How do you do emojis like that?

Glad you corrected yourself lol

The harder stuff is more risky. — S

True, but what are risks to those that indulge in its recreational usage? There are plenty of functional users.

If you are not choosing it over responsibilities, and it's not a financial burden, is it really bad?

My main drug in question is marijuana.

Would it be more immoral to lie to people that "it makes them crazy, rapists, and killers?" — Drek

I personally do not think drug usage is not so much of a moral issue, rather it is an ethical issue in society to which unfortunately drug usage in general in the states have been criminalized to the point where communities have been disproportionately have become affected. I don't believe what you're doing is immoral, however rightness and wrongness are subjective, contingent upon each of our individual understanding of rightness and wrongness.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/273156

I started a thread here, so some of you can continue to bitch a moan under a proper subject. I say "bitch and moan" because apparently a couple of you perceive to act like you know more about the realm of mental health, and considering that I've spent almost ten years of my academic life in its study not to mention this is what my current profession entails.



Sorry for your loss...

I still think that happiness is a pathless land, just, as you say, is a highly individualistic goal. — Wallows

Happiness is the goal, the path is individualistic. Whenever you have a goal it is not pathless.

Do you think it should be therapy first, and then if that doesn't help seek medication. Or the route most traveled, as in medication first, and then therapy? — Wallows

Whenever medication is involved a lot of factors come into play, and as I've said before I refrain from making online assessments. However, as a general rule seeking out therapy and just simply discussing the mental anguish that you deal with is a starter. A therapist can make the assessment for themselves if they decide to introduce medication in addition to psychotherapy. Unfortunately, for situations like bi-polar disorder medication in addition to behavioral treatment may be in order, to supplant the existing imbalance. It depends on a case by case assessment of the individual.

So, (truth) or "happiness" is a pathless land. — Wallows

No it is not pathless, and I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying it is a path that you must travel. None of us can say for certain what makes this or that person happy. these are things you must navigate and find yourself.

How, do you even relay this profound and shaking message (originally from Krishnamurti) to a struggling individual? — Wallows

I've never told an individual the road to happiness is pathless which is why I said:

The goal to happiness requires unique roads that weave differently for us, and therefore in order to navigate through that path it is a journey we must figure out within us. — Anaxagoras

I said the above in response to:

So, how do you solve this problem of what I believe is most succinctly outlined as individualism clashing with authority? — Wallows

So, in other words I'm saying nobody online can solve an individual's problem finding happiness because our own happiness we seek is unique which means that there is no universal blueprint we can offer because our own distress is unique to us. This is why I said the winding road is unique to us which we must travel.

As much as I bitch and whine about my depression, I ought to still feel happy. I have nothing really causing me distress like loans debt, and such. — Wallows

That is the complex thing about depression, sometimes it does not require an external stimuli to trigger depressed moods. This is why in certain instances we look at the chemical imbalance in the person.

But, it seems that my question is ill-phrased. People do things that they think will make them happy. And here is the problem. Many people are unwilling to change their habits or hand over their rudder to someone else until the problem is too large that medicine has to intervene. — Wallows

This is true, and we can take Facebook for example in this situation. Very often people document their lives on social media to demonstrate to others that they are, "living their best life." One article I read coined the term "false Happiness Dilemma." Very often people use social media to mask the torment they're currently enduring in their life. Very often people use social media or any other internet outlet that requires social interaction to either mitigate or mask their internal problems and very often serious cases end up leading to suicide all because as you've said, they allowed the problems to get so big to where it doesn't get addressed to the point where one takes their own life.

Read:https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/people-are-revealing-truth-behind-their-happy-looking-social-media-posts-its-heartbreaking.html

I go to doctors to get better; but, fail to listen to them and order medicine online and try and be my own doctor. I don't think this is exclusive to me, as other people can be more headstrong or stubborn to seek help. — Wallows

That is the key there. What is preventing you from listening? Remember therapists are not gods, they are not endowed with supernatural powers that can give you mental renewal. Therapists are echo chambers where they provide an ear, and an objective mind outside of your own. The bold resonates with me because this is the quality of one who self-medicates. I'll admit I've done that when my mother died and even so when my dad died and its a wonder how I endured school. However, self-medication leads down to a rabbit hole that if you're not careful, can lead into an abyss where there are no walls to grapple, or ropes to hang on to. But yes, even us professionals who "ought to know better" we too, suffer from mental distress, because our profession has nothing to do with the fact that we are under skin deep, human.

