Posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2014, at 2:59:26
In reply to Re: January 9, 1994 Classic AD Articles, posted by baseball55 on February 3, 2014, at 19:00:49
I read it once. Fairly swiftly.
The earlier stuff... I feel like 'I'm not qualified to say'. Emotionally... I wanted to believe him. But that was the problem, I thought. If you want to hit best seller list: Way to go. If you want the truth / a lasting impact: You are going to need to reference / do your research / present your research better than that.
I was most interested in the stuff nearer the end. With respect to the distinction (that is very problematic) between (my words now) dys-function (something wrong or broken that would be better off fixed) dif-function (differences that aren't better or worse across the board) or super-function (e.g., nose job for cosmetic reasons, stimulants to help everybody function better).
Suppose prozac was this wonderful magical drug that made everyone feel happier. (It isn't - but lets suppose for the sake of argument that it is. Or... If you prefer: Consider x. X is stipulated / defined to be wonderful magical drug that makes everyone feel happier).
- Is it morally justifyable for everyone to take prozac / x?
Or is there (or is this a category error) perhaps... some function for unhappiness?
Are people sometimes unhappy because they are RELIABLY TRACKING horrible life circumstances. Here's a thought: Instead of improving social policy... Instead of improving housing... education... sanitation... instead of getting battered wives out of abusive households... battered children out of abusive households... etc etc etc... lets just give everyone happy pills!!!
I enjoyed it insofar as it considered the issue that (for me) is at the crux of psychiatry: how does the social and the biological play along???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1060172
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140123/msgs/1060217.html