Robin Williams Died From A Disease, NOT A Choice

Robin Williams suffered from Depression, a very real medical condition that threatens the lives of its victims.

Feeling sad, or what we may call "depressed", happens to all of us. The sensation usually passes after a while. However, people with a depressive disorder - clinical depression - find that their state interferes with daily life.

For people with clinical depression, their normal functioning is undermined to such an extent that both they and those who care about them are affected by it.

It's not just something people can "get over", because that's not how Depression works.  When someone with Depression takes their own life, it's not a selfish act as some say.

Others will claim the resulting suicide is a mere choice of the sufferer.

It’s a tragic choice, truly, but it is a choice, and we have to remember that. Your suicide doesn’t happen to you; it doesn’t attack you like cancer or descend upon you like a tornado. It is a decision made by an individual. A bad decision. Always a bad decision.

Except that, if you have it, Depression DOES happen to you.  Walsh displays a profound failure to understand what Depression really is in his proclamations about it.

First, suicide does not claim anyone against their will. No matter how depressed you are, you never have to make that choice. That choice. Whether you call depression a disease or not, please don’t make the mistake of saying that someone who commits suicide “died from depression.” No, he died from his choice. He died by his own hand. Depression will not appear on the autopsy report, because it can’t kill you on its own. It needs you to pull the trigger, take the pills, or hang the rope. To act like death by suicide is exactly analogous to death by malaria or heart failure is to steal hope from the suicidal person. We think we are comforting him, but in fact we are convincing him that he is powerless. We are giving him a way out, an excuse. Sometimes that’s all he needs — the last straw.

He's technically correct in saying that a choice is involved.  His failure to understand lies in the place where that choice is made.  He fails to understand what leads to that choice.  He fails to understand how Depression puts people in a position of non-stop suffering.

Depression tortures people from within their own minds.  It puts them in a place where death is seen as the only possibility of escape from that torture.

Second, we can debate medication dosages and psychotherapy treatments, but, in the end, joy is the only thing that defeats depression. No depressed person in the history of the world has ever been in the depths of despair and at the heights of joy at the same time. The two cannot coexist. Joy is light, depression is darkness. When we are depressed, we have trouble seeing joy, or feeling it, or feeling worthy of it. I know that in my worst times, at my lowest points, it’s not that I don’t see the joy in creation, it’s just that I think myself too awful and sinful a man to share in it.

He almost gets it right, and yet still misses the mark by as far as it can be missed.  Depression causes sadness that overrides any potential joy.  It's a medical condition that causes sadness.  It's something quite different from a mere lack of joy.  If Walsh deals with Depression as he claims, he should know better.

But instead, he's even worse, calling it a spiritual condition.

I can understand atheists who insist that depression must only be a disease of the brain, as they believe that our entire being is contained by, and comprised of, our physical bodies. But I don’t understand how theists, who acknowledge the existence of the soul, think they can draw some clear line of distinction between the body and the soul, and declare unequivocally that depression is rooted in one but not the other. This is a radically materialist view now shared by millions of spiritualist people.

All this nonsense does is reinforce the idea that a sufferer of Depression has no hope.  It tells them that their medical issue is not something that can be overcome with medicine.  It's spiritual.  It tells people that their Depression can be overcome by simply praying and getting to closer to their God.  And when that inevitably doesn't work, it tells them that their continued Depression is their own fault for not being close enough to that god for them to be healed.

Walsh says he doesn't understand how theists can have a proper understanding of Depression.  Here's what one, Christian blogger Chris Attaway, had to say to that.

We don't expect people with Downs syndrome to perform rocket science. We don't expect people with cerebral palsy to perform at the Olympic level. We never fault them for this, and we do our best to love them and support them in their limitations.

Why, then, do we treat people with depression and similar illnesses as though they should be able to perform at a level well above the limitations of their disease? Why do some people -- like Matt Walsh, the consistently insensitive "Christian" blogger -- try to fault people for not making all the right choices, even when those people have problems which preclude making all the right choices?

People like Matt Walsh aren't helping, because their backward view of mental illness treats as a matter of choice, rather than the legitimate medical condition it is.  They're perpetuating nonsense.