So, how do you solve this problem of what I believe is most succinctly outlined as individualism clashing with authority? — Wallows

The goal to happiness requires unique roads that weave differently for us, and therefore in order to navigate through that path it is a journey we must figure out within us. If clinicians had the blueprint there would be no need for therapists.

This is what concerns me. I wouldn’t call it a “gripe” exactly, but I do sometimes get the impression that the “psychologist” and “psychiatrist” may devalue each other? You’ve got experience in the field , what would you say? — I like sushi

I don't believe we "devalue each other." It's two professions with minor distinctions trying to treat the same issue. We're all colleagues really and that is the important part. I believe the crux of the hubris among the psychologists and psychiatrists usually stems from within the psychology community between PHD and those with PsyD. Some in the PHD community still believe having a PsyD means you didn't do real research or what not. But this is more along the lines of like the U.S. military branches and how they have sarcastic names for each other really.

Note: Anecdotal this may be a student I met wanted to become a psychologist yet her lecturer told her that it wasn’t worth it because there was no demand for psychologists and that it was effectively a “dying regime”. Of course he may not be a common case, yet I’ve heard of psychiatrist with some questionable attitudes - meaning they were focused on applying medication to the patient rather than asking any serious questions. — I like sushi

Well let me say that a lecturer is not an authority over someone's life. What a person does is what they choose to do because it is their life and their choice. Some professors may impart an opinion but it doesn't mean their worldview is law. Mental Health is always in need of psychologists and psychiatrists. So long as human beings exist and live in a world bombarded by stress, anxiety, social issues, world issues, environmental issues, and demons (of course in the literal and metaphorical sense), we'll always need mental health professionals.

if someone is sexist they may act in this manner to ‘fit in’ knowing that they’ll not be accepted if they voice their disagreement. It becomes acceptable and even though there is fear of not being socially accepted it is not entirely an irrational fear. — I like sushi

So with that in mind what about someone who is sexist due to their socialization? There are plenty of families whose culture raise boys with this "sexist" mentality. For example look at Saudi Arabia and how even in that country women are said to walk behind men. The religion of Islam states that men and women are equal, yet the culture represents otherwise. A Bedouin boy raised in that environment is not trying to fit in because like other Bedouin boys this is how their culture has raised them to be. Why is that?

To this using your comment in the above post you may say:

I would say that it intially stems for fear though because we’re naturally fearful of unknown for obvious reasons. In a social space I would say that this basic survival mechanism is often misplaced and therefore irrational; in part at least. — I like sushi

I would agree in that perhaps to bring true equality to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia one may need to alleviate themselves of the patriarchal mindset of gender roles. Although the Kingdom of Saud is an absolute monarchy the problem is more complex.

I think I can only talk about the American system; but, the profit motive has driven a wedge between psychiatrists with their free trial Rexulti or Latuda, and the hard-working psychoanalyst that gets no freebies from big pharma due to not being able to prescribe them. — Wallows

Right and this is perennial issue that we constantly debate with psychiatrists about this very issue that you're talking about. Funny that you mentioned this because I was reading an old article discussing this:

"The move to grant psychologists prescriptive authority, Sammons said,“ takes place in the context of a vast transformation in American health care, an extraordinary rate of change in the scope of practice of any nonphysician provider.”

Sammons went on to note that “our mental health system, as Dr. Steckler will talk about in a few moments, is so badly broken. We believe that prescriptive authority will help to rectify this really tragic situation for many Americans.”

Source:https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.39.15.0390008

What would you say is a good minimum age to be a clinical psychologist? — I like sushi

This is contrary to the subject at hand but nevertheless I'll answer that......

Well, it depends on the person really. There is no specific age really because the academic portion itself can be completed whenever, provided that you can get into a doctoral program to begin with. Not to mention the amount of time it takes to complete (roughly six to eight years is the median range of years it takes to complete). So theoretically based on time, the amount of school work hours and time the best age to pursue doctoral studies would be in the early twenties. I'd say after you're done getting your undergraduate degree.

Er ... I meant ALL prejudices are basically just types of phobia underneath — I like sushi

No, its not. Racism which stems from a prejudice, does not indicate an irrational fear...

psychiatry is focused on making people adapt to the system they live in, and assumes that if they don't adapt well, if they suffer, then there is something wrong in their brain, an illness to cure. — leo

As I've stated in the beginning psychiatrists are different than psychologists, we use the same playbook, but unfortunately we run different plays. Psychiatrists are mainly focusing on medication management. They see a neurological problem followed by maladaptive behavior, they try to mitigate that with medication. Some offer behavioral modification in addition to the medication but all are not the same and the results are always not the same. Psychologists deal with behavioral therapy and instill coping mechanisms in our clients.

