"For millennia, men and women shunned theologized moral responsibility. Today, the medicalization of moral shun. "
T. Szasz
Ethics is a human characteristic, social and cultural. Is the conjunction freedom of will and personal responsibility. [1] is the ability to reflect, compare, decide, choose, to make mistakes or learn. Is to assume personal autonomy and independence of mind, is the right to be different. Ethics is a reflection on what we consider good or bad, adequate or not, desirable or undesirable. Perhaps the social ethics is the product that makes us human: a cultural heritage that belongs to all mankind. When classifying someone as amoral or immoral means you disapprove of what that person does not say, or think you do not have moral or ethical. All elections and all human behavior (social) imply an inscription evaluative, ideological, philosophical and / or anthropology. Every choice involves a conception of man and society explicitly or implicitly. In social ethical choice is implicit in every option. We deny the hypothesis that advocates neutrality and professional objectivity when dealing with people or social issues. Every subject it is of its time, its own language, their training, their values \u200b\u200bor ideology. As an Arab proverb says: "Men are more like their time than their parents." In turn, that every person (citizen or subject) is morally free, because they ultimately think (or will) as it thinks fit, despite the social constraints, as already stated, Kant.
Adults have the ability and the option to choose between eating or not eating, eating in a reasonable, well informed, without danger or even make it negligently, violating their own welfare. Consider the use of drugs, gambling and other habits of behavior as mental illness is a deliberate mystification of our time. It is a manipulation language. Is to transmute the myth of sin to the myth of mental illness. What in other times was sin (meat, greed, vices more) today is mental illness (promiscuity, bulimia, addiction). What was imprisoned, is now called hospitalization or placement, which was torture and we call it today purification treatment, therapy or re-education. [2] With the metaphorical, if not corrupt, language, religious myths of the old regime are presented to us today as a pathology, disease or abnormality in all its forms (genetic , biological, physical, mental, emotional, moral or social). Medical science from its beginnings morphed meanings and stigmas of sin to significant error, failure or no reason. [3] Today, health systems and mental health, institutionalized since the Empire of
A key question raised by Szasz, is whether or not people have the right to property and specifically, ownership of the body, to eat or what each considers appropriate, to think one way or another. The trouble is: the "clinical states," the Rule of Law
The problem drug use was not on the substance in the abstract but in the decision to consume or not consume carelessly or in a society that considers it a disease, or an illegal act, or moral turpitude or a mixture thereof. Take a comparative example to help us understand the double standard put into play about drugs: the problem lies not driving recklessly in the manufacture, sale and purchase of vehicles, but the choice to drive recklessly (negligent use) and by this principle, not pursuing the manufacture or sale, or use of vehicles. When someone violates a traffic signal or code, draining the case, kill another by driving carelessly usually not admitted to assess their capabilities or if you are responsible or not, is considered responsible and is required criminal liability, civil or administrative. And no one escapes the consequences of road accidents are objectively more harmful to health than heroin and cocaine together (kill more and more left physically disabled, mental and sensory) with the aggravation of damage to third parties that drugs are not.
When a person chooses to consume a substance (snuff, pan, heroin, tomatoes, wine or other) does not that is "sick", it does because it is free: free to decide, you can choose between the yes and no. And much more: it one way or another. The objective problem will never be their mere use, but its good and bad use: can be used rightly or wrongly, can be used care or negligence. Something characteristic of humans is their choice. In the words of Fernando Savater: "Unlike other beings, living or inanimate, men can invent and choose in part our way of life. We can choose what we think is good, that is convenient for us compared to what we think is bad or undesirable. And as we invent and choose can make mistakes, which is something that the beavers, bees and termites do not usually pass. So it seems prudent to look good in what we do and seek to acquire a certain knowledge that allows us to live it right. In that knowing how to live, or art of living if you prefer, is what we call ethics. " [4]
[1] Thomas Szasz, The second sin, Edic. MartÃnez Roca. Barcelona. 1992.
[2] Thomas Zsasz. (1993). Our right to drugs. Barcelona. Edit. Anagram.
0 comments:
Post a Comment