I pity anyone who suffers from mental illness and only has people like Walsh as support.  But we can mitigate the damage done by Walsh's nonsense by being vocal against it.  If you make it known that you will be supportive, rather than judgmental, you may end up being the only person someone has to come to when they need such help.

Because we certainly don't want them to going to people who will shame them for something absolutely no one should be ashamed of.

Some tributes to Williams that I've liked:

To stab the giant in the eye (RIP Robin Williams)

'He was a hero to me': Paul F. Tompkins on Robin Williams

5 Times Robin Williams Was Pretty Much the Best Guy Ever

Robin Williams and Why Funny People Kill Themselves

Robin Williams: When depression kills

Robin Williams's death: a reminder that suicide and depression are not selfish

Robin Williams’s Verdict on Life

On Atheistic Sexual Ethics

I haven't given up on my conversation^[1] with Chris Attaway, the Christian author of the blog The Discerning Christian^[2].  I had had a post in mind to respond to his last one to me^[3] but work, activism, and home have required a lot of my time.  By the time I had time to write it, which still hasn't been much lately. I had forgotten the post I had written in my head.  Instead of starting over on it and continuing on that same topic too long, I'm responding to his post to Dan Fincke^[4].  Dan has started a series where he addresses theist questions on Thursdays and Chris offered one a few weeks ago.

A common tactic of Christians discussing morality with atheists is to say we're unable to be moral.  In a rare moment for such discussions, this Christian isn't doing that.

I don’t ask this like one might ask rhetorically, “How can you be good without God?” Rather, while I find myself agreeing with many atheists more than with conservative Christians on issues of sexuality (with important distinctions), I also am unclear on the foundation of any sort of secular sexual ethic.

The basics of his inquiry come down to this question.

What are atheistic sexual ethics?

While I don't think he's suggesting it's the case, since he flat out said he wasn't doing that, I still feel the need to point out that there is no single atheist moral code.  Because atheism is the lack of a thing, rather than a thing, it can never dictate morality or anything else.  This is a common confusion, often even for atheists.  So being clear about it important to me.

Another thing I need to be clear about is the answer to this question is my own and not necessarily representative of anyone's else stance on this.  For example, I know that the intended target for the question, Dan Fincke, doesn't agree with me on morality^[5].  But rather than get distracted by going into why I think he's wrong, I'm simply going to give my answer and save the rest for a later time.

And there will have to be later times because this issue is incredibly complex and the following will certainly not be everything I could say on it.  That complexity is why morality is such a common discussion topic.

To answer his question, an atheistic sexual ethic is merely a sexual ethic that does not invoke a god.  That's the simple answer to this complicated issue.

Fundamentalist Christians, and many of the more reasonable Christians, like to say the foundation of their morals is their Bible or their god.  But, like all of us, it simply comes from within themselves.  Even Christians who claim the same source for their morality cannot agree on everything.  Even among Christians, there are serious differences.  Chris takes on the morality of other Christians regularly^[6].  There's a reason peoples' gods always agree with them.

Morality is dependent on each individual person, even for those who claim there's an objective morality.  Take a close look at the morality of anyone who claims it's from an objective source.  You'll find it being filtered through their personal morality.

We let ourselves believe the morality is objective if have things we agree on within a group.  Fundamentalist Christians hate gays, so they think their god says to restrict their rights.

Chris provided some of his own thoughts on his question, which I think partially answer his own question.

1. We do need sexual ethics

This goes without saying, but sexual ethics are obviously not just “anything goes.” Rape is obviously out of the question, as is sexual child abuse (we should distinguish this from pedophilia as an incurable attraction to children). Incest is certainly gross and cause for disdain from a bioethics standpoint. There are certainly more issues within sexual ethics, but these already demonstrate the need for such a thing to exist.

Rape & child abuse are indeed things we should not allow.  We don't need a god to know this.  We can see for ourselves that these things are bad.  They're bad for both the individual and society.  If we examine why, it comes down to the fact that these things do harm.  We can observe the tangible effects of this harm.  It largely involves the fact that victims of these things did not consent to what happened.  Which brings us to his next point.

