Seasons

Hee hee! Sorry, my mind does strange things sometimes...

Emm, I think your minds works very well

Irina, haven't seen FS either. Do you want me to propose a ethical standard for capacity to give consent or make agreements, a standard for for diminished capacity that would mitigate the wrong done but not entirely excuse it, or an ethical standard for insanity that would excuse someone's wrong act altogether?

Irina, on second thought, here is a short answer since I really don't want to do all of those possibilities:

Ethically people should do the best they can with whatever they have in terms of understanding, ability and resources at any given time on any ethical issue. Unless there is an ethical body imposing a quasi legal standard, each person must examine his or herself to see if they have met his or her internal standards, and if those standards are reasonable and fair given the circumstances at the time.

Well, that seems right.

It seems to me that there is a certain level of rationality that we expect a human being to have. Part of this rationality is the ability to criticize and, when appropriate, override our desires. In fact, we think that a normally functioning human can override *any* desire (see for example prob123's message 5791, above). We also assume that a normal human being has a certain amount of ethical and prudential insight on which to base the criticism of desires. It is hard to specify exactly how much insight that is, and I think we generally evaluate other people's performance in this regard by putting ourselves in their place.

If we believe that a person falls short, either of the ability to criticize, or in the ability to override, then we say they have diminished capacity, and that excuses them.

But I still have to think more about why a person's giving in to temptation doesn't (all by itself) show diminished capacity.

I don't think making a "wrong" decision, or giving in to temptation is diminished capacity. It may fall into the category of temporary stupidity. I know that I have made decisions, knowing that I shouldn't. It wasn't that I was not responsible or rational. It was more a case of weighing outcomes and just wanting something that I knew I was better off without. I did have the ability to say no, I just didn't. I therefore have nothing or no one to blame but my self.
ethical body imposing a quasi legal standard It's like art. I can't define crazy but I know it when I see it. I think there will never be a blanket definition, each case must be judged on it's own merits.

wanting something that I knew I was better off without.

That is the puzzling thing. How can one want something one knows one is better off without? Not that it doesn't happen!

Oh, Fizzy Schizoid is on line now... I guess it's just a coincidence that I haven't seen him lately.

He's quite a good bot.

Irina, Although there were many many problem's with Freud's theories, you may find the concept of id, ego and superego help you out here, though more for models of personality and a way of looking at competing internal drives and processes than as any help for your ethical question. Seems like you are in search or superego.

How can one want something one knows one is better off without? It can have whipped cream and chocolate sprinkles, or big blue eyes and cowboy boots. It isn't very hard to find temptation.

Well, often we'll be better off in the short-term (enjoying a nice bar of chocolate, say) while being worse off in the long term (fat and unhealthy - speaking for myself here). I think delayed gratification is part of what separates us from machines (so far!), but maybe it's not surprising that we can't always manage it. It's hard to think further ahead than the next few minutes sometimes.

I suppose I need a different explanation for why I sometimes eat the chocolate when I'm not even enjoying it. Habit, I suppose...