WJ

tommyc,

I do find this issue of conscience and reasoning interesting. Good sources of info on this would be Rand, James and Maslow. The question of selfishness being a bad trait could be summarized in the contradiction about altruism becoming selfishly pleasurable.

I believe that natural conscience (in a clinically 'healthy' person as the experts say) and pragmatic reasoning will carry a person a long way towards deterimining that the will to do good is more productive, desirable and beneficial in the long run than the will to do bad. Thus in some ways a moral code exists. In what 'form' is perhaps at issue.

The next question is whether moral objectivity exists independently without uses of reason (is natural conscience enough to drive the will to always want to do good and infact 'be' good)? I think there is a mixed bag of the will to experience pleasure and the desire to find a framework that is clear and simple without thinking alot about how or why it was developed and or having to go thru the experiences of all the negative consequences. Otherwise, we're back to the similarities between experience, pragmatism, and religious beliefs. So maybe the essence of the question is primacy as it relates to pleasure; which comes first, the need to reason it out or natural conscience? (This assumes that the will to experience pleasure supercedes both.)

It just may be red and green all over. But to answer your question, some of those aformentioned sources may be of some help.

Walrus

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

tommyc

OK, thanks Walrus, Ill check those out.

WJ

...no problem...I forgot one more source of 'favorite bookmarks' that perhaps speaks specifically to the problem/contradiciton of selfishness/pleasure:


<a href="http://www.erichfromm.de/english/reading/by_fromm/byfromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.erichfromm.de/english/reading/by_fromm/byfromm.html</a>

Enjoy.

Walrus

dk

The diagnosis for depression is clinical, not chemical. I guess that's why there are 134,000 deaths attributed to prozac.

• April 16: Shawn Cooper, a 15-year-old sophomore at Notus Junior-Senior High School in Notus, Idaho, was taking Ritalin, the most commonly prescribed stimulant, for bipolar disorder when he fired two shotgun rounds, narrowly missing students and school staff.
• April 20: Harris, an 18-year-old senior at Columbine High School, killed a dozen students and a teacher before taking his own life. Prior to the shooting rampage, he had been under the influence of Luvox, one of the new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI, antidepressants approved in 1997 by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for children up to the age of 17 for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD.
• May 20: T.J. Solomon, a 15-year-old at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga., was being treated with Ritalin for depression when he opened fire on and wounded six classmates.
• May 21, 1998: Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 22. Kinkel had been prescribed both Ritalin and Prozac. Although widely used among adults, Prozac has not been approved by the FDA for pediatric use.
• March 24, 1998: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, opened fire on their classmates at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark. Johnson had been receiving psychiatric counseling and, although information about the psychotropic drugs that may have been prescribed for him has not been made public, his attorney, Val Price, responded when asked about it: "I think that is confidential information, and I don't want to reveal that."

Did these kids suffer from a chemical imbalance, or drugs that malformed mental processes, turning them into psychopaths. .

One of the last sane

Untrue. I suggest you do a PubMed search and find a few good reviews to read. While there is not always a direct relationship between brain serotonin levels and depression, suggesting that in some cases it is a problem with postsynaptic utilization, there is certainly evidence that inhibiting serotonin synthesis exacerbates depression and reverses the effects of SSRIs, besides the huge volume of clinical evidence that SSRIs work.
Agreed, SJW is pure herbal quackery.
Have you a reputable reference for this extraordinary claim? In my experience with many depressives and a couple of schizophrenics, as well as my extensive reading of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, quite the opposite is true.
Please provide a reputable peer-reviewed reference.
Why include an anecdote about Ritalin in a tirade against Prozac?
Under the influence? Where is your evidence that he was actually taking his scrip? His blood levels were...?
Is it not therefore more likely that if anything psychiatric motivated him, it was the OCD not the SSRI? In other words, it was his improperly or inadequately treated mental illness that motivated him?
Again, why drag Ritalin into this? Also, Ritalin is used for ADHD, not depression.
Had been prescribed? So where is the evidence he had actually taken them? Please provide actual blood levels. Also, why do you assume it was the drugs that caused him to act out rather than the disorder/s for which they were prescribed? How do you know all these aren't cases of UNDERdosing or giving antidepressants (SSRIs) and a stimulant (Ritalin) when in fact an antipsychotic was needed?
Aha! Then why not conclude the counselling caused his crime!? All of these young criminals had been seen by counsellors of some sort, perhaps the counselling is the causative factor!? If we are going to use the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, we can as easily use that argument as the blame-the-drug argument
So this is evidence of nothing at all. Why include it? I trust it is not merely to pad out your list, like those irrelevant references to Ritalin in an attack on Prozac?
You have provided no evidence whatsoever that any of these children were psychopaths, although their crimes suggest that some of them, at least, were psychotic.But those are two very different things. I confess to harboring the suspicion that you do not know the difference between psychopath and psychotic, which leaves me wondering whether you have any idea what you are talking about. If these suspicions are unworthy, please disabuse me. Provide your definitions of psychopath and psychotic so that I may check they are correct.

I consider that the boys at Columbine and at Jonesboro are both classic examples of folie a deux. Please explain on what grounds you have rejected this likelihood.

As for the others, I consider it most likely they were underdosed, and/or treated with the wrong kind of medication, and should have been given antipsychotics. Please explain why you have rejected these possibilities.

Comprehensive explanations, with references to the peer-reviewed literature, always appreciated.

emphryio

I agree with tommyc.

