As you noted, the trouble regarding your experience with "common people" is that you did not actually speak with "common people"; you merely traded one isolated group of pseudo-intellectuals for a less familiar group of isolated pseudo-intellectuals with an entirely unfamiliar social code. If you go to an event centered around discussion or debate, chances are you will be entering some sort of isolated community. Try to strike up conversation at casual events, where regular people are likely to spend their time. Do you have members of your family who are not part of the rationalist community (or affiliated with some other movement)? Are there casual meetups or social clubs for those in your town? (Check your local community center, if you have one.) That sports bar might not be a bad idea. Contrary to that common adage, the average person will be a lot more reasonable than those you encountered at that philosophy meetup.
Thank you for your reply!
Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
If they consent to intervention while competent and withdraw when incompetent, it is quite straightforward that the desires they stated while competent should override their later desires while incompetent. There is precedent; DNRs and DNIs are both documents recording the desires of competent patients for when they are incapacitated or incompetent.
That's not well defined in the case above.
I apologize if I was unclear; an individuals current preferences ought to be respected while they are mentally competent and not when they are mentally incompetent. If a competent individual states their preferences for how they are treated when they are incompetent, these ought to be respected as well.
But you're not calling for less involuntary commitment.
The amount of involuntary commitment is irrelevant so as long as it is not forced upon mentally competent individuals.
A quick reminder not to allow perfect to be the enemy of good; just because a proposal does not completely resolve a problem does not mean it will not improve the situation. It is better to do something right rather than endlessly quibble about doing nothing wrong. We must strive to do our best, even when it is not enough, rather than becoming paralyzed by the sheer scale of the world's problems. Be kind to the people around you, practice self-care, and be willing to forgive yourself while correcting your errors.
Have a wonderful Saturday night!
Thank you for your comment! You raise some good points, particularly regarding competence.
people who might want intervention
By definition, if you want to be committed, you have not been involuntarily committed. Involuntary prevention is what I take issue with; I apologize if I have been unclear. If an individual indicates that they would like others to prevent them from committing suicide or they would like to seek assistance for suicidal ideation, they ought to receive the help they require.
it's your own belief ...you haven't shown it is a principle that transcends merely subjective preferences
My argument is that we all have subjective preferences, and since none of these preferences are inherently superior, we therefore ought to allow each mentally competent individual to decide and act upon their own preferences. I will attempt to demonstrate that it is a principle when my karma recovers or I am able to make another post. (Whichever comes first.)
Is there a completely reliable way of determining that?
Given that nobody here is omniscient, there is no perfect way to determine anything; however, perfect ought not to be the enemy of good. Any adult is mentally competent by default, and may only be considered mentally incompetent if they are currently impaired (severe dementia, psychosis, severe hallucinations, etc). In general, it is safe to assume that those who do not have and do not have a history of mental impairment are mentally competent, and those who have or have a history of mental impairment are not mentally competent.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You make many good points.
Says who?
The notion that one's moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others is cruxy; if you disagree, than my conclusion does not apply to you. However, I will note that a society in which everyone can impose their values upon eachother (or, worse, a society in which one group imposes their values upon everyone else) would quickly devolve into chaos or tyranny. I would also like to avoid isolated demands for rigor; do you continue to believe people ought to be able to impose their values upon others in other contexts, such as conversion therapy (borne of the values condemning homosexuality and potentially protecting homosexuals from eternal torment) or restrictions upon women's education (borne of the values denoting women as inferior to men)?
Obviously, that's a continuum.
You are correct. I apologize for any confusion my writing has caused; by "suicidal individuals are not incompetent nor beyond reason", I intended to say that suicide ideation does not inherently render one mentally incompetent. If an individual is mentally incompetent, they ought to be prevented from committing suicide; if an individual is mentally competent, they ought to be allowed to exercise their autonomy.
That doesn't imply "never intervene"... [t]here are people regret their suicide attempts...
Using force on a mentally competent individual cannot be justified by your belief that they will regret their actions later. Allow me to restate a sentence from the post:
At the time of the attempt, the [mentally competent] suicidal individual is fully understanding and accepting of the consequences of their actions, and preventing a process they have consented to infringes upon their personal freedoms.
Of course, this is irrelevant to you if you believe that personal/religious values justify the use of force.
My apologies if I was unclear; I am opposed to using force on mentally competent individuals. I would not consider those experiencing psychosis, delusions, and other severely impaired perceptions of reality as fully mentally competent. Yes, in these instances it is acceptable to treat others by force.
Again, it depends on whether or not the individual is mentally competent. If the deeply erroneous world model is borne out of hallucinations of bugs coming out of the walls to eat you, then no, it is not unethical to prevent this individual's suicide and correct the model with the appropriate therapy and anti-psychotics. If the deeply erroneous world model is held by a mentally competent individual who believes something false (such as a false diagnosis of dementia, for instance), then it is not unethical to correct this model by convincing the individual that the distressing belief is false, though it is unethical to use force to do so.
Thank you for the recommendation. I will read it this week.
There are two problems with such a plan. The first is simply the fact we are not yet in a post-scarcity world. We still need a large portion of the population to be working productively. Logistics, research, support services etc. are productive as well. The second is the proposition that, while most humans will become restless if they are guaranteed basic resources, the vast majority will not do something productive, either dedicating their time to idleness (video games, doomscrolling, replying to three-year-old comments on LessWrong, other non-productive passtimes) or actively destructive behaviors (gang activity, theft of luxury items, other crimes). Under this system, there will not be sufficient incentive to produce and protect the essential resources and luxury resources. Don't get me wrong, there should be programs to help those who lack resources get back on their feet and find some productive occupation, but attaining that productive occupation should be the end goal of any such program. Idleness cannot be incentivized by any functional society. Please correct me if I am mistaken in my assessment of our species' current productive capacity or nature; I wish that such an economic setup would be feasible.