Let me say first hand that every professionals intent is to try and help people, but the unfortunate part about helping people is that it does not always work. In addition to that is there are sometimes too many clients to one person, and therefore if a psychiatrist is not helping you, perhaps you may need to seek a psychologist to manage your behavior. But yes, at the end of the day, sometimes medication is not always the answer.

The problem I have seen is the decrease in effectively listening to the person/patient AND the person/patient losing trust with their Doctor. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That is understandable, and that happens a lot unfortunately. I believe a lot of psychologist move away from the humane perspective and look at people as merely clients. Although we are taught to move away as referencing people as patients to clients, psychologists nowadays still look at our clients still as patients.

Too many times situational stress/depression are under considerded and revisiting getting off a treatment plan with medication is dismissed. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I agree.

Keeping people/patients on medications for life may be appropriate for some, dare I even say a few but that is not necessary for all. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Which is why I'm an advocate of both medication as well as behavioral therapy. I believe in modifying the problem using coping skills that are taught out to out emphasize medication. However, this is not equal for all people. Neurologically some people unfortunately will need meds for the rest of their lives. Not because of some phantom dependency but because they are symptomatic to the U.S. class system. Some people are developmentally delayed and require it, and some aren't.

People/patients seek a solution, if it's in pill form — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I personally think that's the problem. Do you take a pill every night for sleep? Do you need a pill to help your body to sleep? No, your braid naturally does that for you. Those that need sleep aids often are affected by something that interferes that process, whether it is alcoholism, drugs, stress, work. But if we can use sleep aid and a way in how to help someone schedule themselves in reformatting their sleep habits the habits alone can do away with "pill dependency."

But Doctors rarely seek to get their patients off of medications. Maybe you can say why that is. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think this is untrue. Well, let me rephrase, I'd like to believe this is untrue. I believe the unfortunate misnomer about psychologists/psychiatrists I see is that this profession is seen as just pill distributers. Unfortunately, psychologists/psychiatrists don't run from the same playbook except the DSM or Diagnostic Statistical Manual. With that being said I cannot say with confidence going to one professional means you'll seek the correct treatment as everyone has an idea of how to help someone. You have to remember, a lot of these professionals see so many patients losing the one-to-one mentality is most of the time lost. I like to believe everyone in the world has mental issues because humankind is bombarded so much with stress and biological deficiencies.

Do you think it helps you a lot in philosophy and philosophical discussions, like you've gained an insight which others without your qualifications lack? — S

Well I've always had a background in philosophy. My first serious paper was me arguing against Peter Abelard's trinity argument. Philosophy does make people mad though. But philosophy provides an understanding of how to construct and deconstruct arguments. The problem with what I see in modern philosophy is that it invites people with psychological issues.

I very much wanted to go to college to study psychology, but I was eventually dissuaded from doing so. — S

Why?

You're pretty immature aren't you? I pray to God you're 19 or something.

I'm not diagnosing you, you inferring that but carry on with this ridiculous discussion.

Yeah gonna give up discussing this, I'll follow Bitter Crank's lead

How are you able to offer this simplistic gem, but you go full retard about a more difficult moral equation? — DingoJones

So we are using derogatory phrases now? I mean, judging by the sequences of your responses I wouldn't make references about anyone's intellectual capacity.

would tell you to go fuck yourself — DingoJones

Gotcha

Assume I'm a powerful Marvel character......

If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it?

Whenever people start talking about "the good old days" — Judaka

I too wonder about this especially people from the south who talk about the "good ole days" considering that back in those days people of a different skin pigmentation were lynched and all.

The point of a hypothetical is for people to think about it NOT fro me to tell you how to think. If you wish to establish some fiction as to scenario is as it is do so, but it’s not important. — I like sushi

Hmmm so I can make a thread with no point of direction and say "have at it haus?"

I stated parts of the reason for doing this already, one being that once you’ve found yourself at a decision you can live with to move the goal posts then, to push on further and see where your limits are. — I like sushi

My only issue is you didn't say that in the very original post.

I’m going to make a third thread - no need for derogatory/mocking remarks about that guys I understand the tone coming my way well enough — I like sushi

Sushi I have no personal issue with your scenario, I'm quite fond of it, I just don't like answering things without a reason or direction. Kinda like I wouldn't want to be in a perfectly new car with someone who is completely blind driving on the side of a mountain with no guard rails.

Gotta love BC

Here is my point......

Mentally I do not think most people are capable of pulling the trigger. When I say most people I'm of course assuming, but in part based on that your average person does not have the capacity to kill which is why I believe each day is not a warzone and that every other person on the street is trying to kill you. With that being said in relation to the OP, I do not think people have the capacity to press a button and just kill off people because they believe they are saving humanity.

The OP leaves off the who, what, when, where and why......

@Bitter Crank called sushi out on these types of scenarios already.

Now I see goal posts are being moved by:

The choice is yours not some group of random people. — I like sushi

Ok so someone with a biased worldview can choose to kill off 1 billion people....

So, I again ask what is the damn point in this scenario? just to see what we will choose? Is it to infer our moral compass?

Edit:

If nothing else it should show that our moral choices act on arbitrary grounds and that when you remove the arbitrary choices there is no “choice” to be made. Whatever choice we make can never be fully justified. — I like sushi

The OP fails because you are making this up as you go instead of making this clear in the beginning. Now we have four pages of back and forth because you decided to change the rules as people make their opinion.

Again this is a poor scenario, apparently your goal is to see the feelings of some who answered, well, congratulations you've accomplished that.

Then your family would be murdered, you cool with that?

I see your point BC well put

Have you ever saw someone die in front of you? You personally. Not other people on the forum, but you.

. But both would benefit from re-examining the lessons that they have learned and their effects on their policies. Israel needs to pursue a less militaristic policy, and Europe needs to take a tougher stand against terrorists and despots. Peace is a rightful thing to strive for, and so is the safety of one's people. — Ilya B Shambat

What is safety? For some European nationalists safety means casting all members of a specific ethnic group/religion as violent, the same can be said for the Israeli government. I do agree though that the Israeli government has become hypersensitive to the point of developing fascist style policies.

Right.

Is it "species-deep" that some people in brazil still have old refrigerators that are releasing carbon dioxide in the air, or that we still use aerosol deodorant/fragrance sprays? I very much believe our lifestyle contributes to the issues with our planet. I mean a lot of us (not you specifically) have bad habits like littering, destroying trees for land acquisition etc.

Not necessarily. I would simply recuse myself due to bias. Hopefully, everyone would do that. Those that don't perhaps would qualify for extermination. — Wallows

Don't worry apparently @DingoJones is comfortable pulling the trigger. I'm quite sure if it was his family the was on the end of that barrel he wouldn't have the position he holds now. In fact, if an apathetic leader was to make the decision using these forum members families I think many people would take issue here as opposed to having a stoic mindset.

If any forum member has seen a human take their last breath especially someone they love they would know how it feels to watch someone die. I happen to have had the unfortunate reality of watching my mother take her last breath at the age of 19 (I am 36 now). Yeah sure humanity will die but for those of us who have loved ones, the answer isn't so simple.

No, whats scary is when someone wastes time trying to hold a moral high ground when in this scenario the alternative to finding an answer for the 1 billion is that ALL humans die. — DingoJones

If you say so...

Yes well it is a messy scenario, thats the point. You are not going to get 1 billion volunteers, so someone is going to have to have their personal autonomy violated or there will be no more humans at all.
Its bound to not be “fair”, its not a fair scenario. Again, that is the point...to explore a difficult decision, not a childishly simple one like “is it wrong to kill a billion people?”. Most of is have that one figured out already don’t you think? — DingoJones

What's scary are people who are able to answer this......

I wonder how you'd feel if I had the ability to terminate your mother, father, or anyone in your family that you may have loved as "expendable assets?"

would start with the worst criminals and the terminally ill. — DingoJones

You're still robbing people of choice, and that is the problem. You're still robbing the worst criminal and preventing them from rehabilitating themselves to be a productive citizen. For the terminally ill the same rules apply, but more importantly the issue is taking away a person's autonomy.

Also, how do you know you'd be fair?

We really ought to be more proactive about maintaining the one and only ecosystem we are going to get, but... — Bitter Crank

But its our way of life that is preventing it. More importantly the issue I have are those who argue from a position of population control yet they themselves would not like to be among those who are selected for termination.

I think as Jean Luc Picard thinks about humanity (as he discussed it with Q).

I have thought this out. — I like sushi

Ok.

The decision lies with you. If you abstain everyone dies. — I like sushi

I clearly saw that.

This is usual reaction to such hypotheticals. People look for a loophole rather than take on the moral problem at face value. I see you’ve actually thought about it though and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to offer a genuine public answer (I don’t think there is such a thing!) — I like sushi

I was actually looking for the reason for the hypothetical. What is the basis for discussion?

I see your point