be the serene happiness that I take is most often associated with eudemonia.

Not that any of this is a formal argument, but I think it better expresses my quibble with the pragmatic application of holding unethical behaviors and inclinations to be aspects of an unhealthy mind. (as for murder, please see my aforementioned comments).