And I wonder if actually everyone does everything in an attempt to reach the greatest happiness. (Including the religious).

And beyond basic differences in situation and intellect, people's different actions are a result of focusing on different time frames during which they wish to achieve optimum happiness.

Then moral outrage is only based on a person thinking: "You dummy, don't you know that isn't the way to true happiness."

uhcord

I agree with One of last of the sane on this one.

Sounds much like all that "they played violent video games" junk the media spews out.

(P.S. I take Concerta (Ritalin), took Prozac but didn't work (I think it made my depression worse) so switched to Zoloft, Wellbutrun (sp?), and Seroquel (anti-phyctic, but don't take it for that. I take it for insomnia [use to take ambien ... Would knock me out but after I got use to it I started to hallucinate. While fun, I didn't get much sleep - I would stare at things all night - trippy and fun, but ended up making my sleep worse {plus after I did sleep I would still have tracers... sorta like the matrix bullet time thingie but in reallife 24/7}] but Seroquel works well. I'm asleep in at least 30mins) *takes a deep breath* Little long I know, but medicine ... mmmm great stuff)

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: vonmeth ]</p>

One of the last sane

Thank you, vonmeth.
I've been thinking...perhaps it was bread that got those kids killing? 95% of violent criminals have eaten bread within 24 hours of committing the crime...
Or how about milk? Virtually all violent criminals have at some point in their lives drunk milk.
No wait! I've got it! Dihydrogen monoxide! Yep, that's the unifying factor. All violent criminals, without exception, are users of dihydrogen monoxide. Damn, that stuff should be banned.

AtlanticCitySlave

“Untrue. I suggest you do a PubMed search and find a few good reviews to read. While there is not always a direct relationship between brain serotonin levels and depression, suggesting that in some cases it is a problem with postsynaptic utilization, there is certainly evidence that inhibiting serotonin synthesis exacerbates depression and reverses the effects of SSRIs, besides the huge volume of clinical evidence that SSRIs work.”

-There is no evidence of this, at least that can be directly known to be the result of the drug. In fact, many SSRI’s, if not all, have been shown to actually cause other side effects (it is well known Prozac causes anxiety, insomnia, bizarre dreams, etc.). The biochemical imbalance is the result of the SSRI’s being put into the system. In the case of Prozac, serotonin is made more available by inhibiting its removal. The result of this biochemical imbalance (made by the drug) creates other changes in the brain, causing widespread disruption. The brain, in other words, is thrown out of balance by the chemical intrusion of the SSRI’S.
The brain is almost a complete mystery currently. We are nowhere near to detecting “chemical imbalances” or biological bases for what we label the “mentally ill”. It is simply massive companies publishing bogus data in order to earn a profit. I am not sure what your “huge volume of clinical evidence” refers to, but considering the massive amount of critiques out concerning biological psychiatry, I would suggest you look into it.

“Have you a reputable reference for this extraordinary claim? In my experience with many depressives and a couple of schizophrenics, as well as my extensive reading of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, quite the opposite is true.”

-Aside from the fact most neuroleptics simply blunt emotions in schizophrenics, and basically cause a chemical lobotomy, there is plenty of research concerning psychosocial approaches to treating mental illness as opposed to biochemical approaches. Breggin goes in detail in most of his books and journal articles (Toxic Psychiatry, Your Drug May Be Your Problem, etc.). There have been many articles concerning treatment of schizophrenics in third-world (or developing countries) as opposed to developed ones, with rates in the third-world countries showing schizophrenics being helped quicker and living more productive lives without any use of biochemical intervention. In addition, there are many popular works out which discuss retreats in the past that used a loving, caring approach to helping schizophrenics (and others), all of which have outperformed biochemical approaches to date. I apologize ahead of time if this answer doesn’t suffice. I do not have loads of time to copy articles, dates, journals, etc.

The rest of your post does not reply to what I said, although quite frankly I did find what you wrote amusing. You basically do the same backpedaling that every biopsychiatrist minded person does. It can never be the drug causing personality changes, violence, etc. Rather, it is probably that they need more drugs. You actually expect someone to find you blood levels of kids who were on psychiatric drugs, knowing full well that information probably isn’t available to them. In short, your contention that there is “huge” amounts of clinical evidence for SSRI’s and other biopsychiatric drugs is unfounded. Prozac studies have only lasted up to six weeks (hardly a help for long term use), all of the drugs have side-effects, many of which are conveniently left out of the printing on the bottles.
I guess it goes without saying that I agree with DK. People are not suffering from “chemical imbalances”, at least so far as anyone knows. Rather, they are suffering from spiritual, social, family, etc., problems that need to be addressed in a social setting with love, caring, support, not a drug that blunts their creativity, emotional responsiveness, and makes them slaves to the massive drug corporations generating billions of dollars a year on psychiatric drugs. There are tons of case studies (including personal reports, books, etc.) of people describing how psychiatric drugs completely altered their entire personality, blunted their creativity, made them feel like they could hardly move, made them violent, murderous, immoral, etc. The fact that you can easily brush this off as if it’s not the drugs, when all the evidence indicates it is, certainly indicates something.

Philosoft

<strong>Quoth AtlanticCitySlave:

There is no evidence serotonin levels are low in people who are depressed. In fact, there is no evidence, period, that anyone with any type of "mental illness" has a "chemical imbalance".</strong>

Wow. Your authoritarian syntax reeks of propaganda. Try typing "dopamine" and "schizophrenia" into your local neighborhood search engine.

Anecdotally, you've never done LSD or Ecstacy, have you?