2. Mutual consent is necessary but not sufficient

One of the primary maxims I hear in regard to sexual ethics is to strive for “mutual consent.” We certainly do not want one person having sex without the consent of the other — we call that rape; thus, mutual consent is necessary for ethical sex. But in the case of incest, we clearly demonstrate that the biological component of sex is a factor in sexual ethics. While an incestuous couple could theoretically remain childless (say, through a surgical procedure), I am fairly certain we would all still frown on such action.

In the morality of sex, consent is not merely necessary.  Consent is paramount.  Without consent, it's not sex.  It's assault.  Beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, consent is sufficient in most cases.  If two (or more) adults want to engage in a behavior, and all parties are of sound enough mind to give consent and do give that consent, it's not our place to tell them what to do with their own bodies.  To borrow a recent quote from the Pope^[7], "Who am I to judge?"

There's room for discussion on what qualifies as a "sound mind".  Things like the desire to loss a limb^[8] are something I'm unsure of my own stance on.  It's those situations where I think the discussion lies.  And that discussion is necessary because the answers aren't coming from a god or any other ultimate deciding factor.

For incest involving children, whether or not it's incest is no where near as important as the involvment of children.  Even if incest among consenting adults was accepted, it wouldn't mean allowing the involvement of children.  Children cannot really consent.

3. Children are a significant factor

The reason I would put forward for why we still frown upon incest even if the couple takes biologically responsible actions is that incest shows disrespect for sex as a procreative action, particularly if we understand its genetic implications. Her, I find myself agreeing with the spirit of the Catholic sexual ethic, though disagreeing on many, many specifics such as gay marriage and birth control, supposing that there is a telos or purpose to sex which factors into how we should treat it, and that we must respect sex as a reproductive act* as much as a pleasurable act. This would obviously discourage other more widely-accepted sexual practices (casual sex, perhaps), but I am not sure how to object to incest consistently, otherwise.

*In the case of infertile or same sex couples or couples on birth control, I only mean to suggest that sex should take place with a sense of “as if,” respecting the spirit of the sexual act as a biological act.

For incest among consenting adults, who have taken measures to prevent conceiving inbred children, people certainly would frown on such action.  But why would they?  But why should they?  Is there a good reason to disapprove of this behavior or is it an emotional, instinctual reaction no different than the emotional dislike many have for homosexuality?  There certainly isn't a Biblical reason to oppose incest^[9].

For me, sexual ethics are no different than any other morality.  The closest thing you could find to a foundation of my morality is Humanism.  But that's not the foundation of it.  I derived my morality decisions the way I do long before I ever learned of the concept of Humanism.  It's a decent general description of how my morality works, but it's not a foundation.  I don't get my morality from Humanism.  I get it from myself.  Just like everyone does.  Including Christians who say their morality comes from the Bible, but still oppose incest, eat shrimp^[10], or otherwise ignore the dictates of the book they say they follow^[11].

We use consensus to decide what we do about our shared morality.  It's easy to get consensus on things like rape & murder.  Other things, like taxes & government spying on citizens, may never see consensus.  So the morality argument continues.  As it should continue, as long as we use reason.

Arguing over morality using reason will get us to decisions better for our society, like the various freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.  Arguing morality using religion will get us things like kids dying because their parents believed in faith healing, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11, the American invasion of Iraq, the Vatican's lies about condoms & AIDS, the systematic consequence free rape of children, genital mutilation, oppression of women, violence against homosexuals, fraud by assholes like Peter Popoff & Pat Robertson, and so so much more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/Discerning%20With%20A%20Christian
2.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/
3.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/a-response-discerning-the-bibles-stance-on-homosexuality/
4.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/what-are-atheistic-sexual-ethics/
5.  http://youtu.be/hlbKve5pjg8
6.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/why-call-it-abuse-because-mark-driscoll-is-more-dangerous-than-westboro/
7.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23489702
8.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotemnophilia
9.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A31-36&version=NIV
10.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A10&version=KJV
11.  http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway